Combining Philosophers

Ideas for David J.Chalmers, A.J. Ayer and Timothy McGrew

unexpand these ideas     |    start again     |     choose another area for these philosophers

display all the ideas for this combination of philosophers


3 ideas

19. Language / D. Propositions / 1. Propositions
Sentences only express propositions if they are meaningful; otherwise they are 'statements' [Ayer]
     Full Idea: I suggest that every grammatically significant indicative sentence expresses a 'statement', but the word 'proposition' will be reserved for what is expressed by sentences that are literally meaningful.
     From: A.J. Ayer (Introduction to 'Language Truth and Logic' [1946], p.10)
     A reaction: We don't have to accept Ayer's over-fussy requirements for what is meaningful to accept that this is a good distinction. Every day we hear statements from people (e.g. politicians) in which we can fish in vain for the underlying proposition.
Two-dimensional semantics gives a 'primary' and 'secondary' proposition for each statement [Chalmers]
     Full Idea: If we see a proposition as a function from possible worlds to truth-values, then the two sets of truth-conditions yield two propositions associated with any statement. A 'primary' for those which express a truth, and 'secondary' for counterfactual truth.
     From: David J.Chalmers (The Conscious Mind [1996], 1.2.4)
     A reaction: This is where 2-D semantics becomes increasingly 'Byzantine'. Intuition and introspection don't seem to offer me two different propositions for every sentence I utter. I can't see this theory catching on, even if it is technically beautiful.
19. Language / D. Propositions / 6. Propositions Critique
Talk of propositions is just shorthand for talking about equivalent sentences [Ayer]
     Full Idea: Our talk of propositions should not be regarded as anything more than a concise way of talking about equivalent sentences.
     From: A.J. Ayer (The Central Questions of Philosophy [1973], IX.C)
     A reaction: Wrong, though I can see why he says it. We struggle to express difficult propositions by offering several similar (but not equivalent) sentences. What is the criterion for deciding his 'equivalence'?