Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T23:41:35.616Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

COMPLIANCE AND COMMAND I—CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVES

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 September 2018

KIT FINE
KIT FINE*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, New York University
*
*DEPARTMENT OF PHILSOPHY NEW YORK UNIVERSITY NEW YORK, NY 10003, USA E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

I develop a semantics for imperatives within the truthmaker framework by taking the meaning of an imperative to be given by the actions that are in compliance with or in contravention to the imperative.

Keywords

03B45possible worlds semanticstruthmaker semanticsimperative logicRoss’s paradoxentailmentpartial contentfree choice
Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Symbolic Logic , Volume 11 , Issue 4 , December 2018 , pp. 609 - 633
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2018 

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

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aloni, M. D. (2007). Free choice, modals, and imperatives. Natural Language Semantics, 15, 65–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aloni, M. D. & Ciardelli, I. A. (2013). A logical account of free choice imperatives. In Aloni, M. D. and Franke, M., editors. The Dynamic, Inquisitive, and Visionary Life of φ, ?φ, and ◇φ – A Festschrift for Jeroen Groenendijk, Martin Stokhof, and Frank Veltman . Available at http://festschriften.illc.uva.nl/Festschrift-JMF/.Google Scholar
Alonso-Ovalle, L. (2006). Disjunction in Alternative Semantics. Doctoral Dissertation, Amherst: University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Angell, R. B. (1977). Three systems of first degree entailment. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 47, 147.Google Scholar
Chellas, B. F. (1971). Imperatives. Theoria, 37, 114–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ciardelli, I., Groenendijk, J., & Roelofsen, F. (2013). Inquisitive semantics: A new notion of meaning. Language and Linguistics Compass, 7, 459–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, K. (2014a). Permission and possible worlds. dialectica, 68, 317–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, K. (2014b). Truthmaker semantics for intuitionistic logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 43.2, 549–577. Reprinted in Philosophers’ Annual for 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, K. (2016a). Angellic content. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 45 (2), 199–226. Published online https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-015-9371-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, K. (2016b). Constructing the impossible. In Walters, L. and Hawthorne, J., editors. Conditionals, Probability, and Paradox: Themes from the Philosophy of Dorothy Edgington. Oxford: Oxford University Press, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Fine, K. (2017). A theory of truth-maker content I & II. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 46, 625–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, K. (2018). Acts and embodiment. In Hinshelwood, A., editor. Being and Doing. Oxford: Oxford University Press, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Frege, G. (1897 [1967]). Begriffsschrift, a formula language, modeled upon that of arithmetic, for pure thought. In van Heijenoort, J., editor. From Frege to Gödel: A Source Book in Mathematical Logic, 1879–1931. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 5–82.Google Scholar
Geach, P. T. (1966). Dr. Kenny on practical inference. Analysis, 26, 76–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gombay, A. (1965). Imperative inference and disjunction. Analysis, 25(3), 58–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kamp, H. (1973). Free choice permission. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, N.S., 74, 57–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaufmann, M. S. (2012). Interpreting Imperatives. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenny, A. J. (1966). Practical inference. Analysis, 26, 65–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hare, R. M. (1952). The Language of Morals. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Hare, R. M. (1967). Some alleged differences between imperatives and indicatives. Mind, 76, 309–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mastop, R. (2005). What can you do: Imperative mood in semantic theory. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Mastop, R. (2012). Imperatives as semantic primitives. Linguistics and Philosophy, 34, 305–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGinn, C. (1977). Semantics for non-indicative sentences. Philosophical Studies, 32, 301–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parry, W. T. (1933). An axiom system for a new kind of implication (analytical implication). Results of a Mathematical Colloquium, 4, 5–6.Google Scholar
Portner, P. (2004). The semantics of imperatives within a theory of clause types. In Watanabe, K. and Young, R. B. editors. Proceedings of SALT 14. New York: CLC Publications, pp. 235–252.Google Scholar
Portner, P. (2007). Imperatives and modals. Natural Language Semantics, 15, 351–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, A. (1941). Imperatives and logic. Theoria, 25(7), 53–71.Google Scholar
Segerberg, K. (1989). Bringing it about. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 18(4), 327–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segerberg, K. (1990). Validity and satisfaction in imperative logic. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 31(2), 203–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Starr, W. (2018). A preference semantics for imperatives. Semantics and Pragmatics, to appear. Available at https://philpapers.org/rec/STAAPS.Google Scholar
Stelzner, W. (1992). Relevant deontic logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 21, 193–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Fraassen, B. (1969). Facts and tautological entailments. Journal of Philosophy, 66(15), 477–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Rooij, R. (2000). Permission to change. Journal of Semantics, 17(2), 119–143.Google Scholar
Veltman, F. (1996). Defaults in update semantics. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 25, 221–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veltman, F. (2009). Imperatives at the semantics/pragmatics borderline. Unpublished manuscript, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Williams, B. A. O. (1963). Imperative inference. Analysis, 23(Suppl.), 30–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yablo, S. (2014). Aboutness. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar