Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-c75p9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-22T22:12:00.168Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

PARADOXES OF INTENSIONALITY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2011

DUSTIN TUCKER  and
RICHMOND H. THOMASON
DUSTIN TUCKER*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Michigan
RICHMOND H. THOMASON*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Michigan
*
*DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, ANN ARBOR, MI 48109, E-mail:dtuck@umich.edu
†DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, ANN ARBOR, MI 48109, E-mail:rthomaso@umich.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We identify a class of paradoxes that is neither set-theoretical nor semantical, but that seems to depend on intensionality. In particular, these paradoxes arise out of plausible properties of propositional attitudes and their objects. We try to explain why logicians have neglected these paradoxes, and to show that, like the Russell Paradox and the direct discourse Liar Paradox, these intensional paradoxes are recalcitrant and challenge logical analysis. Indeed, when we take these paradoxes seriously, we may need to rethink the commonly accepted methods for dealing with the logical paradoxes.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Symbolic Logic , Volume 4 , Issue 3 , September 2011 , pp. 394 - 411
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2011

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

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Almog, J., & Leonardi, P., editors. (2009). The Philosophy of David Kaplan. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, C. A. (1980). Some new axioms for the logic of sense and denotation: Alternative (0). Noûs, 14, 217–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, C. A. (1987). Semantical antinomies in the logic of sense and denotation. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 28, 99–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barwise, J., & Etchemendy, J. (1987). The Liar. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bealer, G. (1982). Quality and Concept. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beth, E. W. (1959). The Foundations of Mathematics. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North-Holland Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Braithwaite, R. B., editor. (1931). The Foundations of Mathematics and Other Essays. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Collected papers of Frank P. Ramsey.Google Scholar
Burge, T. (1979). Semantical paradox. Journal of Philosophy, 76, 169–198.Google Scholar
Burge, T. (1984). Epistemic paradox. Journal of Philosophy, 81, 5–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Church, A. (1951). A formulation of the logic of sense and denotation. In Henle, P., Kallen, H. M., and Langer, S. K., editors. Structure, Method, and Meaning: Essays in Honor of Henry M. Scheffer. New York, NY: Liberal Arts Press.Google Scholar
Church, A. (1976). Comparison of Russell’s resolution of the semantical antinomies with that of Tarski. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 41, 747–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Church, A. (1993). A revised formulation of the logic of sense and denotation. Alternative (1). Noûs, 27, 141–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. H., & Gerrig, R. J. (1990). Quotations as demonstrations. Language, 66, 764–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fagin, R., Halpern, J. Y., Moses, Y., & Vardi, M. Y. (1995). Reasoning about Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fitch, F. B. (1964). Universal metalanguages for philosophy. Review of Metaphysics, 17, 396–402.Google Scholar
Fraenkel, A. A., & Bar-Hillel, Y. (1958). Foundations of Set Theory (first edition). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North-Holland Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Gallin, D. (1975). Intensional and Higher-Order Logic. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North-Holland Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Glanzberg, M. (2004). A context-hierarchical approach to truth and the liar paradox. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 33, 27–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groeneveld, W. (1994). Dynamic semantics and circular propositions. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 23, 267–306.Google Scholar
Hintikka, J. (1970). Knowledge, belief, and logical consequence. Ajatus, 32, 32–47.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1965). The Philosophy of Grammar. New York, NY: W.W. Norton. (This work was originally published in 1924.).Google Scholar
Kaplan, D. (1995). A problem in possible-world semantics. In Sinnott-Armstrong, W., Raffman, D., and Asher, N., editors. Modality, Morality, and Belief: Essays in Honor of Ruth Barcan Marcus. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 41–52.Google Scholar
Klement, K. C. (2002). Frege and the Logic of Sense and Reference. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kneale, W. C. (1972). Propositions and truth in natural languages. Mind, New Series, 81, 225–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kneale, W., & Kneale, M. (1962). The Development of Logic. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kripke, S. (1975). Outline of a theory of truth. Journal of Philosophy, 72, 690–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindström, S. (2003a). Frege’s paradise and the paradoxes. In Segerberg, K., and Sliwinski, R., editors. A Philosophical Smorgasbord: Essays on Action, Truth, and Other Things in Honor of Frederick Stoutland, Vol. 52 of Uppsala Philosophical Studies. Uppsala, Sweden: Uppsala University.Google Scholar
Lindström, S. (2003b). Possible-worlds semantics and the liar: Reflections on a problem posed by Kaplan. In Rojszxzak, A., Cacro, J., and Kurczewski, G., editors. Philosophical Dimensions of Logic and Science: Selected Contributed Papers from the 11th International Congress of Logic, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science, Vol. 320 of Synthese Library. Dordrect, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 297–314. Reprinted in (Almog & Leonardi, 2009, pp. 93–108).Google Scholar
Montague, R. (1970). Pragmatics and intensional logic. Synthèse, 22, 68–94. Reprinted in Formal Philosophy, by Richard Montague, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, 1974, pp. 119–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myhill, J. (1958). Problems arising in the formalization of intensional logic. Logique et Analyse, 1, 78–83.Google Scholar
Parsons, C. (1974). The liar paradox. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 3, 381–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Priest, G. (2005). Doubt Truth to be a Liar. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Prior, A. N. (1961). On a family of paradoxes. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 2, 16–32.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. (1963). Set Theory and Its Logic. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramsey, F. P. (1925). The foundations of mathematics. Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, Series 2, 25, 338–384. Reprinted in (Braithwaite (1931).Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. C. (1984). Inquiry. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sullivan, P. M. (2003). A note on incompleteness and heterologicality. Analysis, 63, 32–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomason, R. H. (1980). A model theory for propositional attitudes. Linguistics and Philosophy, 4, 47–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tucker, D. (2011). Outline of a theory of quantification. Forthcoming in a volume on Principia Mathematica, edited by Nicholas Griffin and Bernard Linsky.Google Scholar
Wu, K. J. (1970). Hintikka and defensibility. Ajatus, 32, 25–31.Google Scholar
Yablo, S. (1993). Paradox without self-reference. Analysis, 53, 251–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar