Hostname: page-component-669899f699-8p65j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-29T15:50:32.541Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The metaphysics of propositional constituency

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Lorraine Keller
Lorraine Keller*
Affiliation:
909 Onondaga Street, Lewiston, NY14092, United States
*
*Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper, I criticize Structured Propositionalism, the most widely held theory of the nature of propositions according to which they are structured entities with constituents. I argue that the proponents of Structured Propositionalism have paid insufficient attention to the metaphysical presuppositions of the view – most egregiously, to the notion of propositional constituency. This is somewhat ironic, since the friends of structured propositions tend to argue as if the appeal to constituency gives their view a dialectical advantage. I criticize four different approaches to providing a metaphysics of propositional constituency: set-theoretic, mereological, hylomorphic, and structure-making. Finally, I consider the option of taking constituency in a deflationary, metaphysically ‘lightweight’ sense. I argue that, though invoking constituency in a lightweight sense may be useful for avoiding the ontological problems that plague the ‘heavyweight’ conception, it no longer proffers a dialectical advantage to Structured Propositionalism.

Keywords

propositionsstructuremereologyRussellFrege
Type
Constituents and Constituency
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 43 , Issue 5-6: Special issue: Essays on the Nature of Propositions , December 2013 , pp. 655 - 678
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Journal of Philosophy 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

1

Thanks to John Keller, Michael Rea, Jeff Speaks, Marian David, and the editors of this journal for helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper.

References

Almog, Joseph. 1986. “Naming Without Necessity.” The Journal of Philosophy 83 (4): 210–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armstrong, D. M. 1978. Universals and Scientific Realism. Volumes I and II Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Armstrong, D. M. 1993. “A World of States of Affairs.” Philosophical Perspectives 7: 429–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bach, Kent. 2006. “The Excluded Middle: Semantic Minimalism Without Minimal Propositions.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 73 (2): 435–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bealer, George. 1998. “Propositions.” Mind 107 (425): 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benacerraf, Paul. 1965. “What Numbers Could Not Be.” Philosophical Review 74 (1): 47–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolzano, Bernard. 1837/1973. Theory of Science, Edited and introduction by Jan Berg, translated by Burnham Terrell. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Braun, David. 1993. “Empty Names.” Nous 27 (4): 449–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braun, David. 2005. “Empty Names, Fictional Names, Mythical Names.” Nous 39: 596–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chalmers, David. 2006. “Probability and Propositions.”, Online Philosophy Conference, May 2006. http://consc.net/papers/probability.pdf.Google Scholar
David, Marian. 2009. “Defending Existentialism?” In States of Affairs, edited by Reicher, Maria, 1–42. Frankfurt: Ontos Verlag.Google Scholar
Fine, Kit. 1985. “Plantinga on the Reduction of Possibilist Discourse.” In Plantinga, edited by Tomberlin, J. E., and van Inwagen, P., 145–186. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, Kit. 1999. “Things and Their Parts.” In Directions in Philosophy: Midwest Studies in Philosophy, Volume XXIII, edited by French, Peter, and Wettstein, Howard, 61–74. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Fine, Kit. 2010. “Towards a Theory of Part.” Journal of Philosophy 107 (11): 559–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, Jerry. 2009. “It ain't in the head.” Review of Michael Tye's Consciousness Revisited, in Times Literary Supplement, October 16, 2009.Google Scholar
Frege, Gottlob. 1892/1952. “On Sinn and Bedeutung.” In Translations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege, edited by Beaney, Michael, translated by Max Black, Blackwell; reprinted in The Frege Reader. Malden, MA and Oxford: Blackwell, 1997.Google Scholar
Frege, Gottlob. 1914/1979. “Logic in Mathematics.” In Gottlob Frege: Posthumous Writings, edited by Hermes, H., Kambartel, F., and Kaulbach, F.. Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Frege, Gottlob. 1918/1956. “The Thought: A Logical Inquiry.” Translated by A.M., and Quinton, Marcelle, Mind 65: 289–311. Reprinted in Readings in the Philosophy of Language, edited by Ludlow, Peter, 1997. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Frege, Gottlob. 1918–19/1984. “Negation.” In Collected Papers on Mathematics, Logic, and Philosophy, edited by McGuinness, B., translated by Geach, P., and Stoothoff, R.H.. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Frege, Gottlob. 1923/1984. “Compound Thoughts.” In Collected Papers on Mathematics, Logic, and Philosophy, edited by McGuinness, B., translated by Geach, P., and Stoothoff, R.H.. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gabriel, G., et al. 1980. Gottlob Frege: Philosophical and Mathematical Correspondence. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gilmore, Cody. Forthcoming. “Parts of Propositions.” In Mereology and Location, edited by Kleinschmidt, Shieva. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hanks, Peter. 2011. “Structured Propositions as Types.” Mind 120 (477): 11–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofweber, Thomas. 2005. “Supervenience and Object-Dependent Properties.” Journal of Philosophy CII (1): 1–28.Google Scholar
Hovda, Paul. 2009. “What is Classical Mereology?” Journal of Philosophical Logic 38: 55–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, Mark. 2006. “Hylomorphism.” Journal of Philosophy, 2006.Google Scholar
Jubien, Michael. 2001. “Propositions and the Objects of Thought.” Philosophical Studies 104: 47–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keller, Lorraine Juliano. 2012. Whence Structured Propositions?, Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation for the University of Notre Dame.Google Scholar
Keller, Lorraine Juliano. Forthcoming. “Compositionality and Structured Propositions.” Thought.Google Scholar
King, Jeffrey C. 2007. The Nature and Structure of Content. Oxford: OUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Jeffrey C. 2011. “Structured Propositions.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2011 Edition), URL=<http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2011/entries/propositions-structured/> edited by Zalta, Edward N..+edited+by+Zalta,+Edward+N..>Google Scholar
Koslicki, Kathrin. 2008. The Structure of Objects. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koslicki, Kathrin. Forthcoming. “Mereological Sums and Singular Terms.” In Mereology and Location, edited by Kleinschmidt, Shieva. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Künne, Wolfgang. 2008. “Constituents of Concepts: Bolzano vs. Frege.” In Versuche über Bolzano (Essays on Bolzano). Sankt Augustin: Academia Verlag.Google Scholar
Leonard, H. S., and Goodman, N.. 1940. “The Calculus of Individuals and Its Uses.” Journal of Symbolic Logic 5: 45–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, David. 1979. “Attitudes De Dicto and De Se.” Philosophical Review 88 (4): 513–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, David. 1986. “Against Structural Universals.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 64 (1): 25–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, David. 1991. Parts of Classes. Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Loux, Michael. 2006. “Aristotle's Constituent Ontology.” In Oxford Studies in Metaphysics, Vol. 2, edited by Zimmerman, Dean W., 207–250. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
McDaniel, Kris. 2004. “Modal Realism with Overlap.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 82 (1): 137–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDaniel, Kris. 2009. “Structure-Making.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 87 (2): 251–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meinong, Alexius. 1904/1960. “The Theory of Objects.” In Realism and the Background of Phenomenology, edited by Chisholm, Roderick M.. Illinois: Free Press.Google Scholar
Merricks, Trenton. 2009. “Propositional Attitudes?” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 109: 207–232, url: http://pages.shanti.virginia.edu/merricks/files/2010/05/PropAttitudes.pdf (page numbering from online version).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plantinga, Alvin. 1974. The Nature of Necessity. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Plantinga, Alvin. 1983. ȁOn Existentialism.” Philosophical Studies 44: 1–20; reprinted in Essays in the Metaphysics of Modality, edited by M. Davidson. Oxford: OUP, 2003.Google Scholar
Plantinga, Alvin. 1985. “Replies to My Colleagues.” In Alvin Plantinga, edited by Tomberlin, J., and van Inwagen, P., 313–329. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rea, Michael C. 1998. “In Defense of Mereological Universalism.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 58 (2): 347–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richard, Mark. 1990. Propositional Attitudes: An Essay on Thoughts and How We Ascribe Them. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, Bertrand. 1903. The Principles of Mathematics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Russell, Bertrand. 1918/1956. “The Philosophy of Logical Atomism.” In Logic and Knowledge: Essays 1901–1950, edited by Charles Marsh, Robert, 175–182. New York: MacMillan Company.Google Scholar
Salmon, Nathan. 1986. Frege's Puzzle. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Salmon, N., and Soames, S., eds. 1990. Propositional Attitudes. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Schiffer, Stephen. 2003. The Things We Mean. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schiffer, Stephen. 2011. “Propositions: What Are They Good For?” In Prospects for Meaning, edited by Schantz, R.. de Gruyter Press, Page numbering from online version: http://philosophy.fas.nyu.edu/docs/IO/1176/SchantzPropositions.pdf.Google Scholar
Sider, Theodore. 2007. “Parthood.” Philosophical Review 116: 51–91, Page numbering from online version: http://www.tedsider.org/papers/parthood.pdf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sider, Theodore. 2012. Writing the Book of the World. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Simons, Peter. 1987. Parts: A Study in Ontology. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Simons, Peter. 2003. “The Universe.” Ratio 16 (3): 236–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soames, Scott. 1987. “Direct Reference, Propositional Attitudes, and Semantic Content.” Philosophical Topics 15 (1): 47–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soames, Scott. 2010. “What is Meaning?” Princeton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Speaks, Jeff. Forthcoming. “On Possibly Nonexistent Propositions.” In Philosophy and Phenomenological Research.Google Scholar
Speaks, Jeff (with Jeff King and Scott Soames). Forthcoming. New Thinking About Propositions. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert. 1976. “Propositions.” edited by Martinich, A. P.. Reprinted in The Philosophy of Language. New York and Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert. 2012. Possibilities: Metaphysical Foundations of Modal Semantics, Princeton.Google Scholar
Tillman, Chris, and Fowler, Gregory. 2012. “Propositions and Parthood: The Universe and Anti-symmetry.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 90 (3): 525–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Inwagen, Peter. 1986. “Two Concepts of Possible Worlds.” In Midwest Studies in Philosophy 9; reprinted in Ontology, Identity, and Modality, 206–242. Cambridge University Press, 2001.Google Scholar
van Inwagen, Peter. 1987. “When Are Objects Parts?” Philosophical Perspectives 1: 21–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Inwagen, Peter. 2004. “A Theory of Properties.” In Oxford Studies in Metaphysics: Volume 1, edited by Zimmerman, Dean W., 106–138.Google Scholar
Varzi, Achille. 2006. “The Universe Among Other Things.” In Ratio (new series) XIX: 107–119.Google Scholar
Varzi, Achille. 2011. “Mereology.” In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2011 Edition), edited by Zalta, Edward N.. URL=<>http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2011/entries/mereology/.Google Scholar
Wettstein, Howard. 2004. The Magic Prism: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Oxford: OUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar