Propositions: What They Could and What They Could not Be

Abstracta 2 (2):129-147 (2006)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

I defend the Fregean model of propositions: propositions are the referents of that-clauses and structured entities made of concepts. Schiffer has presented a group of arguments against the Fregean model and advanced an alternative view: propositions are unstructured pleonastic entities. My purpose is twofold: to counter each of his arguments sketching the guidelines for a theory of concepts as basic constituents of propositions; to maintain that the notion of pleonastic entity is not robust enough for claiming the existence of propositions.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 100,676

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Pleonastic Propositions.Stephen Schiffer - 2005 - In Bradley P. Armour-Garb & J. C. Beall (eds.), Deflationary Truth. Open Court Press. pp. 353--81.
Schiffer’s New Theory of Propositions. [REVIEW]Thomas Hofweber - 2006 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 73 (1):211–217.
Objects of Thought.Ian Rumfitt - 2016 - In Gary Ostertag (ed.), Meanings and Other Things: Themes From the Work of Stephen Schiffer. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Pleonastic propositions and de re belief.Gary Ostertag - 2020 - Philosophical Studies 177 (11):3529-3547.
Propositionen als ontologische Leichtgewichte.Alexander Steinberg - 2021 - Zeitschrift für Philosophische Forschung 75 (1):56-70.

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-11-06

Downloads
42 (#529,233)

6 months
20 (#144,248)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references