Abstract
It is widely held that propositions perform a plethora of theoretical roles. They are believed to be the semantic values of sentences in contexts, the objects of attitudes, the contents of illocutionary acts, the referents of ‘that’-clauses, and the primary bearers of truth. This assumption is often combined with the claim that propositions have their truth-values eternally. Following Kaplan’s and Lewis’s Operator Argument, I argue that the compositional semantic values of sentences do not correspond to eternal propositions. Therefore, we cannot hold on to both assumptions at the same time: either we regard the non-eternal entities that realize the compositional role of propositions as fulfilling the remaining theoretical roles, or we abandon the assumption that there is a unique realizer. The Operator Argument has recently come under attack, mainly for its intensional assumptions. However, rejecting these assumptions is not a sufficient defense of eternal propositions as compositional semantic values of sentences. Firstly, we can give a generalized version of the Operator Argument that seems independent of the contested assumptions. Secondly, the extensional alternative to the intensional framework does not allow us to retain eternal propositions as unique semantic values either.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Almér A., Westerståhl D. (2010) Review of relativism and monadic truth. Linguistics and Philosophy 33: 37–50
Bach K. (1997) Do belief reports report beliefs. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 78: 215–241
Bealer G. (1998) Propositions. Mind 107: 1–32
Cappelen H., Hawthorne J. (2009) Relativism and monadic truth. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Cartwright R. (1987) Philosophical essays. MIT press, Cambridge, MA
Chalmers D. (2012) Frege’s puzzle and the objects of credence. Mind 120(479): 587–635
Chalmers D. (2012) Propositions and attitude ascriptions: A Fregean account. Noûs 45(4): 595–639
Chomsky N. (1995) The minimalist program. MIT press, Cambridge, MA
Cresswell M. (1985) Structured meanings. MIT press, Cambridge, MA
Cresswell M. (1990) Entities and indices. Studies in linguistics and philosophy. Kluwer, Dordrecht
Frege G. (1892) Über Sinn und Bedeutung. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik 100: 25–50
Frege G. (1918) Der Gedanke. Beiträge zur Philosophie des deutschen Idealismus 1: 8–77
Glanzberg M. (2011) More on operators and tense. Analysis 71: 112–123
Heim I. (1997) Lecture notes on tense. MIT, Cambridge, MA
Heim I., Kratzer A. (1998) Semantics in generative grammar. Blackwell, Oxford
Janssen T. M. V. (1997) Compositionality. In: van Benthem J., ter Meulen A. (eds) Handbook of logic and language. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 419–473
Kamp, H. (1968). Tense logic and the theory of linear orders. Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Los Angeles.
Kaplan D. (1989) Demonstratives. In: Almog J., Perry J., Wettstein H. (eds) Themes from Kaplan. Oxford University Press, New York
King J. C. (2003) Tense, modality, and semantic values. Philosophical Perspectives 17: 195–245
King J. C. (2007) The nature and structure of content. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Kusumoto, K. (1999). Tense in embedded contexts. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Lewis D. (1970) General semantics. Synthese 22: 18–67
Lewis D. (1979) Attitudes de Dicto and de Se. The Philosophical Review 88: 513–543
Lewis D. (1980) Index, context, and content. In: Kanger S., Öhman S. (eds) Philosophy and grammar. D. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp 79–100
Mates B. (1950) Synonymity. University of California Publications in Philosophy 25: 201–226
McGrath, M. (2007). Propositions. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Fall 2011 Edition). http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/propositions.
Pagin P., Westerståhl D. (2010) Compositionality I: Definitions and variants. Philosophical Compass 5: 250–264
Pagin P., Westerståhl D. (2010) Compositionality II: Arguments and problems. Philosophical Compass 5: 265–282
Partee B. H. (1973) Some structural analogies between tenses and pronouns in English. Journal of Philosophy 70: 601–609
Radford A. (2009) Analysing English sentences: A minimalist approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Recanati F. (2007) Perspectival thought. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Richard M. (1981) Temporalism and eternalism. Philosophical Studies 39: 1–13
Richard M. (1990) Propositional attitudes. Cambridge University Press, New York
Salmon N. (2006) Terms in bondage. Philosophical Issues 16: 263–274
Salmon, N., Soames, S. (eds) (1988) Propositions and attitudes. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Schaffer, J. Confessions of a schmentencite. Unpublished manuscript.
Schaffer, J. (2012). Necessitarian propositions. Synthese. doi:10.1007/s11229-012-0097-8.
Schlenker, P. (1999). Propositional attitudes and indexicality. Ph.D. thesis, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Schlenker P. (2006) Ontological symmetry in language: A brief manifesto. Mind and Language 21(4): 504–539
Soames S. (2011) True at. Analysis 71: 124–133
Stalnaker R. C. (1999) Context and content, Oxford cognitive science. Oxford University Press, Oxford
von Stechow, A. (1984). Structured propositions and essential indexicals. In F. Landman & F. Veltman (Eds.), Varieties of Formal Semantics. Proceedings of the 4th Amsterdam Colloquium (pp. 384–404), September 1982. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
von Stechow A. (2009) Tenses in compositional semantics. In: Klein W., Li P. (eds) The expression of time. The expression of cognitive categories. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin
Zimmermann T. E. (1991) Kontextabhängigkeit. In: von Stechow A., Wunderlich D. (eds) Semantik/Semantics: Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, pp 156–229
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Weber, C. Eternalism and Propositional Multitasking: in defence of the Operator Argument. Synthese 189, 199–219 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-012-0092-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-012-0092-0