Advertisement

Synthese

, Volume 196, Issue 4, pp 1369–1383 | Cite as

Propositions as Cognitive Acts

  • Scott SoamesEmail author
Unity of Structured Propositions

Abstract

The paper reviews the central components of the cognitive theory of propositions and explains both its empirical advantages for theories of language and mind and its foundational metaphysical and epistemological advantages over other theories. It then answers a leading objection to the theory, before closing by raising the issue of how questions, which are the contents of interrogative sentences, and directives, which are the contents of imperative sentences, are related to propositions.

Keywords

Propositions Predication First-person cognition Present-tense cognition Linguistic cognition Perceptual cognition Recognition of recurrence Frege’s puzzle Representationally identical but cognitively distinct propositions Millian modes of representation 

References

  1. Fine, K. (2007). Semantic relationism. Malden, MA: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Jackson, F. (1986). What Mary didn’t know. Journal of Philosophy, 83, 191–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. King, J., Soames, S., & Speaks, J. (2014). New thinking about propositions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Lewis, D. (1979). Attitudes De Dicto and De Se. Philosophical Review, 88, 513–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Nagel, T. (1974). What is it like to be a bat? Philosophical Review, 83, 435–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Perry, J. (1977). Frege on demonstratives. Philosophical Review, 86, 474–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Perry, J. (1979). The essential indexical. Nous, 13, 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Russell, B. (1905). On denoting. Mind, 14, 479–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Salmon, N. (2005). On designating. Mind, 114, 1069–1133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Salmon, N. (2012). Recurrence. Philosophical Studies, 159, 407–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Soames, S. (1987). Direct reference, propositional attitudes, and semantic content. Philosophical Topics, 14, 47–87; reprinted in Soames (2009).Google Scholar
  12. Soames, S. (2002). Beyond rigidity. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Soames, S. (2005a). Reference and description. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Soames, S. (2005b). Naming and asserting. In Z. Szabo (Ed.), Semantics vs. pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press, 356–382; reprinted in Soames (2009).Google Scholar
  15. Soames, S. (2006). Understanding assertion. In J. Thomson & A. Byrne (Eds.), Content and modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press; reprinted in Soames (2009).Google Scholar
  16. Soames, S. (2008) Why propositions cannot be sets of truth-supporting circumstances. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 37, 267–276; reprinted in Soames (2009).Google Scholar
  17. Soames, S. (2009). Philosophical essays (Vol. 2). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Soames, S. (2010). What is meaning? Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Soames, S. (2014a). The analytic tradition in philosophy (Vol. 2). Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Soames, S. (2014b). Methodology in late nineteenth and early twentieth century analytic philosophy. In A. Philosophy (Ed.), American and other historical and contemporary essays (pp. 35–59). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Soames, S. (2015). Rethinking language, mind, and meaning. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Soames, S. (2016, forthcoming). Yes, the search for explanation is all we have. Philosophical Studies. doi: 10.1007/s11098-016-0636-0

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations