Advertisement

Synthese

, Volume 189, Issue 1, pp 97–118 | Cite as

Structures and circumstances: two ways to fine-grain propositions

  • David Ripley
Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Propositions Circumstantialism Impossible worlds 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barwise J., Perry J. (1999) Situations and attitudes. CSLI Publications, Stanford, CAGoogle Scholar
  2. Bealer G. (1998) Propositions. Mind 107(425): 1–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Carnap R. (1956) Meaning and necessity. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  5. Chalmers D. (2011) Propositions and attitude ascriptions: A Fregean account. Noûs 45(4): 595–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cresswell M. J. (1985) Structured meanings. MIT, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  7. Crimmins M. (1992) Talk about beliefs. MIT, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  8. Edelberg W. (1994) Propositions, circumstances, objects. Journal of Philosophical Logic 23(1): 1–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Elbourne P. (2010) Why propositions might be sets of truth-supporting circumstances. Journal of Philosophical Logic 39(1): 101–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gamut L. (1991) Logic, language, and meaning, Vol. 2: Intensional logic and logical grammar. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  11. Goddard L., Routley R. (1973) The logic of significance and context. Scottish Academic Press, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  12. King J. C. (2007) The nature and structure of content. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kripke S. (1980) Naming and necessity. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  14. Lewis D. (1970) General semantics. Synthèse 22: 18–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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
  16. Priest G. (2005) Towards non-being: The logic and metaphysics of intentionality. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  17. Recanati F. (2004) Literal meaning. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  18. Richard M. (1990) Propositional attitudes: An essay on thoughts and how we describe them. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Salmon N. (1986) Frege’s puzzle. MIT, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  20. Soames S. (1985) Lost innocence. Linguistics and Philosophy 8: 59–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Soames S. (1987) Direct reference, propositional attitudes, and semantic content. Philosophical Topics 15(1): 47–87Google Scholar
  22. Soames S. (2008) Why propositions cannot be sets of truth-supporting circumstances. Journal of Philosophical Logic 37: 267–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Thomason R. H. (1980) A model theory for propositional attitudes. Linguistics and Philosophy 4(1): 47–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. von Fintel, K., & Heim, I. (2007). Intensional Semantics. Unpublished. Available at http://tinyurl.com/intensional.
  25. Wilson D., Sperber D. (2002) Truthfulness and relevance. Mind 111: 583–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Yagisawa T. (2010) Worlds & individuals, possible & otherwise. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of ConnecticutStorrsUSA
  2. 2.University of MelbourneParkvilleAustralia

Personalised recommendations