Part of the Synthese Library book series (SYLI, volume 98)


In 1900, in A Critical Exposition of the Philosophy of Leibniz, Russell made the following assertion: “That all sound philosophy should begin with an analysis of propositions is a truth too evident, perhaps, to demand a proof”1 Forty years later, the interest aroused by this notion had not decreased. C. J. Ducasse wrote in the Journal of Philosophy: “There is perhaps no question more basic for the theory of knowledge than that of the nature of propositions and their relations to judgments, sentences, facts and inferences”.2 Today, the great number of publications on the subject is proof that it is still of interest. One of the problems raised by propositions, the problem of determining whether propositions, statements or sentences are the primary bearers of truth and falsity, is even in the eyes of Bar-Hillel, “one of the major items that the future philosophy of language will have to discuss”.3


Methodical Nominalism False Sentence Dyadic Relation Intensional Entity Ontological Conclusion 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    B. Russell, A Critical Exposition of the Philosophy of Leibniz, Cambridge University Press, 1900, p. 8.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    C.-J. Ducasse, ‘Propositions, Opinions, Sentences and Facts’, Journal of Philosophy 37 (1940) 701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Y. Bar-Hillel, ‘Universal Semantics and Philosophy of Language’, in J. Puhvel (ed.), Substance and Structure of Language, University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1969, pp. 16–17.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ph. Devaux, Bertrand Russell ou la Paix dans la vérité, Seghers, Paris, 1967, p. 59.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    P. F. Strawson, ‘Introduction’, in P. F. Strawson (ed.), Philosophical Logic, Oxford University Press, 1967, p. 1.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    B. Russell, The Problems of Philosophy, Oxford University Press, 1952, p. 44.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    G. E. Moore, ‘The Nature of Judgment’, Mind 8 (1899) 180.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    A. Montefiore, A Modern Introduction to Moral Philosophy, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1958, p. 1.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    H. N. Castañeda, ‘Ethics and Logic: Stevensonian Emotivism Revisited’, Journal of Philosophy 64,(1967)673–674.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    B. Russell, ‘On Denoting’, reprinted in H. Feigl and W. Seilars (eds.), Readings in Philosophical Analysis, Appel ton-Century-Crofts, New York, 1949, p. 108.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    W. Stegmüller, Main Currents in Contemporary German, British and American Philosophy, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1969, p. 54.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    H. Hubien, ‘Philosophie analytique et Linguistique moderne’, Dialectica 22, (1968) 96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Y. Bar-Hillel, ‘Do Natural Languages Contain Paradoxes?’, Studium generale, (1966) 393. Reprinted in Aspects of language, North Holland, Amsterdam 1970; see p. 276.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    J. L. Austin, ‘Ifs and Cans’, Proceedings of the British Academy, Vol. XLII, Oxford University Press, London, 1956, pp. 131–132. Reprinted in J. L. Austin, Philosophical Papers, Oxford University Press, 2nd. edn., 1970; see p. 232.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    J. Vuillemin, Leçons sur la première philosophie de Russell, A. Colin, Paris, 1966, p. 266.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    J. Dopp, ‘Thinking and Meaning’, Entretiens d l’Institut International de Philosophie, 1962, Logique et Analyse 20, (1962) 207.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-philosophicus, 5.47321, with a new translation by D. F. Pears and B. F. McGuinnes and Introduction by B. Russell, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1961, p. 97.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wittgenstein, Ibid., 4.002, p. 35.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    N. Chomsky, Language and Mind, Harcourt Brace, 1968;enlarged edn., 1972, p. 48.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chomsky, Ibid., p. 70.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    N. Goodman, ‘A World of Individuals’ in I. M. Bochenski, A. Church, N. Goodman, The Problem of Universals, Notre Dame University Press, 1956, p. 12.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    G. Küng, Ontology and the Logistic Analysis of Language, (trans, by E.C.U. Mays), D. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1967, p. 106.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    W. V. O. Quine, Word and Object, M.I.T. and Wiley, 1960, p. 209.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    W. V. O. Quine, From a Logical Point of View, Harper Torchbooks, New York, 1961, p. 153.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Goodman, Op. cit., p. 19.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    W. V. O. Quine, ‘Carnap’s Views on Ontology’ (1951); repr. in The Ways of Paradox and other Essays, Random House, New York, 1966, p. 128.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    R. Carnap, Meaning and Necessity (1947) University of Chicago Press, enlarged edn., 1956, § 5 and § 33.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    A. Church, ‘Proposition’, Encyclopedia Britannica, U.S.A., Vol. 18, 1965, p. 560.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Küng, Op. cit., p. 139.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    D. Davidson, ‘On Saying That’ Synthese 19, (1968) 132.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Z. Vendler, ‘Les Performatifs en perspective’, Langage 17, (1970) 89–90.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    P. T. Geach, ‘Assertion’, Philosophical Review 74, (1965) 452–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    For a study of the proposition in ancient and medieval philosophy, the reader is referred to G. Nuchelmans’ important monograph Theories of Proposition. Ancient and Medieval Conceptions of the Bearers of Truth and Falsity, North Holland, Amsterdam, 1973.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyState University of LiègeBelgium

Personalised recommendations