Advertisement

Synthese

, Volume 196, Issue 3, pp 1019–1043 | Cite as

Propositions, representation, and truth

  • Geoff GeorgiEmail author
Article
  • 258 Downloads

Abstract

Theories of propositions as sets of truth-supporting circumstances are committed to the thesis that sentences or other representations true in all and only the same circumstances express the same proposition. Theories of propositions as complex, structured entities are not committed to this thesis. As a result, structured propositions can play a role in our theories of language and thought that sets of truth-supporting circumstances cannot play. To illustrate this difference, I sketch a theory of transparent, non-deflationary truth consistent with some theories of structured propositions, but inconsistent with any theory of propositions as sets of truth-supporting circumstances.

Keywords

Possible worlds Propositions Fineness of grain Truth 

References

  1. Barwise, J., & Perry, J. (1985). Shifting situations and shaken attitudes. Linguistics and Philosophy, 8(1), 105–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bealer, G. (1998). Propositions. Mind, 107(425), 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beall, J. C. (2009). Spandels of truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bjerring, J. C., & Schwarz, W. (2017). Granularity problems. The Philosophical Quarterly, 67(266), 22–37.Google Scholar
  5. Cartwright, R. (1987). Philosophical essays. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Cobreros, P., Égré, P., Ripley, D., & van Rooij, R. (2013). Reaching transparent truth. Mind, 488, 841–866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Edelberg, W. (1994). Propositions, circumstances, objects. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 23(1), 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Elbourne, P. (2010). Why propositions might be sets of truth-supporting circumstances. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 39(1), 101–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Frege, G. (1956). The thought. Mind, 65, 289–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Georgi, G. (2015). Logic for languages containing referentially promiscuous expressions. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 44(4), 429–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hanks, P. (2015). Propositional content. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Higginbotham, J. (2006). Sententialism: The thesis that complement clauses refer to themselves. Philosophical Issues, 16, 101–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Horwich, P. (1998). Truth (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jago, M. (2015). Hyperintensional propositions. Synthese, 192(3), 585–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jago, M. (2017). Propositions as truthmaker conditions [Special Issue]. Argumenta, 2(2), 293–308.Google Scholar
  16. Kalderon, M. E. (1997). The transparency of truth. Mind, 106(423), 475–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Keller, L. (2014). The metaphysics of propositional constituency. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 43(5–6), 655–678.Google Scholar
  18. King, J. C. (2002). Two sorts of claim about logical form. In G. Preyer & G. Peter (Eds.), Logical form and language. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. King, J. C. (2007a). The nature and structure of content. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. King, J. C. (2007b). What in the world are the ways things might have been? Philosophical Studies, 133, 443–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. King, J. C., Soames, S., & Speaks, J. (2014). New thinking about propositions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kripke, S. (1980). Naming and necessity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Lewis, D. (1970). General semantics. Synthese, 22(1/2), 18–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lewis, D. (1981). Index, context, and content. In S. Kanger & S. Ohman (Eds.), Philosophy and grammar. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
  25. Lewis, D. (1986). On the plurality of worlds. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  26. McGlone, M. (2012). Propositional structure and truth conditions. Philosophical Studies, 157(2), 211–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Merricks, T. (2007). Truth and ontology. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Merricks, T. (2015). Propositions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nolan, D. (1997). Impossible worlds: A modest approach. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 38(4), 535–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Plantinga, A. (1976). Actualism and possible worlds. Theoria, 42(1–3), 139–160.Google Scholar
  31. Priest, G. (2005). Towards non-being. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Quine, W. V. O. (1951). Mathematical logic (revised ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Rabern, B. (2012). Propositions and multiple indexing. Thought, 1, 116–124.Google Scholar
  34. Rabern, B. (2013). Monsters in Kaplan’s logic of demonstratives. Philosophical Studies, 164, 393–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Richard, M. (2014). What are propositions? Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 43(5–6), 702–719.Google Scholar
  36. Ripley, D. (2012). Structures and circumstances: Twoways to fine-grain propositions. Synthese, 189, 97–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rosefeldt, T. (2008). That’-clauses and non-nominal quantification. Philosophical Studies, 137(3), 301–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Soames, S. (1987). Direct reference, propositional attitudes, and semantic content. Philosophical Topics, 15, 47–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Soames, S. (1989). Semantics and semantic competence. Philosophical Perspectives, 3, 575–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Soames, S. (1999). Understanding truth. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Soames, S. (2007). Actually. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes, 81, 251–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Soames, S. (2008). Truthmakers? Philosophical Books, 49(4), 317–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Soames, S. (2010). What is meaning?. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Soames, S. (2011). True at. Analysis, 71(1), 124–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Soames, S. (2015). Rethinking language, mind, and meaning. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stalnaker, R. (1970). Pragmatics. Synthese, 22(1/2), 272–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Stalnaker, R. (1976). Possible worlds. Noûs, 10(1), 65–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Stalnaker, R. (1984). Inquiry. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  49. Stalnaker, R. (1996). Impossibilities. Philosophical Topics, 24, 193–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Stalnaker, R. (2012). Mere possibilities: Metaphysical foundations of modal semantics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Von Fintel, K., & Heim, I. (2007). Intensional semantics. Unpublished. http://tinyurl.com/intensional
  52. Williamson, T. (1999). Truthmakers and the converse Barcan formula. Dialectica, 53(3–4), 253–270.Google Scholar
  53. Williamson, T. (2007). The philosophy of philosophy. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Williamson, T. (2013). Modal logic as metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wittgenstein, L. (1922). Tractatus logico-philosophicus. London: Kegan Paul, Trench and Trübner.Google Scholar
  56. Yagisawa, T. (2010). Worlds and individuals, possible and otherwise. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Yli-Vakkuri, J. (2013). Propositions and compositionality. Philosophical Perspectives, 27, 526–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyWest Virginia UniversityMorgantownUSA

Personalised recommendations