DOCSLIB.ORG

Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society Hosting and Publishing Talks in Philosophy Since 1880

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society Hosting and Publishing Talks in Philosophy Since 1880 PROCEEDINGS OF THE ARISTOTELIAN SOCIETY HOSTING AND PUBLISHING TALKS IN PHILOSOPHY SINCE 1880 The Linguistic Approach to Ontology LEE WALTERS 2020–2021 141ST SESSION CHAIRED BY BILL BREWER SENATE HOUSE VOLUME CXXI EDITED BY GUY LONGWORTH UNIVERSITY OF LONDON proceedings of the aristotelian society 141st session issue no. 2 volume cxxi 2020–2021 the linguistic approach to ontology lee walters university of southampton monday, 18 january 2021 17.30–19.15 online via zoom Please visit our website for further details contact [email protected] www.aristoteliansociety.org.uk © 2021 the aristotelian society biography Lee Walters is an Associate Professor in Philosophy at the University of Southampton. Prior to joining Southampton, Lee studied philosophy at UCL and taught at Oxford. Lee’s main interests are in metaphysics, the philosophy of language, and philosophical Logic, with a particular emphasis on the philosophy of fiction. Lee has been an Associate Editor of Analysis; a trustee of the British Society of Aesthetics; has held a British Academy Mid-Career Fellowship; and has been a junior fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study, CEU, Budapest. editorial note The following paper is a draft version that can only be cited or quoted with the author’s permission. The final paper will be published in Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Issue No. 2, Volume CXXI (2021). Please visit the Society’s website for subscription information: aristoteliansociety.org.uk. The Linguistic Approach to Ontology 1. Introduction Following Quine (1948), and more recently Hofweber (2016), I take the central ontological question to be what is there? in a sense to be precisified in §3. This contrasts with some recent approaches to ontology that take the central question to be what is fundamental? It is, of course, interesting to explore relations of dependence and supervenience between different sorts of entity, but this endeavour of explaining what depends on what, is an investigation of relations within our ontology. And in order to fully explore these relations we need to determine what our ontology consists of, namely what there is. In any case, there is room for both projects.1 What I want to do here is explore the prospects for the Linguistic Approach to (Meta)Ontology: we determine what there is by examining how natural languages work. In §§2-3, I outline two linguistic approaches to ontology due to Frege and Hofweber, respectively. I reject such approaches (§4) for the familiar reason that empty names can figure in true sentences. Still there is a kernel of truth in both approaches. The truth that these approaches encapsulate is often thought to be the claim that true subject-predicate sentences are ontologically committing. This thought is appealing, but it is ultimately untenable. There is, however, a truth in the area namely that true property ascriptions are ontologically committing. In §§5-6 I pull these two claims apart, defending the latter and rejecting the former. 1 Why not take the ontological question to be what exists? Well on the intended readings, I think this is equivalent to the question of what is there? The English word exist suffers from the drawback that we talk of events occurring or happening rather than existing (Williamson), but events are part of ontology – there are events, after all. We also say that Socrates no longer exists, but eternalists will want to include him in our ontology. Here, however, exists seems to be on all fours with there is since we do not say that Socrates is, but only that he used to be. 1 The package of these views faces two related challenges: what are predicates doing in subject- predicate sentences, and what accounts for the semantic profile of empty names in the absence of a referent. In §6 I make a start on answering this. §7 briefly mirrors the previous debates concerning first-order ontology in the second-order case. The picture we are left with is one on which we need to determine which sentences ascribe properties to objects, and there does not appear to be any formal criterion for this. Before commencing with the substance of the paper, let me say something about what I am doing here and the paper’s ambitions. This paper is wide-ranging and rests on controversial claims at many points, claims that cannot in the space available be defended in detail (I may have lost some readers already, simply by claiming that there are true sentences containing empty names). I make no apology for this. The issues that I want to address are wide-ranging and touch on many areas of philosophy, and no one paper could deal with all of them adequately. There are arguments in this paper, but I think reader will find it most fruitful if they take me to be sketching what I take the best approach to these issues to be, one that is intuitive, but nevertheless seeks to address the hard questions that face such a view. Even if you ultimately reject the view advocated here, I think there is still something to be learned by engaging with it and the debate it seeks to illuminate. 2. Fregeanism A particularly influential approach to ontology is that inspired by Frege (1953). Fregeanism can be characterised for our purposes as the conjunction of the following two claims (cf. MacBride, 2003: 108). 2 Syntactic Decisiveness: if an expression exhibits the characteristic syntactic features of a singular term, then that fact decisively determines that the expression in question has the semantic function of a singular term, i.e. the function of referring to a single object. Following Hofweber (2016), let us call expressions that exhibit the syntactic features of a singular term, syntactic singular terms, and expressions that have the function of referring to a single object, whether or not they carry out that function, semantically singular terms. Syntactic Decisiveness claims that all syntactically singular terms are semantically singular terms. Referential Minimalism: the mere fact that a semantically singular term features in a true sentence (of a certain sort) determines that this expression refers to a single object.2 Together these two claims entail that true sentences (of a certain sort)3 containing syntactically singular terms are ontologically committing, since they commit us to the objects referred to by the syntactically singular terms in these sentences. If we conceive of existential quantification into (syntactically) singular term position (nominal quantification) as quantification over a domain of objects, then true sentences that contain such quantification will also be ontologically committing, since such sentences can only be true if there is an object that is a witness of the quantificational claim. 2 I am using reference and its cognates, as is standard in analytic philosophy, to pick out a relation between a singular term and an object. We should distinguish reference from aboutness. On the assumption that ‘Pegasus’ is an empty name, ‘Pegasus’ does not refer to anything and I cannot refer to Pegasus. Nevertheless, there are myths about Pegasus and I can think about Pegasus, or so it very much seems. Here I follow Crane (2013: 8-10). 3 I shall leave this qualification implicit until I return to it in §5. 3 So, a central ontological question for the Fregean is to determine the true sentences containing syntactically singular terms or an existential nominal quantifier. Once we have done this, our (first-order) ontological commitments follow. 3. Hofweber’s Rejection of Fregeanism Hofweber (2016) has recently outlined an interesting alternative linguistic approach to the Fregeanism sketched above. Hofweber argues that there are two sorts of syntactically singular terms, since some but not all syntactically singular terms are semantically singular terms. That is, some but not all syntactically singular terms have the function of referring. Hofweber thus departs from the Fregean by rejecting Syntactic Decisiveness. For example, Hofweber argues that there are certain puzzling features of our number talk that are best explained by taking neither ‘the number of moons of Jupiter’ nor ‘four’ as used in (1) to be have the function of referring. 1. The number of moons of Jupiter is four. Furthermore, just as Hofweber distinguishes between two sorts of syntactically singular term, he also distinguishes between two readings of nominal quantifiers External quantification: nominal quantifiers range over a domain of objects as assumed in §2. Internal quantification: nominal quantifiers generalize into syntactic position and so have an inferential role or substitutional reading. 4 External quantification is governed by a free logic. That is, we can only move from Fa to ∃x Fx on the assumption that ‘a’ refers (similarly from ∀x Fx to Fa). This is because, some syntactically singular terms are not semantically singular, they do not refer. Internal quantifiers, on the other hand, behave classically. That is, we can conclude that there is something (internally) that is F (Σx Fx) from Fa and similarly from the claim that everything internally is F (Π Fx) to Fa. If Hofweber is right about number words, then generalizations about numbers – (there are) some numbers (that) are prime/perfect/larger than 10 – cannot be accounted for in terms of external quantification because none of the objects that the external quantifiers range over are identical to four, for example, because four is not a referring term. And a result, on Hofweber’s picture we need an internal reading of the quantifier. But couldn’t we make do with only internal quantifiers? No, unreferred to objects mean we need an external nominal quantifier, since there are no true sentences from which to reach 2. There are some objects that will never be referred to which would be required if ‘some objects’ in (2) were an internally quantified noun phrase - Σx Fx is true iff there is some (externally) substitution instance of x ‘a’ such that Fa.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Russellians Can Have a No Proposition View of Empty Names
    King’s Research Portal DOI: 10.1080/0020174X.2017.1372307 Document Version Peer reviewed version Link to publication record in King's Research Portal Citation for published version (APA): Hodgson, T. (2018). Russellians can have a no proposition view of empty names. Inquiry, 61(7), 670-691. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020174X.2017.1372307 Citing this paper Please note that where the full-text provided on King's Research Portal is the Author Accepted Manuscript or Post-Print version this may differ from the final Published version. If citing, it is advised that you check and use the publisher's definitive version for pagination, volume/issue, and date of publication details. And where the final published version is provided on the Research Portal, if citing you are again advised to check the publisher's website for any subsequent corrections. General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the Research Portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognize and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. •Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the Research Portal for the purpose of private study or research. •You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain •You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the Research Portal Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact [email protected] providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
    [Show full text]
  • Truths Containing Empty Names Michael Mckinsey
    In Philosophical Approaches to Proper Names, P. Stalmaszczyk and L. Fernández Moreno (eds.).Peter Lang, 2016. Truths Containing Empty Names Michael McKinsey 1. A problem for direct reference. According to the thesis of Direct Reference (or the DR-thesis for short), the propositions expressed by sentences containing the proper names and indexical pronouns of natural language are a strict function of the semantic referents of the names and indexicals, as opposed to being a function of any Fregean descriptive senses or contents that the names and indexicals might be alleged to possess.1 Another way of expressing this idea is to say that the sole semantic contribution that a proper name or indexical can make to the propositions expressed by sentences containing the term is the term’s semantic referent. Bertrand Russell called terms of this sort ‘names in the logical sense’ (1918, 201). I will call them ‘genuine terms’. Following standard practice, I will call the propositions expressed by sentences containing genuine terms, ‘singular propositions’. Like many others, I endorse the DR-thesis. In my case, the primary reason for endorsing the thesis lies in the modal considerations first briefly introduced by John Searle (1958) and later clarified and forcefully applied by Saul Kripke (1972a), considerations which show that proper names do not have the meanings of contingent definite descriptions. David Kaplan (1989) raised related points to support the conclusion that indexical pronouns are also genuine terms. In recent work I have argued at some length that the DR-thesis entails both that (a) a sentence containing a non-referring name or indexical can express no proposition, and hence that (b) such sentences can have no truth value, that is, can be neither true or false.
    [Show full text]
  • Empty Names, Fictional Names, Mythical Names
    NOUS^ 39:4 (2005) 596–631 Empty Names, Fictional Names, Mythical Names DAVID BRAUN University of Rochester John Stuart Mill (1843) thought that proper names denote individuals and do not connote attributes. Contemporary Millians agree, in spirit. We hold that the semantic content of a proper name is simply its referent. We also think that the semantic content of a declarative sentence is a Russellian structured proposition whose constituents are the semantic contents of the sentence’s constituents.1 This proposition is what the sentence semantically expresses. Therefore, we think that sentences containing proper names semantically express singular proposi- tions, which are propositions having individuals as constituents. For instance, the sentence ‘George W. Bush is human’ semantically expresses a proposition that has Bush himself as a constituent. Call this theory Millianism.2 Many philosophers initially find Millianism quite appealing, but find it much less so after considering its many apparent problems. Among these problems are those raised by non-referring names, which are sometimes (tendentiously) called empty names.3 Plausible examples of empty names include certain names from fiction, such as ‘Sherlock Holmes’, which I shall call fictional names, and certain names from myth and false scientific theory, such as ‘Pegasus’ and ‘Vulcan’, which I shall call mythical names.4 I have defended Millianism from objections concerning empty names in previous work (Braun [1993]). In this paper, I shall re-present those objec- tions, along with some new ones. I shall then describe my previous Millian theory of empty names, and my previous replies to the objections, and consider whether the theory or replies need revision.
    [Show full text]
  • DOES FREGE HAVE a PROBLEM with EMPTY NAMES? by Hans Robin Solberg
    DOES FREGE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH EMPTY NAMES? By Hans Robin Solberg hink about the following two identity statements: flexivity of identity), while the second is not and might T carry new information. This is because although ‘Afla’ and (1)Darth Vader = Anakin Skywalker. ‘Ateb’ name the same mountain (the reference), they are (2)Darth Vader = Robin Hood. also names of two different modes of presentation of the mountain. It has been argued that on this picture senses are depen- Intuitively, given the universe of Star Wars and the story dent on the objects that are given (e.g. Evans 1982:12–13, of Robin Hood, (1) is true and (2) is false. Also, asserting 22–33). The argument goes something like this: If sense these sentences in a conversation could, very plausibly, is the way a reference is presented to us, then if there is create either agreement or disagreement. And if I were to no reference there is no way it can be presented to us, i.e. assert (2), someone correcting me on my mistake about there is no sense. Empty names lack reference. So, empty Robin Hood would be right in doing so. names have no sense. In this text I’ll show that Frege’s account of empty na- This wouldn’t be a problem for Frege if he claimed that mes is at odds with the intuitive understanding and use there is no sense without reference, but he repeatedly does. sketched above.1 The text contains four parts. Part I deals For Frege, a sense is meant to be independent4 both of with Frege’s account of sense and reference.
    [Show full text]
  • Getting Straight on How Russell Underestimated Frege *
    ARTYKUY ROCZNIKI FILOZOFICZNE Tom LXII, numer 4 – 2014 ADAM P. KUBIAK PIOTR LIPSKI * GETTING STRAIGHT ON HOW RUSSELL UNDERESTIMATED FREGE * Bertrand Russell in his essay On Denoting [1905] expounded a theory of description for natural language deVeloped as a response to the theory of semantic relations in natural language, proposed by Gottlob Frege in his paper Über Sinn und Bedeutung [1892]. That Russell presents Frege’s theory quite inadequately is a well-known and quite extensiVely inVestigated fact in the history of analytic philosophy. Some authors haVe stated that it is due to the fact that Russell was inclined to misrepresent other philosophers’ Views by forcing them into his own template [Geach 1959, p. 72; Turnau 1991, p. 52]. Discussion of Russell’s objections to Frege’s theory takes the form of elaborated critique of Russell [e.g. Searle 1958; Geach 1959; Kitis 1984; Turnau 1991], as well as of Frege [e.g. Linsky 1967; Blackburn, Code 1978; Kitis 1984; Manser 1985]. Aiming at readers who wish to become generally acquainted with the issue of Russell’s misinterpretation of Frege, our oVerall goal is to present a lucid sketch of the flaws or oVersights occurring in Russell’s On Denoting , in the context of Frege’s Über Sinn und Bedeutung , to which Russell meant to refer. We will ground our depiction of Russell’s flaws on the two papers themselVes. In more detail, we aim at: (1) proViding Mgr A DAM PAWE KUBIAK – doktorant na Wydziale Filozofii Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego Jana Pawa II; adres do korespondencji: Al. Racawickie 14, 20-950 Lublin; e-mail: [email protected] Dr P IOTR LIPSKI – asystent w Katedrze Teorii Poznania na Wydziale Filozofii Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego Jana Pawa II; adres do korespondencji: Al.
    [Show full text]
  • The Reference and Content of Proper Names: a Social and Pragmatic Approach
    THE REFERENCE AND CONTENT OF PROPER NAMES: A SOCIAL AND PRAGMATIC APPROACH DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Yimin Kui, M.A. The Ohio State University 2005 Dissertation Committee: Approved by Professor Joseph Levine, Adviser Professor Louise Antony Professor Robert Kraut ____________________________ Adviser Graduate Program in Philosophy ABSTRACT The goal of my dissertation is to propose and defend a unified account of the semantic content of proper names that can address all the following six problems facing various theories of proper names: The Modal Argument, the Epistemic Argument, the Semantic Argument, Frege’s Puzzle, Belief Puzzles, and Empty Names. I first defend a theory of reference concerning proper names. I argue that for every proper name, there is a structured web of community uses associated with it. Among the objects involved in the Kripkean causal network of the name, the object that stands out as the dominant bearer of the web of community uses is the referent of the name. Roughly, an object becomes the dominant bearer of the web of uses, if it either satisfies or causes the weighted most of the properties/uses in the web. Secondly, I examine Nathan Salmon’s and Scott Soames’s defenses of the direct reference theory. For their strategies to succeed, they need the assumption that all the properties/beliefs (or at least the specific ones) in the web of community uses of a name are pragmatically imparted information and thus semantically irrelevant information.
    [Show full text]
  • Bertrand Russell: on Denoting/Descriptions Professor Jeeloo Liu § Main Goals: 1
    Phil/Ling 375: Meaning and Mind [Handout #14] Bertrand Russell: On Denoting/Descriptions Professor JeeLoo Liu § Main Goals: 1. To show that both Frege’s and Meinong’s theories are inadequate. 2. To defend Russell’s own theory: (i) We must abandon the view that the denotation is what is concerned in propositions which contain denoting phrases. (ii) Denoting phrases never have any meaning in themselves, but that every propositions in which they occur has a meaning. [Meaning should be assigned to the whole sentence, not to the denoting phrases themselves.] 3. To explain the philosophical consequences of his theory. __ Existence was his main concern. He wants to avoid making ontological commitment to non-existent things. On Hamlet: There is only one world, the “real” world: Shakespeare’s imagination is part of it, and the thoughts that he had in writing Hamlet are real. So are the thoughts that we have in reading the play. But it is of the very essence of fiction that only the thoughts, feelings, etc., in Shakespeare and his readers are real, and that there is not, in addition to them, an objective Hamlet. The sense of reality is vital in logic, and whoever juggles with it by pretending that Hamlet has another kind of reality is doing a disservice to thought. A robust sense of reality is necessary in framing a correct analysis of propositions about unicorns, golden mountains, round squares, and other such pseudo- objects. § I. Terminology [denoting phrase]: ___ a phrase is denoting solely in virtue of its form. (1) a phrase may be denoting, and yet not denote anything ___ e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Bricker Ontological Commitment Final
    Ontological Commitment Ontology, as etymology suggests, is the study of being, of what there is. The ontologist asks: What entities or kinds of entity exist? Are there abstract entities, such as sets or numbers, in addition to concrete entities, such as people and puddles and protons? Are there properties or universals in addition to (or instead of) the particular entities that, as we say, instantiate them? Questions such as these have divided philosophers down the ages, and divide them no less to this day. Meta-ontology concerns itself with the nature and methodology of ontology, with the interpretation and significance of ontological questions such as those exhibited above. The problem of ontological commitment is a problem in meta-ontology rather than ontology proper.1 The meta-ontologist asks (among other things): What entities or kinds of entity exist according to a given theory or discourse, and thus are among its ontological commitments? Having a criterion of ontological commitment for theories is needed, arguably, if one is to systematically and rigorously attack the problem of ontology: typically, we accept entities into our ontology via accepting theories that are ontologically committed to those entities. A criterion of ontological commitment, then, is a pre-requisite for ontological inquiry. On its face, the notion of ontological commitment for theories is a simple matter. Theories have truth conditions. These truth conditions tell us how the world must be in order for the theory to be true; they make demands on the world. Sometimes, perhaps always, they demand of the world that certain entities or kinds of entity exist.
    [Show full text]
  • Russell in His Essay "On Denoting" Distinguished Two Forms of Knowledge, Such As 'Acquaintance' and 'Knowledge About'
    CHAPTER FIVE Theory of Acquaintance: Russell in his essay "On Denoting" distinguished two forms of knowledge, such as 'acquaintance' and 'knowledge about'. For him the distinction between them is "the distinction between the things we have presentations of, and the things we only reach by means of denoting phrases."511 It may be the case that certain phrase denotes unambiguously, although we have no acquaintance with what it denotes. In fact in the case of perception we have acquaintance with the objects of perception and even in the thought process we have acquaintance with objects of a more abstract logical character, but we do not necessarily have acquaintance with the objects denoted by phrases composed of words with whose meanings we are acquainted. That is why Russell inclines to say that all our thinking has to start from acquaintance, but it succeeds in thinking about many things with which we have no acquaintance. In introducing the theory of acquaintance, Russell thereby .proposes a psychological-semantical principle, which he calls the principle of acquaintance. One of his formulations of the principle reads: "Every proposition which we can understand must be composed wholly of constituents with 9 which we are acquainted". 5 According to Russell if we understand the meaning of a sentence, then we must have direct acquaintance with all the constituents of the fact, which correspond to the sentence. Russell has no reservation in claiming that there is very little with which we are directly acquainted. In dreams, fantasies and hallucination we are aware of various 'images', in some perception we are aware of sense-data (sensations, percepts).
    [Show full text]
  • To Alexius Meinong and Bertrand Russell
    To Alexius Meinong and Bertrand Russell Contents Acknowledgments 5 FRANCK LIHOREAU Introduction 7 TERENCE PARSONS Fictional Characters and Indeterminate Identity 27 BRENDAN MURDAY Two-Dimensionalism and Fictional Names 43 ERICH RAST Classical Possibilism and Fictional Objects 77 ALBERTO VOLTOLINI How Creationism Supports Kripke’s Vichianism on Fiction 93 GRAHAM PRIEST Creating Non-Existents 107 FRED ADAMS Sweet Nothings: The Semantics, Pragmatics, and Ontology of Fiction 119 R. M. SAINSBURY Fiction and Acceptance-Relative Truth, Belief and Assertion 137 ROBERT HOWELL Fictional Realism and Its Discontents 153 FREDERICK KROON The Fiction of Creationism 203 GRANT TAVINOR Virtual Worlds and Interactive Fictions 223 MANUEL REBUSCHI &MARION RENAULD Fiction, Indispensability and Truths 245 References 287 Notes on Contributors 301 Index 305 Acknowledgments My work on the book project was carried out at the Philosophy of Language Institute (IFL), New University of Lisbon. It was supported by a research fellowship from the Portuguese Science and Technology Fun- dation (FCT), and developped within the FCT-funded IFL project “Con- text & Communication” (PTDC/FIL/68643/2006). In these respects, I am particularly indebted to António Marques and João Sàágua. I have received valuable advice on essay selection, comments, sugges- tions and encouragement from a number of friends and colleagues, includ- ing Luiz Carlos Baptista, Thomas Behrens, Éric Clémençon, Gabriele De Angelis, Rijn Dutoit, Manuel García-Carpintero, Erich Rast, Manuel Re- buschi, and the authors of the essays. In addition, I truly appreciate the careful reading and extremely valuable suggestions by Mick Sweeney on certain parts of the book. I am grateful to Ontos Verlag for publishing this volume.
    [Show full text]
  • Ontology, Quantification, and Fundamentality
    ONTOLOGY, QUANTIFICATION, AND FUNDAMENTALITY BY JASON THEODORE TURNER A dissertation submitted to the Graduate School—New Brunswick Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Program in Philosophy Written under the direction of Theodore Sider and approved by New Brunswick, New Jersey May, 2008 ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION Ontology, Quantification, and Fundamentality by Jason Theodore Turner Dissertation Director: Theodore Sider The structuralist conception of metaphysics holds that it aims to uncover the ultimate structure of reality and explain how the world’s richness and variety are accounted for by that ultimate structure. On this conception, metaphysi- cians produce fundamental theories, the primitive, undefined expressions of which are supposed to ‘carve reality at its joints’, as it were. On this conception, ontological questions are understood as questions about what there is, where the existential quantifier ‘there is’ has a fundamen- tal, joint-carving interpretation. Structuralist orthodoxy holds that there is exactly one fundamental, joint-carving interpretation that an existential quan- tifier could have (cf. Sider 2008: §10). This orthodox assumption could go wrong — either by there being too few fundamental-quantifier interpretations, or by there being too many. In this dissertation I examine the implications of these non-orthodox options. Someone who thinks there are too many fundamental-quantifier interpreta- tions might think this means standard ontological debates are in some sense ii defective of ‘merely verbal’, or she might think instead that the different quan- tifiers show that there are different ‘ways’ or ‘modes’ of being. I argue that the first option runs into problems with a certain sort of realism about logic, but that there is no general problem with the second option, despite its long- standing bad philosophical reputation.
    [Show full text]
  • Russellians Can Have a No Proposition View of Empty Names∗
    Russellians can have a no proposition view of empty names∗ Thomas Hodgson† 23 August 2018 Abstract Russellians can have a no proposition view of empty names. I will defend this theory against the problem of meaningfulness, and show that the theory is in general well motivated. My solution to the problem of meaningfulness is that speakers’ judgements about meaningfulness are tracking grammaticality, and not propositional content. Contents 1 Introduction 2 1.1 Russellianism . 2 1.2 Empty names . 3 2 The no proposition view 4 2.1 Doing without propositions . 4 2.2 Meaningfulness . 5 2.2.1 Names . 5 2.2.2 Sentences . 6 2.3 Truth . 7 2.4 Judgements . 9 2.4.1 Methodology . 9 2.4.2 Judgements about meaningfulness . 10 2.4.3 Judgements about truth . 11 ∗I thank Dominic Alford-Duguid, Paloma Atencia-Linares, Michael Bench-Capon, Robyn Carston, Daniel Deasy, Tadeusz Cieciersk, Ricardo Mena Gallardo, Eduardo García-Ramírez, Kathrin Glüer-Pagin, Paweł Grabarczyk, Katarzyna Kijania-Placek, Ed Nettel, Peter Pagin, David Pereplyotchik, Stefano Predelli, Andrés Soria Ruiz, Markus Schlosser, Elmar Geir Unnsteinsson, and Dan Zeman for discussion, anonymous referees, and audiences at the Instituto de Investigaciones Filosóficas, the Third Conference of the PLM (Philosophy of Language and Mind network), the Semantics and Philosophy in Europe Eighth Colloquium, the Proper Names in Fiction workshop at the University of Warsaw, and University College Cork. I gratefully acknowledge the support of the Instituto de Investigaciones Filosóficas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México through a fellowship from the Programa de becas posdoctorales de la DGAPA-UNAM. This research was supported by an Irish Research Council Government of Ireland Postdoctoral Fellowship.
    [Show full text]