Epistemic two-dimensionalism
ثبت نشده
چکیده
1 Four puzzles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 Epistemic two-dimensionalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1 Two-dimensional semantics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.2 Epistemic intensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.3 Excluded vocabulary and the construction of scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3 Epistemic two-dimensionalism and the four puzzles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1 The a priori . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2 Cognitive significance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.2.1 Structured epistemic intensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.2.2 Structured epistemic intensions + logical truth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.2.3 Three-dimensionalism? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.3 Substitution failures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3.3.1 A simple semantics for attitude ascriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3.3.2 The semantics once-complicated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 3.3.3 The semantics twice-complicated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 3.3.4 A fallback position . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 3.4 The problem of the essential indexical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
منابع مشابه
Epistemic Two-dimensionalism and Arguments from Epistemic Misclassification
Epistemic Two-Dimensional Semantics (E2D) claims that expressions have a counterfactual intension and an epistemic intension. Epistemic intensions reflect cognitive significance such that sentences with necessary epistemic intensions are a priori. We defend E2D against an influential line of criticism: arguments from epistemic misclassification. We focus in particular on the arguments of Speaks...
متن کاملLow-Grade Two-Dimensionalism
1. Two-dimensionalists often rely on the assumption that “a posteriori information only tells us about our world” (Chalmers (1996), 137). This assumption backs their rejection of what Chalmers calls “strong metaphysical necessities”, since such necessities would be forever beyond our epistemic reach. But I see no reason to accept this epistemological constraint, and much reason to reject it. No...
متن کاملConceivability, Possibility and Two-Dimensional Semantics
Kripke (1980) famously separates the metaphysical and epistemic modal domains, with supposed necessary a posteriori identity statements such as ‘Hesperus is Phosphorus’, appearing to create an irreconcilable gap between conceivability and possibility. In response to this problem, David Chalmers (2002, 2004a, 2006) uses two-dimensional modal semantics (2DS) to claim that conceivability entails p...
متن کاملTwo-dimensional semantics and the nesting problem∗
Graeme Forbes (2011) raises some problems for two-dimensional semantic theories. The problems concern nested environments: linguistic environments where sentences are nested under both modal and epistemic operators. Closely related problems involving nested environments have been raised by Scott Soames (2005) and Josh Dever (2007). Soames (forthcoming) goes so far as to say that nested environm...
متن کاملAxiomatizing Epistemic Logic of Friendship via Tree Sequent Calculus
This paper positively solves an open problem if it is possible to provide a Hilbert system to Epistemic Logic of Friendship (EFL) by Seligman, Girard and Liu. To find a Hilbert system, we first introduce a sound, complete and cut-free tree (or nested) sequent calculus for EFL, which is an integrated combination of Seligman’s sequent calculus for basic hybrid logic and a tree sequent calculus fo...
متن کامل