Synthese

, Volume 166, Issue 2, pp 333–357 | Cite as

Conditionals and indexical relativism

Article

Abstract

I set out and defend a view on indicative conditionals that I call “indexical relativism”. The core of the view is that which proposition is (semantically) expressed by an utterance of a conditional is a function of (among other things) the speaker’s context and the assessor’s context. This implies a kind of relativism, namely that a single utterance may be correctly assessed as true by one assessor and false by another.

Keywords

Conditionals Relativism Variable binding 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adams E. (1998). A primer on probability logic. Palo Alto, CSLIGoogle Scholar
  2. Bradley R. (2000). A preservation condition for conditionals. Analysis 60, 219–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cappelen, H. (2008). Content relativism and semantic blindness. In M. Kolbel & M. Garcia-Carpentero (Eds.), Relative truth. Oxford University Press, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  4. Egan A., Hawthorne J., Weatherson B. (2005). Epistemic modals in context. In: Preyer G., Peters G. (eds) Contextualism in philosophy. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 131–169Google Scholar
  5. Einheuser, I. (2007). Three forms of truth-relativism. In M. Garcia-Carpintero & M. Kolbel (Eds.), Relativising utterance truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  6. Gibbard, A. (1981). Two recent theories of conditionals. In W. Harper, R. Stalnaker, & G. Pearce (Eds.), Ifs (pp. 211–247). Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  7. Gillies, A. (ms). On truth-conditions for if (but not quite only if).Google Scholar
  8. Grice H.P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
  9. Kaplan D. (1989). Demonstratives. In: Almog J., Perry J., Wettstein H. (eds) Themes from Kaplan. New York, Oxford University Press, pp. 481–563Google Scholar
  10. King, J., & Stanley, J. (2005). Semantics, pragmatics, and the role of semantic content. In Z. Szabó (Ed.), Semantics vs. pragmatics (pp. 111–164). Oxford: Oxford University Press (with Jeffrey C. King).Google Scholar
  11. Kölbel M. (2004). Indexical relativism vs. Genuine relativism. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 12, 297–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lasersohn P. (2005). Context dependence, disagreement, and predicates of personal taste. Linguistics and Philosophy 28, 643–686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lewis D. (1973). Counterfactuals. Oxford, BlackwellGoogle Scholar
  14. López de Sa D. (2007a). The many relativisms and the question of disagreement. Forthcoming in International Journal of Philosophical Studies 15, 339–348Google Scholar
  15. López de Sa, D. (2007b). Presuppositions of commonality. In M. Garcia-Carpintero & M. Kolbel (Eds.), Relativising utterance truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  16. López de Sa, D. (ms) (Indexical) Relativism about values: A presuppositional defense.Google Scholar
  17. Lycan, W. (1993). MPP, RIP. Philosophical Perspectives.Google Scholar
  18. MacFarlane J. (2003). Future contingents and relative truth. The Philosophical Quarterly 53, 321–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. MacFarlane J. (2005). Making sense of relative truth. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 105, 321–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. MacFarlane J. (2007). Semantic minimalism and nonindexical contextualism. In: Preyer G., Peter G. (eds) Context-sensitivity and semantic minimalism: Essays on semantics and pragmatics. Oxford, Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  21. MacFarlane, J. (ms). Non-indexical Contextualism.Google Scholar
  22. McGee V. (1985). A counterexample to Modus Ponens. Journal of Philosophy 82, 462–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McKay T. (2006). Plural predication. Oxford, Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  24. Nolan D. (2003). Defending a possible-worlds account of indicative conditionals. Philosophical Studies 116, 215–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Partee, B. H. (1989). Binding implicit variables in quantified contexts. In C. Wiltshire, R. Graczyk, & B. Music (Eds.), Papers from the twenty-fifth regional meeting of the Chicago linguistic society (pp. 342–356). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. Reprinted in Partee 2004.Google Scholar
  26. Partee B.H. (2004). Compositionality in formal semantics: Selected papers by Barbara H. Partee. Oxford, Blackwell PublishingGoogle Scholar
  27. Sayre-McCord G. (1991). Being a realist about relativism (in Ethics). Philosophical Studies 61, 155–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schlenker, P. (2003). Indexicality, logophoricity, and plural pronouns. In J. L. Benjamins (Ed.), Research in Afroasiatic Grammar II (pp. 409–428) (Selected Papers from the Fifth Conference on Afroasiatic Languages, Paris, 2000).Google Scholar
  29. Stalnaker R. (1975). Indicative conditionals. Philosophia 5, 269–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Stalnaker R. (1981). A defense of conditional excluded middle. In: Harper W., Pearce G., Stalnaker R. (eds) Ifs: Conditionals, belief, decision, chance, and time. Dordrecht, D. Reidel, pp. 87–104Google Scholar
  31. Stanley J. (2007). Language in context: Selected essays. Oxford, Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  32. Stephenson, T. (forthcoming). Judge dependence, epistemic modals, and predicates of personal taste. Forthcoming in Linguistics and Philosophy.Google Scholar
  33. Weatherson B. (2001). Indicative and subjunctive conditionals. Philosophical Quarterly 51, 200–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyRutgers UniversityIthacaUSA

Personalised recommendations