×

On hierarchical propositions. (English) Zbl 1484.03012

Summary: There is an apparent dilemma for hierarchical accounts of propositions, raised by B. Whittle [ibid. 46, No. 2, 215–231 (2017; Zbl 1417.03107)]: either such accounts do not offer adequate treatment of connectives and quantifiers, or they eviscerate the logic. I discuss what a plausible hierarchical conception of propositions might amount to, and show that on that conception, Whittle’s dilemma is not compelling. Thus, there are good reasons why proponents of hierarchical accounts of propositions (such as Russell, Church, or Kaplan) did not see the difficulty Whittle raises.

MSC:

03A05 Philosophical and critical aspects of logic and foundations
03B38 Type theory

Citations:

Zbl 1417.03107
PDFBibTeX XMLCite
Full Text: DOI

References:

[1] Church, A., Comparison of Russell’s Resolution of the semantical Antinomies with that of Tarski, Journal of Symbolic Logic, 41, 4, 747-760 (1976) · Zbl 0383.03005 · doi:10.2307/2272393
[2] Giaquinto, M., The search for certainty (2002), Oxford: Clarendon Press, Oxford · Zbl 1027.00003
[3] Gödel, K. (1944). Russell’s mathematical logic. In Schlipp, P.A. (Ed.) The philosophy of Bertrand Russell (pp. 125-153). New York: Tudor Publishing Company.
[4] Goldfarb, W. (1989). Russell’s reasons for ramification. In Savage, C.W., & Anderson, C.A. (Eds.) Rereading Russell: essays on Bertrand Russell’s metaphysics and epistemology (pp. 24-40). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. · Zbl 1366.01025
[5] Hodes, H., Why Ramify?, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 56, 2, 379-415 (2015) · Zbl 1322.03010 · doi:10.1215/00294527-2864352
[6] Jung, D., Russell, presupposition, and the vicious circle principle, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 40, 1, 55-80 (1999) · Zbl 0968.03012 · doi:10.1305/ndjfl/1039096305
[7] Kaplan, D. (1995). A problem in possible world semantics. In Raffman, D., Sinnott-Armstrong, W., Asher, N. (Eds.) Modality, morality and belief: essays in honor of Ruth Barcan Marcus (pp. 41-52). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[8] Myhill, J., Problems arising in the formalization of intensional logic, Logique et Analyse, 1, 78-83 (1958)
[9] Prior, A., On a family of paradoxes, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 2, 16-32 (1961) · Zbl 0112.00408 · doi:10.1305/ndjfl/1093956750
[10] Quine, Wvo, Set Theory and Its Logic (1969), Cambridge: Belknap Press, Cambridge · Zbl 0193.30402
[11] Ramsey, Fp, The foundations of mathematics, Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, 2, 25, 338-384 (1926) · JFM 52.0046.01 · doi:10.1112/plms/s2-25.1.338
[12] Russell, B., The Principles of Mathematics (1903), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge · JFM 34.0062.14
[13] Russell, B., Mathematical logic as based on a theory of types, American Journal of Mathematics, 30, 222-262 (1908) · JFM 39.0085.03 · doi:10.2307/2369948
[14] Russell, B., Introduction to mathematical philosophy (1971), Simon and Schuster: New York, Simon and Schuster
[15] Whittle, B., Hierarchical propositions, Journal of Philosophical Logic, 46, 215-231 (2017) · Zbl 1417.03107 · doi:10.1007/s10992-016-9399-5
This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. In some cases that data have been complemented/enhanced by data from zbMATH Open. This attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming completeness or a perfect matching.