VIII—Propositions and Cognitive Relations

Q1 Arts and Humanities
Nicholas K. Jones
{"title":"VIII—Propositions and Cognitive Relations","authors":"Nicholas K. Jones","doi":"10.1093/ARISOC/AOZ013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n There are two broad approaches to theorizing about ontological categories. Quineans use first-order quantifiers to generalize over entities of each category, whereas type theorists use quantification on variables of different semantic types to generalize over different categories. Does anything of import turn on the difference between these approaches? If so, are there good reasons to go type-theoretic? I argue for positive answers to both questions concerning the category of propositions. I also discuss two prominent arguments for a Quinean conception of propositions, concerning their role in natural language semantics and apparent quantification over propositions within natural language. It will emerge that even if these arguments are sound, there need be no deep question about Quinean propositions’ true nature, contrary to much recent work on the metaphysics of propositions.","PeriodicalId":35222,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Aristotelean Society","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/ARISOC/AOZ013","citationCount":"12","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the Aristotelean Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ARISOC/AOZ013","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12

Abstract

There are two broad approaches to theorizing about ontological categories. Quineans use first-order quantifiers to generalize over entities of each category, whereas type theorists use quantification on variables of different semantic types to generalize over different categories. Does anything of import turn on the difference between these approaches? If so, are there good reasons to go type-theoretic? I argue for positive answers to both questions concerning the category of propositions. I also discuss two prominent arguments for a Quinean conception of propositions, concerning their role in natural language semantics and apparent quantification over propositions within natural language. It will emerge that even if these arguments are sound, there need be no deep question about Quinean propositions’ true nature, contrary to much recent work on the metaphysics of propositions.
命题与认知关系
关于本体论范畴的理论化有两种广泛的方法。Quineans使用一阶量词在每个类别的实体上进行泛化,而类型理论家使用不同语义类型的变量的量化在不同类别上进行泛化。这些方法之间的区别有什么重要意义吗?如果是这样的话,是否有充分的理由进行类型论?我主张对关于命题范畴的两个问题都给予肯定的回答。我还讨论了奎因命题概念的两个突出论点,涉及它们在自然语言语义中的作用和对自然语言中命题的明显量化。与最近关于命题形而上学的许多工作相反,即使这些论点是合理的,也不需要对奎因命题的真实性质提出深刻的质疑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Proceedings of the Aristotelean Society
Proceedings of the Aristotelean Society Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: The Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society contains the papers read at the Society"s fortnightly meetings in London throughout the academic year, and short discussion notes on these papers. Papers are drawn from an international base of contributors and discuss issues across a broad range of philosophical traditions, including those which are of greatest current interest.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信