Advertisement

Acta Analytica

, Volume 30, Issue 3, pp 283–292 | Cite as

Rearming the Slingshot?

  • Meg Wallace
Article
  • 98 Downloads

Abstract

Slingshot arguments aim to show that an allegedly non-extensional sentential connective—such as “necessarily (_)” or “the statement that Φ corresponds to the fact that (_)”—is, to the contrary, an extensional sentential connective. Stephen Neale (Mind 104 (416): 761-825, 1995, 2001) argues that a reformulation of Gödel’s slingshot puts pressure on us to adopt a particular view of definite descriptions. I formulate a revised version of the slingshot argument—one that relies on Kaplan’s notion of “dthat.” I aim to show that if Neale’s version of the slingshot argument is successful, then there is another slingshot available, parallel in structure to Neale’s, but independent of definite descriptions. So either (i) there is a version of the slingshot that succeeds independent of any particular theory of descriptions or else (ii) Neale’s slingshot was never threatening to begin with.

Keywords

Slingshots Collapsing arguments Facts Definite descriptions 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Many thanks to Dorit Bar-On, Gemma Celestino, Bill Lycan, Adam Sennet, Keith Simmons, Sam Wheeler, several annonymous referees, and an audience at the Pacific APA 2013 for helpful comments and suggestions on earlier drafts.

References

  1. Barwise, & Perry. (1983). Situations and attitudes. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Church, A. (1943). Review of Carnap’s Introduction to Semantics”. Philosophical Review, 52, 298–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cummins, & Gottlieb. (1972). On an argument for truth-functionality. American Philosophical Quarterly, 9(3), 265–269.Google Scholar
  4. Davidson, D. (1969). True to the facts’ in his inquiries into truth and interpretation (pp. 37–54). Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  5. Donnellan, K. (1966). Reference and definite descriptions. The Philosophical Review, 77(1966), 281–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Kaplan, David (1978) ‘Dthat’ Pragmatics, Syntax, and Semantics, vol. 9., ed. P. Cole (New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  7. King, J. (2001). Complex demonstratives: a quantificational account, 2001. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Kripke, S. (1977). Speaker’s reference and semantic Reference’. Studies in the Philosophy of Language, Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 2, 255–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lycan. (1974). The extensionality of cause, space and time. Mind, 83, 498–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. McGinn, C. (1976). A note on the Frege argument. Mind, 83, 422–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Neale, S. (1990) Descriptions. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Neale, S. (1995). The philosophical significance of Gödel’s slingshot. Mind, 104(416), 761–825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Neale, S. (2001). Facing facts. Oxford: University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Oppy, G. (1997). The philosophical insignificance of Godel’s slingshot. Mind, 106, 121–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Oppy, G. (2004). ‘Facing Facts?’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 82(4), 621–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Quine, W. V. O. (1953). ‘On What There Is’ in his from a logical point of view. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Quine, W. V. O. (1960) Word and Object. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  18. Russell, Bertrand (1919) ‘Descriptions’ Introduction to mathematical philosophyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of KentuckyLexingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations