Inscriptionalism and intensionality

Philosophia 41 (2):567-585 (2013)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Intensional contexts are typically characterised by an apparent failure of either (A) the principle of the inter-substitution of co-referring terms salva veritate, or (B) existential generalisation. The difficulties which are seen to occur do so in contexts involving either modality or the propositional attitudes. In this paper attempts are made to determine whether or not Scheffler’s inscriptional analysis can provide a viable means of accounting for the problems which are thought to occur in intensional contexts. Somewhat unexpectedly, little effort has been made in the past to address this issue. In this paper it is shown that Scheffler’s theory may be employed to account for the difficulties mentioned above, though further work needs to be done to show precisely how his analysis may be adapted so as to handle modal statements. Popular objections to Scheffler’s inscriptionalism are also addressed, particularly in the light of his theory being used to account for the problems of intensionality. It is found that, with certain qualifications, the aforesaid objections do not show Scheffler’s theory to be an unviable means of accounting for the intensionality problems

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,164

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Postscript on inscriptionalism.Israel Scheffler - 1965 - Journal of Philosophy 62 (6):158-160.
Intensionality and perception: A reply to Rosenberg.Mohan Matthen - 1989 - Journal of Philosophy 86 (December):727-733.
Intentionality and intensionality.James W. Cornman - 1962 - Philosophical Quarterly 12 (January):44-52.
Inscriptionalism and the objects of explanation.Samuel Gorovitz - 1970 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 21 (3):247-256.
Paradoxes of intensionality.Dustin Tucker & Richmond H. Thomason - 2011 - Review of Symbolic Logic 4 (3):394-411.
Intensionality and the gödel theorems.David D. Auerbach - 1985 - Philosophical Studies 48 (3):337--51.
Intensionality and the nature of a musical work.David Pearce - 1988 - British Journal of Aesthetics 28 (2):105-118.

Analytics

Added to PP
2012-12-05

Downloads
55 (#277,782)

6 months
21 (#115,623)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

David Parsons
Murray State University

Citations of this work

R. M. Martin’s Logic of Belief.David Parsons - 2017 - History and Philosophy of Logic 38 (1):72-86.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Word and Object.Willard Van Orman Quine - 1960 - Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.
Word and Object.Willard Van Orman Quine - 1960 - Les Etudes Philosophiques 17 (2):278-279.
On sense and reference.Gottlob Frege - 2010 - In Darragh Byrne & Max Kölbel (eds.), Arguing about language. New York: Routledge. pp. 36--56.
Quality and concept.George Bealer - 1982 - New York: Oxford University Press.

View all 32 references / Add more references