Advertisement

Propositions: Truth vs. Existence

  • Heather DykeEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Studies in History and Philosophy of Science book series (AUST, volume 28)

Abstract

I argue that there is an inherent tension in the notion of a proposition that gives us reason to doubt that there can be any single entity that plays all the roles and possesses all the features normally attributed to propositions. The tension is that some of the roles and features of propositions require them to be essentially representational, while others require them to be non-representational. I first present what I call the standard view of propositions: a series of theses outlining the roles they are normally thought to play and the features they are normally thought to possess. I then highlight a number of tensions inherent in the standard view. I illustrate how this very tension creates problems for some realist theories of propositions. I discuss the distinction between the truth of a proposition and its existence, and argue that paying heed to this distinction allows us to identify, and clear up, a particular confusion that leads us to posit propositions in the first place. Finally, I consider where a rejection of propositions leaves us, ontologically and theoretically.

Keywords

Truth Condition Tall Building Standard View True Proposition Abstract Entity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Bealer, G. 1998. Propositions. Mind 107: 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Dyke, H. 2002. Tokens, dates and tenseless truth conditions. Synthese 131(3): 329–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dyke, H. 2008. Metaphysics and the representational fallacy. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Grayling, A.C. 1982. An introduction to philosophical logic. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
  5. Hornsby, J. 1997. Truth: The identity theory. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 97: 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Iacona, A. 2003. Are there propositions? Erkenntnis 58: 325–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Jubien, M. 2001. Propositions and the objects of thought. Philosophical Studies 104: 47–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. King, J.C. 2007. The nature and structure of content. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Mackie, J.L. 1973. Truth, probability, and paradox. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. McDowell, J. 1994. Mind and world. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Robinson, R. 1931. Mr. Ryle on propositions. Mind 40: 73–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Russell, B. 1903. Principles of mathematics, 2nd ed. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, Inc.Google Scholar
  13. Ryle, G. 1929. Are there propositions? Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 30: 91–126.Google Scholar
  14. Thomson, J.F. 1969. Truth-bearers and the trouble about propositions. Journal of Philosophy 66(21): 737–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Wrigley, A. 2006. Abstracting propositions. Synthese 151: 157–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of OtagoDunedinNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations