Advertisement

Synthese

, Volume 190, Issue 16, pp 3377–3395 | Cite as

Variations on a Montagovian theme

  • Wolfgang SchwarzEmail author
Article

Abstract

What are the objects of knowledge, belief, probability, apriority or analyticity? For at least some of these properties, it seems plausible that the objects are sentences, or sentence-like entities. However, results from mathematical logic indicate that sentential properties are subject to severe formal limitations. After surveying these results, I argue that they are more problematic than often assumed, that they can be avoided by taking the objects of the relevant property to be coarse-grained (“sets of worlds”) propositions, and that all this has little to do with the choice between operators and predicates.

Keywords

Propositions Propositional attitudes Objects of attitudes Montague Thomason Knower paradox Diagonalisation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Asher N., Kamp H. (1989) Self-reference, attitudes and paradox. In: Chierchia G., Partee B. H., R. Turner R., Properties types and meaning. Vol.1: Foundational issues. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 85–158Google Scholar
  2. Bach K. (1997) Do belief reports report beliefs?. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 78: 215–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berto F. (2010) Impossible worlds and propositions: Against the parity thesis. The Philosophical Quarterly 60: 471–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boolos G. (1993) The logic of provability. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  5. Boolos G., Burgess J., Jeffrey R. (2007) Computability and logic, 5 edn. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chalmers D. J. (2004) Epistemic two-dimensional semantics. Philosophical Studies 118(1–2): 153–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cresswell M. J. (1985) We are all children of God. In: Matilal B. K., J. L. Shaw J. L., Analytical philosophy in comparative perspective. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp 39–60Google Scholar
  8. Cross, C.B. (2001). A theorem concerning syntactical treatments of nonidealized belief. Synthese 129(3).Google Scholar
  9. des Rivieres, J., Levesque, H.J. (1986). The consistency of syntactical treatments of knowledge. In: Proceedings of the 1986 Conference on theoretical aspects of reasoning about knowledge (pp. 115–130). Morgan Kaufmann: Monterey.Google Scholar
  10. Gupta A. (1982) Truth and paradox. Journal of Philosophical Logic 11: 1–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Herzberger H. (1982) Notes on naive semantics. Journal of Philosophical Logic 11: 61–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Koons R. C. (1992) Paradoxes of belief and strategic rationality. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kripke S. (1975) Outline of a theory of truth. Journal of Philosophy 72: 690–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lewis D. (1986) On the plurality of worlds. Blackwell, MaldenGoogle Scholar
  15. Machover M. (1996) Set theory, logic and their limitations. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  16. Montague, R. (1963). Syntactical treatments of modality, with corollaries on reflection principles and finite axiomatizability. Acta Philosophica Fennica, XVI, 153–167.Google Scholar
  17. Prior A. (1961) On a family of paradoxes. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 2: 16–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Restall G. (1997) Ways things can’t be. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 38: 583–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Schweizer P. (1987) Necessity viewed as a semantical predicate. Philosophical Studies 52: 33–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Schweizer P. (1992) A syntactial approach to modality. Journal of Philosophical Logic 21: 1–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Skyrms B. (1978) An immaculate conception of modality, or how to confuse use and mention. Journal of Philosophy 75: 368–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Smullyan R.M. (1986) Logicians who reason about themselves. In J.Y. Halpern (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1986 TARK Conference (pp. 341–352). Monterey: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  23. Solovay R. (1976) Provability interpretations of modal logic. Israel Journal of Mathematics 25: 287–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Stalnaker, R. (1991). The problem of logical omniscience I. Synthese 89(45), 425–440.Google Scholar
  25. Thomason R. H. (1980) A model theory for propositional attitudes. Linguistics and Philosophy 4: 47–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Thomason R.H. (1980b) A note on syntactical treatments of modality. Synthese 44: 391–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Thomason R. H. (2011) Some limitations to the psychological orientation in semantic theory. Journal of Philosophical Logic 40: 1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.RSSS School of PhilosophyANUCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations