Advertisement

Quantification, Modality, and Semantic Ascent

  • Brian Skyrms
Chapter
Part of the The University of Western Ontario Series in Philosophy of Science book series (WONS, volume 48)

Abstract

Since Professor Vuillemin has studied several aspects of the thought of Bertrand Russell, it is perhaps appropriate here to juxtapose a program for metalinguistic interpretation of modality considered by Quine with a much more sweeping metalinguistic program earlier advocated by Russell.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    in “Three Grades of Modal Involvement”.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    I discuss this in some detail in “Mates Quantification and Intensional Logic”. The reader may also want to compare the treatments of quantification in Bencivenga, Lambert and van Fraassen (1986); Lambert and van Fraassen (1972); and Scott (1970).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Compare Montague (1960) on this point.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Summa Logicales 7. 26.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Of particular interest is the modal logic of the canonical proof predicate of arithmetic. See Boolos (1979); and Smorynski (1985).Google Scholar

References

  1. Bencivenga, E., Lambert, K. and van Fraassen, B. (1986) Logic Bivalence and Denotation (Ridgeview: Atascadero, California).Google Scholar
  2. Boolos, G. (1979) The Unprovability of Consistency: An Essay in Modal logic (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge).Google Scholar
  3. Cresswell, M.J. (1985) “We are all children of God” in Studies in Analytical Philosophy: A contemporary Perspective ed. Shaw, J.L and Matilal, B.K. (Reidel: Dordrecht).Google Scholar
  4. Kripke, S. (1959) “A Completeness Theorem in Modal Logic” Journal of Symbolic Logic 24, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Kripke, S. (1963) “Semantical Considerations on Modal Logic” Acta Philosophica Fennica 16, 83–94.Google Scholar
  6. Lambert, K. and van Fraassen, B.(1972) Derivation and Counterexample (Dickenson: Encino, California).Google Scholar
  7. Marcus, R. (1962) “Modalities and Intensional Languages” Synthese 27, 303–322.Google Scholar
  8. Mates, B. (1965) Elementary Logic (Oxford University Press: Fairlawn, NJ.)Google Scholar
  9. Montague, R. (1960) “Logical Necessity, Physical Necessity, Ethics and Quantifiers” Inquiry 3, 259–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Montague, R. (1963) “Syntactical Treatments of Modality” in Acta Philosophica Fennica: Modal and Many Valued Logics 153–166.Google Scholar
  11. Quine, W. V.O.(1943) “Notes on Existence and Necessity” Journal of Philosophy 40, 113–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Quine, W.V.O. (1953) “Three Grades of Modal Involvement” Proceedings of the XIth International Conqress of Philosophy 14, 65–81.Google Scholar
  13. Quine, W.V.O. (1962) “Reply to Professor Marcus” Synthese 21, 323–330.Google Scholar
  14. Russell, B. (1940) An Inquiry into Meaning and Truth (:New York).##Google Scholar
  15. Schweizer, P. (1987) “Necessity Viewed as a Semantical Predicate” Philosophical Studies 52, 33–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Scott, D. (1970) “Advice on Modal Logic” in Philosophical Problems in Logic ed. K. Lambert (Reidel: Dordrecht)Google Scholar
  17. Skyrms, B. (1978) “An Immaculate Conception of Modality” The Journal of Philosophy LXXV 368–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Skyrms, B. (1981) “Mates Quantification and Intensional Logic” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 59, 177–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Smorynski, C. (1985) Self-Reference and Modal Logic (Springer: New York).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Tarski, A. (1956) Logic, Semantics and Metamathematics (Oxford University Press: Oxford).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brian Skyrms
    • 1
  1. 1.University of CaliforniaIrvineUSA

Personalised recommendations