Indiscernibility of identicals

Studia Logica 45 (3):251 - 273 (1986)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

It is well known that the manner in which a definitely descriptive term contributes to the meaning of a sentence depends on the place the term occupies in the sentence. A distinction is accordingly drawn between ordinary contexts and contexts variously termed non-referential, intensional, oblique, or opaque. The aim of the present article is to offer a general account of the phenomenon, based on transparent intensional logic. It turns out that on this approach there is no need to say (as Frege does) that descriptive terms are referentially ambiguous or to deny (as Russell does) that descriptive terms represent self-contained units of meaning. There is also no need to tolerate (as Montague does) exceptions to the Principle of Functionality. The notion of an ordinary (i.e., non-intensional) context is explicated exclusively in terms of logical structure and it is argued that two aspects of ordinariness (termed hospitality and exposure) must be distinguished.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,122

External links

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

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
54 (#274,407)

6 months
6 (#292,930)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

References found in this work

Existence and God.Pavel Tichý - 1979 - Journal of Philosophy 76 (8):403-420.
De dicto and de re.Pavel Tichý - 1978 - Philosophia 8 (1):1-16.
Two kinds of intensional logic.Pavel Tichý - 1978 - Epistemologia 1 (1):143.
Question-like and non-question-like imperative sentences.Pavel Materna - 1981 - Linguistics and Philosophy 4 (3):393 - 404.
Changing numbers.Gregory Currie & Graham Oddie - 1980 - Theoria 46 (2-3):148-164.

Add more references