Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Marti on Descriptions in Carnap’s S.Michael Kremer - 1997 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 26 (6):629-634.
    This note is a friendly amendment to Marti's analysis of the failure of Føllesdal's argument that modal distinctions collapse in Carnap's logic S2. Føllesdal's argument turns on the treatment of descriptions. Marti considers how modal descriptions, which Carnap banned, might be handled; she adopts an approach which blocks Føllesdal's argument, but requires a separate treatment of non-modal descriptions. I point out that a more general treatment of descriptions in S2 is possible, and indeed is implicit in Marti's informal discussion, and (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   19 citations  
  • The elimination of de re formulas.Michael Kaminski - 1997 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 26 (4):411-422.
    It is shown that de re formulas are eliminable in the modal logic S5 extended with the axiom scheme □∃xφ ⊃ ∃x□φ.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Russell's Revenge: A Problem for Bivalent Fregean Theories of Descriptions.Jan Heylen - 2017 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 98 (4):636-652.
    Fregean theories of descriptions as terms have to deal with improper descriptions. To save bivalence various proposals have been made that involve assigning referents to improper descriptions. While bivalence is indeed saved, there is a price to be paid. Instantiations of the same general scheme, viz. the one and only individual that is F and G is G, are not only allowed but even required to have different truth values.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Carnap’s Theory of Descriptions and its Problems.Jan Heylen - 2010 - Studia Logica 94 (3):355-380.
    Carnap's theory of descriptions was restricted in two ways. First, the descriptive conditions had to be non-modal. Second, only primitive predicates or the identity predicate could be used to predicate something of the descriptum . The motivating reasons for these two restrictions that can be found in the literature will be critically discussed. Both restrictions can be relaxed, but Carnap's theory can still be blamed for not dealing adequately with improper descriptions.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  • Rethinking Quine’s Argument on the Collapse of Modal Distinctions.Genoveva Martí - 1997 - Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 38 (2):276-294.
    This paper examines and discusses an argument for the collapse of modal distincions offered by Quine in "Reference and Modality" and in Word and Object that relies exclusively on a version of the Principle of Substitution. It is argued that the argument does not affect its historical targets: Carnap's treatment of modality, presented in Meaning and Necessity, and Church's Logic of Sense and Denotation, developed by Kaplan; nor does it affect a treatment of modality inspired in Frege's treatment of oblique (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Carnapian Modal and Epistemic Arithmetic.Heylen Jan - 2009 - In Carrara Massimiliano & Morato Vittorio (eds.), Language, Knowledge, and Metaphysics. Selected papers from the First SIFA Graduate Conference. College Publications. pp. 97-121.
    The subject of the first section is Carnapian modal logic. One of the things I will do there is to prove that certain description principles, viz. the ''self-predication principles'', i.e. the principles according to which a descriptive term satisfies its own descriptive condition, are theorems and that others are not. The second section will be devoted to Carnapian modal arithmetic. I will prove that, if the arithmetical theory contains the standard weak principle of induction, modal truth collapses to truth. Then (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation