Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Eternalism and Propositional Multitasking: in defence of the Operator Argument

  • Published:
Synthese Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

It is widely held that propositions perform a plethora of theoretical roles. They are believed to be the semantic values of sentences in contexts, the objects of attitudes, the contents of illocutionary acts, the referents of ‘that’-clauses, and the primary bearers of truth. This assumption is often combined with the claim that propositions have their truth-values eternally. Following Kaplan’s and Lewis’s Operator Argument, I argue that the compositional semantic values of sentences do not correspond to eternal propositions. Therefore, we cannot hold on to both assumptions at the same time: either we regard the non-eternal entities that realize the compositional role of propositions as fulfilling the remaining theoretical roles, or we abandon the assumption that there is a unique realizer. The Operator Argument has recently come under attack, mainly for its intensional assumptions. However, rejecting these assumptions is not a sufficient defense of eternal propositions as compositional semantic values of sentences. Firstly, we can give a generalized version of the Operator Argument that seems independent of the contested assumptions. Secondly, the extensional alternative to the intensional framework does not allow us to retain eternal propositions as unique semantic values either.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Almér A., Westerståhl D. (2010) Review of relativism and monadic truth. Linguistics and Philosophy 33: 37–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bach K. (1997) Do belief reports report beliefs. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 78: 215–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bealer G. (1998) Propositions. Mind 107: 1–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cappelen H., Hawthorne J. (2009) Relativism and monadic truth. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cartwright R. (1987) Philosophical essays. MIT press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Chalmers D. (2012) Frege’s puzzle and the objects of credence. Mind 120(479): 587–635

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chalmers D. (2012) Propositions and attitude ascriptions: A Fregean account. Noûs 45(4): 595–639

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky N. (1995) The minimalist program. MIT press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Cresswell M. (1985) Structured meanings. MIT press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Cresswell M. (1990) Entities and indices. Studies in linguistics and philosophy. Kluwer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Frege G. (1892) Über Sinn und Bedeutung. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik 100: 25–50

    Google Scholar 

  • Frege G. (1918) Der Gedanke. Beiträge zur Philosophie des deutschen Idealismus 1: 8–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Glanzberg M. (2011) More on operators and tense. Analysis 71: 112–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heim I. (1997) Lecture notes on tense. MIT, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Heim I., Kratzer A. (1998) Semantics in generative grammar. Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Janssen T. M. V. (1997) Compositionality. In: van Benthem J., ter Meulen A. (eds) Handbook of logic and language. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 419–473

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamp, H. (1968). Tense logic and the theory of linear orders. Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Los Angeles.

  • Kaplan D. (1989) Demonstratives. In: Almog J., Perry J., Wettstein H. (eds) Themes from Kaplan. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • King J. C. (2003) Tense, modality, and semantic values. Philosophical Perspectives 17: 195–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King J. C. (2007) The nature and structure of content. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kusumoto, K. (1999). Tense in embedded contexts. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

  • Lewis D. (1970) General semantics. Synthese 22: 18–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis D. (1979) Attitudes de Dicto and de Se. The Philosophical Review 88: 513–543

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis D. (1980) Index, context, and content. In: Kanger S., Öhman S. (eds) Philosophy and grammar. D. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp 79–100

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mates B. (1950) Synonymity. University of California Publications in Philosophy 25: 201–226

    Google Scholar 

  • McGrath, M. (2007). Propositions. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Fall 2011 Edition). http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/propositions.

  • Pagin P., Westerståhl D. (2010) Compositionality I: Definitions and variants. Philosophical Compass 5: 250–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pagin P., Westerståhl D. (2010) Compositionality II: Arguments and problems. Philosophical Compass 5: 265–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Partee B. H. (1973) Some structural analogies between tenses and pronouns in English. Journal of Philosophy 70: 601–609

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radford A. (2009) Analysing English sentences: A minimalist approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Recanati F. (2007) Perspectival thought. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Richard M. (1981) Temporalism and eternalism. Philosophical Studies 39: 1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richard M. (1990) Propositional attitudes. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Salmon N. (2006) Terms in bondage. Philosophical Issues 16: 263–274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salmon, N., Soames, S. (eds) (1988) Propositions and attitudes. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaffer, J. Confessions of a schmentencite. Unpublished manuscript.

  • Schaffer, J. (2012). Necessitarian propositions. Synthese. doi:10.1007/s11229-012-0097-8.

  • Schlenker, P. (1999). Propositional attitudes and indexicality. Ph.D. thesis, MIT, Cambridge, MA.

  • Schlenker P. (2006) Ontological symmetry in language: A brief manifesto. Mind and Language 21(4): 504–539

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soames S. (2011) True at. Analysis 71: 124–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stalnaker R. C. (1999) Context and content, Oxford cognitive science. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • von Stechow, A. (1984). Structured propositions and essential indexicals. In F. Landman & F. Veltman (Eds.), Varieties of Formal Semantics. Proceedings of the 4th Amsterdam Colloquium (pp. 384–404), September 1982. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.

  • von Stechow A. (2009) Tenses in compositional semantics. In: Klein W., Li P. (eds) The expression of time. The expression of cognitive categories. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann T. E. (1991) Kontextabhängigkeit. In: von Stechow A., Wunderlich D. (eds) Semantik/Semantics: Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, pp 156–229

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Australian National University, Acton, ACT, Australia

    Clas Weber

Authors
  1. Clas Weber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Clas Weber.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Weber, C. Eternalism and Propositional Multitasking: in defence of the Operator Argument. Synthese 189, 199–219 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-012-0092-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-012-0092-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation