Structures and circumstances: two ways to fine-grain propositions
This paper discusses two distinct strategies that have been adopted to provide fine-grained propositions; that is, propositions individuated more finely than sets of possible worlds. One strategy takes propositions to have internal structure, while the other looks beyond possible worlds, and takes propositions to be sets of circumstances, where possible worlds do not exhaust the circumstances. The usual arguments for these positions turn on fineness-of-grain issues: just how finely should propositions be individuated? Here, I compare the two strategies with an eye to the fineness-of-grain question, arguing that when a wide enough range of data is considered, we can see that a circumstance-based approach, properly spelled out, outperforms a structure-based approach in answering the question. (Part of this argument involves spelling out what I take to be a reasonable circumstance-based approach.) An argument to the contrary, due to Soames, is also considered.
KeywordsPropositions Circumstantialism Impossible worlds
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Barwise J., Perry J. (1999) Situations and attitudes. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CAGoogle Scholar
- Beall, J., Brady, R., Dunn, J. M., Hazen, A., Mares, E., Meyer, R., Priest, G., Restall, G., Ripley, D., Routley, R., Slaney, J., & Sylvan, R. (Forthcoming). On the ternary relation and conditionality. Journal of Philosophical LogicGoogle Scholar
- Carnap R. (1956) Meaning and necessity. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
- Cresswell M. J. (1985) Structured meanings. MIT, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
- Crimmins M. (1992) Talk about beliefs. MIT, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
- Gamut L. (1991) Logic, language, and meaning, Vol. 2: Intensional logic and logical grammar. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
- Goddard L., Routley R. (1973) The logic of significance and context. Scottish Academic Press, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
- Kripke S. (1980) Naming and necessity. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
- Montague R. (2002) The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. In: Portner P., Partee B. H. (eds) Formal semantics: The essential readings. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 17–34Google Scholar
- Priest G. (2005) Towards non-being: The logic and metaphysics of intentionality. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- Recanati F. (2004) Literal meaning. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Salmon N. (1986) Frege’s puzzle. MIT, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
- Soames S. (1987) Direct reference, propositional attitudes, and semantic content. Philosophical Topics 15(1): 47–87Google Scholar
- von Fintel, K., & Heim, I. (2007). Intensional Semantics. Unpublished. Available at http://tinyurl.com/intensional.
- Yagisawa T. (2010) Worlds & individuals, possible & otherwise. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar