Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-21T05:08:17.610Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An empirically-informed cognitive theory of propositions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Berit Brogaard
Berit Brogaard*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Missouri-St. Louis, St. Louis, MO63121, USA
*
*Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Scott Soames has recently argued that traditional accounts of propositions as n-tuples or sets of objects and properties or functions from worlds to extensions cannot adequately explain how these abstract entities come to represent the world. Soames’ new cognitive theory solves this problem by taking propositions to be derived from agents representing the world to be a certain way. Agents represent the world to be a certain way, for example, when they engage in the cognitive act of predicating, or cognizing, an act that takes place during cognitive events, such as perceiving, believing, judging and asserting. On the cognitive theory, propositions just are act types involving the act of predicating and certain other mental operations. This theory, Soames argues, solves not only the problem of how propositions come to represent but also a number of other difficulties for traditional theories, including the problem of de se propositions and the problems of accounting for how agents are capable of grasping propositions and how they come to stand in the relation of expression to sentences. I argue here that Soames’ particular version of the cognitive theory makes two problematic assumptions about cognitive operations and the contents of proper names. I then briefly examine what can count as evidence for the nature of the constituents of the cognitive operation types that produce propositions and argue that the common nature of cognitive operations and what they operate on ought to be determined empirically in cross-disciplinary work. I conclude by offering a semantics for cognitive act types that accommodates one type of empirical evidence.

Keywords

act-based theory of propositionscognitive significancecognitive theory of propositionshyperintensionalityunity of the proposition
Type
On Act-and Language-Based Conceptions of Propositions
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 43 , Issue 5-6: Special issue: Essays on the Nature of Propositions , December 2013 , pp. 534 - 557
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Journal of Philosophy 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Brogaard, B. 2006. “The ‘Gray’s Elegy’ Argument, and the Prospects for the Theory of Denoting Concepts.” Synthese 152: 47–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brogaard, B. 2012. Transient Truths: An Essay in the Metaphysics of Propositions. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brogaard, B., and Salerno, J.. 2013. “Remarks on Counterpossibles.” Synthese 190 (4): 639–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dummett, M. 1991. The Logical Basis of Metaphysics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Forbes, G. 2003. “Verbs of creation and depiction: More events in the semantics of English.”, Manuscript.Google Scholar
Forbes, G. 2013. “Intensional Transitive Verbs.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Zalta, E. N., Available at < http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2013/entries/intensional-trans-verbs/>. (Fall 2013 Edition)..+(Fall+2013+Edition).>Google Scholar
Frege, G. 1892a. “Uber Sinn and Bedeutung.” Zeitschrift fur Philosophie und Philosophische Kritik 100: 25–50.Google Scholar
Frege, G. 1892b. “On Concept and Object.” Vierteljahrsschrift fur wissenschaftliche Philosophie 16: 192–205.Google Scholar
Frege, G. 1918. “Der Gedanke.” Beitrage zur Philosophie des deutschen Idealismus, 1. Translated by A Quinton and M. Quinton as “The Thought”. Mind 1956 (65): 289–311.Google Scholar
King, J. C. 2003. “Tense, Modality, and Semantic Values.” Philosophical Perspectives 17: 195–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kripke, S. 1980. Naming and Necessity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. 1979. “Attitudes De Dicto and De Se.” The Philosophical Review 88: 513–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. 1980. “Index, context and content.” In Papers on Philosophical Logic, 1998 21–44. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Machery, E., Mallon, R., Nichols, S., & Stich, SP. 2004. “Semantics, cross-cultural style.” Cognition 92: B1–B12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martí, G. 2009. “Against semantic multi-culturalism.” Analysis 69: 42–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, J. 1979. “The Problem of the Essential Indexical.” Noûs 13 (1): 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, B. 1903. The Principles of Mathematics. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Russell, B. 1905. “On Denoting.” Mind 14: 479–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, B. 1983-present. Collected Papers, The Bertrand Russell Editorial Project.Google Scholar
Salmon, N. 1986. Frege’s Puzzle. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Salmon, N. 1989. “Tense and Singular Propositions.” In Themes From Kaplan, edited by Almog, J., Perry, J., and Wettstein, H., 331–392. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Soames, S. 2010. What is Meaning? Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soames, S. 2012. “Propositions.” In Routledge Companion to the Philosophy of Language, edited by Graff Fara, D., and Russell, G., 209–220. Routledge: New York.Google Scholar
Soames, S. 2013a. “Why the Traditional Conceptions of Propositions can’t be Correct.” In New Thinking about Propositions, edited by King, J., Soames, S., and Speaks, J.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Soames, S. 2013b. “A Cognitive Theory of Propositions.” In New Thinking about Propositions, edited by King, J., Soames, S., and Speaks, J.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Soames, S. 2013c. “Clarifying and Improving the Cognitive Theory to Meet its Explanatory Burden.” In New Thinking about Propositions, edited by King, J., Soames, S., and Speaks, J.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Soames, S. 2013d. “For Want of Cognitively Defined Propositions.” In To appear in Act Based Conceptions of Propositional Content: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives, edited by Arapinis, Moltmann, and Textor, .Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. 1970. “Pragmatics.” Synthese 22 (1–2): 272–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanley, J. 1997a. “Names and Rigid Designation.” In A Companion to the Philosophy of Language, edited by Hale, B., and Wright, C., 555–585. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Stanley, J. 1997b. “Rigidity and Content.” In Logic, Language and Reality: Essays in Honor of Michael Dummett, edited by Heck, R., 131–156. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wasow, T., and Arnold, J.. 2005. “Intuitions in Linguistic Argumentation.” Lingua 115: 1481–1496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodbury, R. 2011. Behavioral and Neural Correlates of Deep and Surface Anaphora, Doctoral Dissertation, Harvard University–MIT Division of Health Sciences and Technology.Google Scholar