Advertisement

Synthese

, Volume 196, Issue 4, pp 1285–1324 | Cite as

Anatomy of a proposition

  • Bjørn JespersenEmail author
S.I.: Unity of Structured Propositions

Abstract

This paper addresses the mereological problem of the unity of structured propositions. The problem is how to make multiple parts interact such that they form a whole that is ultimately related to truth and falsity. The solution I propose is based on a Platonist variant of procedural semantics. I think of procedures as abstract entities that detail a logical path from input to output. Procedures are modeled on a function/argument logic, but are not functions (mappings). Instead they are higher-order, fine-grained structures. I identify propositions with particular kinds of molecular procedures containing multiple sub-procedures as parts. Procedures are among the basic entities of my ontology, while propositions are derived entities. The core of a structured proposition is the procedure of predication, which is an instance of the procedure of functional application. The main thesis I defend is that procedurally conceived propositions are their own unifiers detailing how their parts interact so as to form a unit. They are not unified by one of their constituents, e.g., a relation or a sub-procedure, on pain of regress. The relevant procedural semantics is Transparent Intensional Logic, a hyperintensional, typed \(\lambda \)-calculus, whose \(\lambda \)-terms express four different kinds of procedures. While demonstrating how the theory works, I place my solution in a wider historical and systematic context.

Keywords

Proposition Unity Structure Predication Procedural semantics Transparent Intensional Logic Type theory Lambda-calculus 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The research reported herein was supported by Marie Curie Fellowship FP-7-PEOPLE-2013-IEF628170, Grant Agency of the Czech Republic Project No. GA15-13277S, and VSB-TU Ostrava Project No. SP2017/133. Versions of this paper were read at the Barcelona Workshop on Reference 9 (BW9): Unity and Individuation of Structured Propositions, Barcelona, 22–24 June 2015; Institute of Culture and Society, University of Aarhus, 11 April 2014; ILLC, University of Amsterdam, 18 May 2016; Department of Philosophy, Groningen University, GroLog, 12 May 2016; Department of Philosophy, Lingnan University, Hong Kong, 30 September 2015; Department of Philosophy, National University of Singapore, 23 September 2015; Department of Philosophy, Stockholm University, 24 April 2015; Department of Computer Science, TU Ostrava, 27 March 2014; Department of Philosophy, UNAM, Mexico City, 11 March 2015; Department of Logic and Philosophy of Science, UC Irvine, C-ALPHA, 6 March 2015; Department of Logic, History and Philosophy of Science, Logos, University of Barcelona, 18 February 2015. I wish to thank the following for great comments along the way: Marie Duží, Manuel García-Carpintero, Bryan Pickel the various audiences, and not least two anonymous referees for Synthese.

References

  1. Bellucci, F. (2014). Peirce and the unity of the proposition. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, 50, 201–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bezuidenhout, A. (2004). Procedural meaning and the semantics/pragmatics divide. In C. Bianchi (Ed.), The semantics/pragmatics distinction (pp. 101–131). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  3. Cantú, P. (2006). Bolzano et les propositions en soi: une théorie objective des vérités. In J. Benoist (Ed.), Propositions et états de choses (pp. 51–66). Paris: Vrin, Paris.Google Scholar
  4. Caplan, B., Tillman, C., & Reeder, P. (2010). Parts of singletons. Journal of Philosophy, 107, 501–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Collins, J. (2017). The redundancy of the act. Synthese. doi: 10.1007/s11229-017-1382-3.
  6. Cotnoir, A. J. (2010). Anti-symmetry and non-extensional mereology. Philosophical Quarterly, 60, 396–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cotnoir, A. J., & Bacon, A. (2012). Non-wellfounded mereology. Review of Symbolic Logic, 5, 187–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Duží, M., & Jespersen, B. (2015). Transparent quantification into hyperintensional objectual attitudes. Synthese, 192, 635–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Duží, M., Jespersen, B., & Materna, P. (2010). Procedural semantics for hyperintensional logic. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. Fodor, J. A. (1978). Tom Swift and his procedural grandmother. Cognition, 6, 229–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fox, C., & Lappin, S. (2005). Foundations of intensional semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Frege, G. (1891/1986). Funktion und Begriff. In G. Patzig (Ed.), Funktion Begriff Bedeutung (pp. 17–39). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
  13. Hanks, P. (2015). Propositional content. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Harte, V. (2012). Plato on parts and wholes. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  15. Jespersen, B. (2005). Explicit intensionalization, anti-actualism, and how Smith’s murderer might not have murdered Smith. Dialectica, 59, 285–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jespersen, B. (2008). Predication and extensionalization. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 37, 479–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jespersen, B. (2012). Recent work on structured meaning and propositional unity. Philosophy Compass, 7, 620–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jespersen, B. (2012a). Post-Fregean thoughts on propositional unity. In J. Maclaurin (Ed.), Rationis defensor: Essays in honour of Colin Cheyne. Studies in the history and philosophy of science (Vol. 28, pp. 235–254).Google Scholar
  19. Jespersen, B. (2015). Structured lexical concepts, property modifiers, and Transparent Intensional Logic. Philosophical Studies, 172, 321–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jespersen, B. (2017). Is predication an act or an operation? In P. Stalmaszczyk (Ed.), Philosophy and logic of predication. Studies in philosophy of language and linguistics (vol. 7, pp. 223–245), Peter Lang GmbH.Google Scholar
  21. Johnston, M. (2006). Hylomorphism. Journal of Philosophy, 103, 652–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Johnson-Laird, P. (1977). Procedural semantics. Cognition, 5, 189–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kaplan, D. (1990/1978). Dthat. In P. Yourgrau (Ed.), Demonstratives. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Originally appeared in Syntax and Semantics, P. Cole (ed.). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  24. Keller, L. (2013). The metaphysics of propositional constituency. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 43, 655–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. King, J. C. (2013). Propositional unity: What’s the problem, who has it and who solves it? Philosophical Studies, 165, 71–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. King, J. C. (2017). On propositions and fineness of grain (again!). Synthese. doi: 10.1007/s11229-016-1291-x.
  27. King, J. C., Soames, S., & Speaks, J. (2014). New thinking about propositions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kosterec, M. On the number of types. Synthese. doi: 10.1007/s11229-016-1190-1.
  29. Levine, J. (2002). Analysis and decomposition in Frege and Russell. Philosophical Quarterly, 52, 195–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lewis, D. (1993). Mereology is megethology. Philosophia Mathematica, 3, 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Liebesman, D. (2015). Predication as ascription. Mind, 124, 517–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. May, R. (2006). The invariance of sense. Journal of Philosophy, 103, 111–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McDaniel, K. (2009). Structure-making. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 87, 251–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McGrath, M. (2014). Propositions. In E.N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2014 Edition). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/propositions/.
  35. Moggi, E. (1989). Computational lambda-calculus and monads. In Proceedings of the fourth annual symposium on logic in computer science (pp. 14–23). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE Press.Google Scholar
  36. Moltmann, F. (2013). Propositions, attitudinal objects, and the distinction between actions and products. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 43, 679–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Muskens, R. (2005). Sense and the computation of reference. Linguistics and Philosophy, 28, 473–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pezlar, I. (2017). Algorithmic theories of problems. Logic and Logical Philosophy. doi: 10.12775/LLP.2017.010.
  39. Pickel, B. (2015). Are propositions essentially representational? Pacific Philosophical Quarterly. doi: 10.1111/papq.12123.
  40. Rabern, B. (2013). Monsters in Kaplan’s logic of demonstratives. Philosophical Studies, 164, 393–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Russell, B. (1903). Principles of Mathematics. New York: Norton Library.Google Scholar
  42. Russell, B. (1908/1968). Mathematical logic as based on the theory of types. Reprinted in R. C. Marsh (Ed.), Logic and Knowledge, fourth impression. New York: The MacMillan Company.Google Scholar
  43. Sainsbury, M. (1996). How can some thing say something? In R. Monk, A. Palmer (Eds.), Bertrand Russell and the origins of analytic philosophy (pp. 137–153). Bristol: Thoemmes. Reprinted in Departing From Frege, Oxford: Routledge (2002).Google Scholar
  44. Simons P (2000). Parts: A study in ontology. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  45. Soames, S. (2010). What is meaning?. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sundholm, B. G. (1983). Constructions, proofs, and the meaning of logical constants. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 12, 151–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Textor, M. (2017). Judgement, perception, and predication. In M. Textor & F. Moltmann (Eds.), Act-based conceptions of propositional content. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Thomason, R. (1980). A model theory for attitudes. Linguistics and Philosophy, 4, 47–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tichý, P. (1971). An approach to intensional analysis. Nous, 5, 273–297. Reprinted in Tichý (2004).Google Scholar
  50. Tichý, P. (1980). Foundations of partial type theory. Reports on Mathematical Logic, 14, 59–72. Reprinted in Tichý (2004).Google Scholar
  51. Tichý, P. (1986). Constructions. Philosophy of Science, 53, 514–534. Reprinted in Tichý (2004).Google Scholar
  52. Tichý, P. (1988). The foundations of Frege’s logic. Berlin: deGruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tichý, P. (1995). Constructions as the subject-matter of mathematics. In W. Depauli-Schimanovich, E. Köhler, F. Stadler (Eds.), The foundational debate (pp. 175–85), Dordrecht: Kluwer. Reprinted in Tichý (2004).Google Scholar
  54. Tichý, P. (2004). Collected papers in logic and philosophy. In G. Cheyne, B. Jespersen, & V. Svoboda (Eds.), Prague: Filozofia; Dunedin: University of Otago Press.Google Scholar
  55. Varzi, A. C. (2008). The extensionality of parthood and composition. Philosophical Quarterly, 58, 108–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wittgenstein, L. (1922/1984). Tractatus logico-philosophicus. Reprinted as Suhrkamp Taschenbuch Wissenschaft (Vol. 501). Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  57. Woods, W. A. (1981). Procedural semantics as a theory of meaning. In A. K. Joshi & B. L. Webber (Eds.), Elements of discourse understanding (pp. 300–334). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceTU OstravaOstravaCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations