Proto 17.pmd

I consider whether the content of a speech act is best represented by a set of possible worlds or by an ordered set containing the individual and properties the speech act is about. I argue that there is nothing in such contents that an ordered set can represent that a set of worlds cannot. In particular, both can be used to capture what is distinctive about singular propositions. But a set of worlds better represents content in cases where the content concerns individuals that no longer exist. It is also better at representing how content can be expressed in different ways, and how assertion relates to the pursuit of truth. Finally, representing content by a set of worlds allows for a clearer view of the puzzle about logical omniscience, even though it is often taken to founder on that puzzle. Suppose Jones were to say something in assertively uttering (1). (1) Tony Blair is a proud father. Jones said things to be a certain way. A natural thought is that to report what Jones said one need only report how he said things to be: how things would be if things were as he said them to be. This natural thought supports a proposal about how we might represent what he said. Putting it picturesquely, we could represent what Jones said by a set of possible worlds: those where things are as he said them to be. I am inclined to think that this natural thought and the proposal it supports are right. But both are now almost universally rejected. All sides (or almost all) agree that whatever we use to represent what Jones said must determine that set of possible worlds. But most contend that this is not enough. There is, they claim, more to represent in what Jones said than is represented, or representable, by a set of possible worlds. According to one view, what Jones said can be better represented by an ordered set containing Tony Blair and the prop1 This proposal is familiar from the work of Robert Stalnaker. See the papers collected in (Stalnaker 1999). But it is also found, though less picturesquely, in Charles Travis’ work, especially (Travis 2000). What I say here, and especially in section 5, owes an important debt to their work.