Skip to main content

Propositional Identity, Truth According to Predication and Strong Implication

With a Predicative Formulation of Modal Logic

  • Chapter

Part of the book series: Logic, Epistemology, and the Unity of Science ((LEUS,volume 2))

Abstract

In contemporary philosophy of language, mind and action, propositions are not only Senses of sentences with truth conditions but also contents of conceptual thoughts like illocutionary acts and attitudes that human agents perform and express. It is quite clear that propositions with the same truth conditions are not the senses of the same sentences, just as they are not the contents of the same thoughts. To account for that fact, the logic of propositions according to predication advocates finer criteria of propositional identity than logical equivalence and requires of competent speakers less than perfect rationality. Unlike classical logic it analyzes the structure of constituents of propositions. The logic is predicative in the very general sense that it analyzes the type of propositions by mainly taking into consideration the acts of predication that we make in expressing and understanding them. Predicative logic distinguishes strictly equivalent propositions whose expression requires different acts of predication or whose truth conditions are understood in different ways. It also explicates a new relation of strong implication between propositions much finer than strict implication and important for the analysis of psychological and illocutionary commitments. The main purpose of this work is to present and enrich the logic of propositions according to predication by analyzing elementary propositions that predicate all kinds of attributes (extensional or not) as well as modal propositions according to which it is necessary, possible or contingent that things are so and so. I will first explain how predicative logic analyzes the structure of constituents and truth conditions of propositions expressible in the modal predicate calculus without quantifiers. The ideal object language of my logic is a natural extension of that of the minimal logic of propositions. Next I will define the structure of a model and I will formulate an axiomatic system. At the end I will enumerate important valid laws. The present work on propositional logic is part of my next book Propositions, Truth and Thought which formulates a more general logic of propositions according to predication analyzing also generalization, ramified time, historic modalities as well as action and attitudes.

I am grateful to Elias Alves, Nuel Belnap, Paul Gochet, Yvon Gauthier, Raymond Klibansky, Grzegorz Malinowski, Jorge Rodriguez, Olivier Roy, Ken McQueen, Marek Nowak, Michel Paquette, Philippe de Rouilhan, John Searle and Geoffrey Vitale for their critical remarks. I also thank the Fonds québécois pour la recherche sur la société et la culture and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada for grants that have supported this research. I have developed that logic for the purposes of speech act theory and the formal semantics of natural language in Meaning and Speech Acts [1990–91] and other essays.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Anderson R., Belnap N. & Dunn J.M. (1992). Entailment The Logic of Relevance and Necessity. Princeton University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bealer G. (1982). Quality and Concept. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belnap N. (1991). “Backwards and Towards in the Modal Logic of Agency” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carnap R. (1956). Meaning and Necessity. University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cherniak C. (1986). Minimal Rationality. Bradford Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Couturat L. (1903). Opuscules et fragments inédits de Leibnitz, extraits des manuscrits de la bibliothèque royale de Hanovre. Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cresswell M. J. (1975). “Hyperintensional Logic”, Studia Logica 34:25–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fine K. (1986). “Analytic Implication”, in Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 27:2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hintikka J. (1962). Knowledge and Belief. Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan D. (1970). “How to Russell a Frege-Church”, The Journal of Philosophical Logic 8:1, 716–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kripke S. (1963). “Semantical Considerations on Modal Logic”, in Acta Philosophica Fennica 16.

    Google Scholar 

  • ____ (1975) “Speaker Reference and Semantic Reference” in P.A. French et al (eds) Contemporary Perspectives in the Philosophy of Language. University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ____ (1980) Naming and Necessity. Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis C. I. (1918). A Survey of Symbolic Logic. University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcus R. Barcan (1993). Modalities. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montague R. (1974). Formal Philosophy. Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nowak M. & Vanderveken D. (1996). “The Minimal Logic of Propositional Contents of Thought: a Completeness Theorem”, Studia Logica 54, 391–410.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parry W.T. (1972). “Comparison of Entailment Theories”, The Journal of Symbolic Logic 37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodriguez Marqueze J. (1993). “On the Logical Form of Propositions: Some Problems for Vanderveken’s New Theory of Propositions” in Philosophical Issues 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Searle J.R. & Vanderveken D. (1985). Foundations of Illocutionary Logic. Cambridge Univ. Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strawson P.F. (1959). Individuals. Methuen.

    Google Scholar 

  • ____ (1974). Subject and Predicate in Logic and Grammar. Methuen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanderveken D. (1990–1). Meaning and Speech Acts, Volume I: Principles of Language Use and Volume II: Formal Semantics of Success and Satisfaction. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ____ (1995). “A New Formulation of the Logic of Propositions”, in M. Marion & R. Cohen (eds), Québec Studies in the Philosophy of Science 1, Logic, Mathematics and Physics. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Kluwer, 95–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • ____ (2001). “Universal Grammar and Speech Act Theory” in D. Vanderveken & S. Kubo (eds), Essays in Speech Act Theory. Benjamins, P&b ns 77, 25–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • ____ (2002). “Attempt, Success and Action Generation” in the special issue on Mental Causation of Manuscrito XXV:1.

    Google Scholar 

  • ____ (2003). “Formal Ontology, Propositional Identity and Truth According to Predication With an Application of the Theory of Types to the Logic of Modal and Temporal Proposition” in Cahiers d’épistémologie 2003:03. Université du Québec à Montréal. 29 pages. www.philo.uqam.ca

    Google Scholar 

  • ____ (2003). “Attempt and Action Generation Towards the Foundations of the Logic of Action” in Cahiers d’épistémologie 2003:02. Université du Québec à Montréal. 43 pages. www.philo.uqam.ca

    Google Scholar 

  • ____ (2004). “Attempt, Success and Action Generation A Logical Study of Intentional Action”. Chapter 15 of the present Volume. — (2004). “Success, Satisfaction and Truth in the Logic of Speech Acts and Formal Semantics”, in S. Davis & B. Gillan (eds) A Reader in Semantics, 710–734 Oxford. University Press, in press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ____ Propositions, Truth and Thought New Foundations for Philosophical Logic, forthcoming.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitehead A. & Russell B. (1910). Principia Mathematica. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittgenstein L. (1961). Tractatus logico-philosophicus. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2005 Springer

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Vanderveken, D. (2005). Propositional Identity, Truth According to Predication and Strong Implication. In: Vanderveken, D. (eds) Logic, Thought and Action. Logic, Epistemology, and the Unity of Science, vol 2. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3167-X_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics