Advertisement

Logica Universalis

, Volume 9, Issue 2, pp 237–251 | Cite as

Paradox, Closure and Indirect Speech Reports

  • Stephen Read
Article

Abstract

Bradwardine’s solution to the the logical paradoxes depends on the idea that every sentence signifies many things, and its truth depends on things’ being wholly as it signifies. This idea is underpinned by his claim that a sentence signifies everything that follows from what it signifies. But the idea that signification is closed under entailment appears too strong, just as logical omniscience is unacceptable in the logic of knowledge. What is needed is a more restricted closure principle. A clue can be found in speech act pluralism, whereby indirect speech reports are closed under intersubstitutivity of co-referential terms. The conclusion is that solving the semantic paradoxes does not require revision of logic, thus saving logic from paradox.

Keywords

Paradox signification multiple-meaning Bradwardine omniscience 

Mathematics Subject Classification

03A05 01A35 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Beall J., Murzi J.: Two flavors of Curry’s paradox. J. Philos. 110, 143–165 (2013)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bradwardine, T.: Insolubilia. Peeters, Leuven. Edited with English translation by S. Read (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Buridan, J.: Questiones Elencorum. In: van der Lecq, R., Braakhuis, H.A.G. Ingenium, Nijmegen (1994)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Buridan, J.: Summulae de Dialectica. Yale, U.P., New Haven. English translation by G. Klima (2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Burley W.: De Puritate Artis Logicae Tractatus Longior, with a revised edition of the Tractatus Brevior. The Franciscan Institute, St Bonaventure (1955)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Burley, W.: On the Purity of the Art of Logic. Yale UP, New Haven and London. English translation by P.V. Spade (2000)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cappelen, H., Lepore, E.: Insensitive Semantics: A Defense of Semantic Minimalism and Speech Act Pluralism. Blackwell, Oxford (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chalmers D.: The Character of Consciousness. Oxford UP, Oxford (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cresswell M.: Logics and Languages. Methuen, London (1973)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dorr, C.: Propositional Profusion and the Liar. Unpublished typescript: http://philpapers.org/rec/DORPPA-2 (2011)
  11. 11.
    Green-Pedersen, N.J.: Walter Burley’s De consequentiis: an edition. Francisc. Stud. 40, 102–166 (1980)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Grice, H.P.: Logic and conversation. Syntax. Semant. 3, 41–58. Reprinted in [13], pp. 22–40 (1975)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Grice, H.P.: Studies in the Way of Words. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1989)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hawthorne, J., Dorr, C.: Semantic plasticity. Phil. Rev. 123(3), 281–338 (2014)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hintikka J.: Knowledge and Belief. Cornell University Press, Ithaca (1962)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hintikka J.: Impossible possible worlds vindicated. J. Philos. Log. 54, 475–484 (1975)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jago M.: Hintikka and Cresswell on logical omniscience. Log. Log. Philos. 15, 325–354 (2006)zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kripke, S.: A puzzle about belief. In: Margalit, A., (ed.) Meaning and Use, pp. 239–293. Reidel, Dorcrecht. Reprinted in [19], pp. 125–161 (1979)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kripke, S.: Philosophical Troubles. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Collected Papers vol. 1 (2011)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Martin, R.L. (ed.): Recent Essays on Truth and the Liar Paradox. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1984)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    de Ockham, G.: Summa Logicae. Franciscan Institute Publications, St Bonaventure. Edited by P. Boehner et al. (1974)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Priest G.: The hooded man. J. Philos. Log. 31, 445–467 (2002)zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Prior A.: Epimenides the Cretan. J. Symb. Log. 23, 261–266 (1958)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Quine W.: Quantifiers and propositional attitudes. J. Philos. 53, 177–187 (1956)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Read, S.: Bradwardine’s revenge. In: Beall, J. (ed.) Revenge of the Liar, pp. 250–261. Oxford UP, Oxford (2007)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Read, S.: The validity paradox. In: Peliš, M. (ed.) The Logica Yearbook 2009, pp. 209–221. College Publications, London (2010)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Restall G.: Modal models for Bradwardine’s theory of truth. Rev. Symb. Log. 1, 225–240 (2008)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Soames S.: Beyond Rigidity: The Unfinished Semantic Agenda of Naming and Necessity. Oxford University Press, New York (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Soames, S.: The gap between meaning and assertion: why what we literally say often differs from what our words literally mean. In: Philosophical Essays, pp. 251–277. Princeton UP, Princeton (2008)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Stalnaker R.: The problem of logical omniscience, I. Synthese 89, 425–440 (1991)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Basel 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of St Andrews, Arché Research CentreSt AndrewsScotland

Personalised recommendations