Abstract
There is an apparent dilemma for hierarchical accounts of propositions, raised by Bruno Whittle (Journal of Philosophical Logic, 46, 215–231, 2017): either such accounts do not offer adequate treatment of connectives and quantifiers, or they eviscerate the logic. I discuss what a plausible hierarchical conception of propositions might amount to, and show that on that conception, Whittle’s dilemma is not compelling. Thus, there are good reasons why proponents of hierarchical accounts of propositions (such as Russell, Church, or Kaplan) did not see the difficulty Whittle raises.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Church, A. (1976). Comparison of Russell’s Resolution of the semantical Antinomies with that of Tarski. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 41(4), 747–760.
Giaquinto, M. (2002). The search for certainty. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Gödel, K. (1944). Russell’s mathematical logic. In Schlipp, P.A. (Ed.) The philosophy of Bertrand Russell (pp. 125–153). New York: Tudor Publishing Company.
Goldfarb, W. (1989). Russell’s reasons for ramification. In Savage, C.W., & Anderson, C.A. (Eds.) Rereading Russell: essays on Bertrand Russell’s metaphysics and epistemology (pp. 24–40). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Hodes, H. (2015). Why Ramify? Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 56(2), 379–415.
Jung, D. (1999). Russell, presupposition, and the vicious circle principle. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 40(1), 55–80.
Kaplan, D. (1995). A problem in possible world semantics. In Raffman, D., Sinnott-Armstrong, W., Asher, N. (Eds.) Modality, morality and belief: essays in honor of Ruth Barcan Marcus (pp. 41–52). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Myhill, J. (1958). Problems arising in the formalization of intensional logic. Logique et Analyse, 1, 78–83.
Prior, A. (1961). On a family of paradoxes. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 2, 16–32.
Quine, W.V.O. (1969). Set Theory and Its Logic. Cambridge: Belknap Press.
Ramsey, F.P. (1926). The foundations of mathematics. Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, 2(25), 338–384. Reprinted in F. P. Ramsey, Foundations, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 152212, 1978.
Russell, B. (1903). The Principles of Mathematics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Russell, B. (1908). Mathematical logic as based on a theory of types. American Journal of Mathematics, 30, 222–262.
Russell, B. (1971). Introduction to mathematical philosophy. Simon and Schuster: New York.
Whittle, B. (2017). Hierarchical propositions. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 46, 215–231.
Funding
This work has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement No 758540) within the project From the Expression of Disagreement to New Foundations for Expressivist Semantics.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
About this article
Cite this article
Sbardolini, G. On Hierarchical Propositions. J Philos Logic 49, 1–11 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-019-09509-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-019-09509-9