Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T05:27:02.820Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Propositions, attitudinal objects, and the distinction between actions and products

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Friederike Moltmann
Friederike Moltmann*
Affiliation:
Research Director Centre, Nationale de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) Institut d'Histoire et de Philosophie, des Sciences et des Techniques (IHPST), 13 rue du Four, 75006Paris, France
*
*Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Propositions as mind-independent abstract objects raise serious problems such as their cognitive accessibility and their ability to carry essential truth conditions, as a number of philosophers have recently pointed out. This paper argues that ‘attitudinal objects’ or kinds of them should replace propositions as truth bearers and as the (shared) objects of propositional attitudes. Attitudinal objects, entities like judgments, beliefs, and claims, are not states or actions, but rather their (spatio-temporally coincident) products, following the distinction between actions and products introduced by Twardowski (1912). The paper argues that the action–product distinction is not tied to particular terms in a particular language, but is to be understood as the more general distinction between an action and the (abstract or physically realized) artifact that it creates. It thus includes the distinction between the passing of a law and the law itself and an act of artistic creation and the created work of art.

Keywords

Propositionsartifactsattitudinal objectsaction-product distinction
Type
Theoretical Alternatives to Propositions
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 43 , Issue 5-6: Special issue: Essays on the Nature of Propositions , December 2013 , pp. 679 - 701
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.)

References

Aune, B. 1967. “Statements and Propositions.” Nous 1: 215–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Betti, A. 2010. “Kazimierz Twardowski.” In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Online.Google Scholar
Benacerraf, P. 1965. “What Numbers could not be.” Philosophical Review 74: 47–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bobryk, J. 2009. “The Genesis and History of Twardowski's Theory of Actions and Products.” In The Golden Age of Polish Philosophy. Kazimierz Twardowski's Philosophical Legacy, edited by Lapointe, S., et al., 33–42. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boghossian, P. 2003. “The Normativity of Content.” Philosophical Issues 13: 31–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dubucs, J., and Miskiewics, W.. 2009. “Logic, Act and Product.” In Knowledge and Judgment, edited by Primiero, G., 85–108. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Frege, G. 1918/9. “Thoughts.” In Collected Papers on Mathematics, Logic, and Philosophy, edited by McGuiness, B., 351–372. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gaskin, R. 2008. The Unity of Propositions. Oxford: Oxford UP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbard, A. 2005. “Truth and Correct Belief.” Philosophical Issues 15: 338–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanks, P. W. 2007. “The Content-Force Distinction.” Philosophical Studies 134: 141–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanks, P. W. 2011. “Propositions as Types.” Mind 120: 11–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingarden, R. 1931. Das Literarische Kunstwerk. Niemeyer, Halle [The Literary Work of Art]. Translated by Grabowicz, George G.. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Jubien, M. 2001. “Propositions and the Objects of Thought.” Philosophical Studies 104: 47–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, J. 2007. The Nature and Structure of Content. Oxford: Oxford UP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, R. 2007. The Measure of Mind. Propositional Attitudes and their Attribution. Oxford: Oxford UP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moltmann, F. 2003a. “Nominalizing Quantifiers.” Journal of Philosophical Logic 35 (5): 445–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moltmann, F. 2003b. “Propositional Attitudes without Propositions.” Synthese 135: 70–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moltmann, F. 2013. Abstract Objects and the Semantics of Natural Language. Oxford: Oxford UP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, J. G. 1999. “Propositions, Numbers, and the Problem of Arbitrary Identification.” Synthese 120: 229–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schiffer, S. 2003. The Things we Mean. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soames, S. 1987. “Direct Reference, Propositional Attitudes, and Semantic Content.” Philosophical Topics 15: 47–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soames, S. 2010. What is Meaning? Princeton: Princeton UP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soames, S. Forthcoming. Hempel Lectures.Google Scholar
Thomasson, A. 1999. Fiction and Metaphysics. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.Google Scholar
Thomasson, A. 2004. “The Ontology of Art.” In The Blackwell Guide to Aesthetics, edited by Kivy, P., 78–92. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Twardowski, K. 1912. “Actions and Products. Some Remarks on the Borderline of Psychology, Grammar, and Logic.” In Kazimierz Twardowski. On Actions, Products, and Other Topics in the Philosophy, edited by Brandl, J. and Wolenski, J., 1999, 103–132. Amsterdam and Atlanta: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Williamson, T. 2000. Knowledge and its Limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar