Early paper on the nature of the a priori in Kant and its relationship to modality.

In Natural propositions (2014), Stjernfelt contends that the interpretation of a proposition or dicisign requires the joint action of two kinds of signs. A proposition must contain a sign that conveys a general quality. This function can be served by a similarity-based icon or code-based symbol. In addition, a proposition must situate or apply this general quality, so that the predication can become liable of being true or false. This function is served by an index. Stjernfelt rightly considers the (...) co-localization of these two parts to be a primitive phenomenon. Although this primitive character would seem to bar any further analysis, I endeavor to clarify the degree of proximity sufficient to enable co-localization. Siding with Pietarinen (2014), who argues that the whole issue should not be construed in metric terms, I conclude that one cannot make sense of propositional co-localization without appealing to some form of first-person perspective. (shrink)

Additional support is presented for the necessity of awareness of the CS-US relation in human autonomic conditioning. However, possible limitations and exceptions regarding this general rule are discussed. Limitations include the lack of relationship between conditioned response (CR) strength and degree of awareness, and an important exception may be the finding of conditioning with backwardly masked CSs of a biologically prepared nature.

Timothy Williamson in his article "Necessary Existents" presents a proof of the claim that everything necessarily exists using just three seemingly uncontroversial principles relating the notions of proposition with those of truth and existence. The argument, however, may be easily blocked once the distinction, introduced by R. M. Adams, between the notions of a proposition being true in a world and of (or at) a world is introduced. In this paper I defend the plausibility of the notion of a (...) proposition's being true of a world by rejecting two criticisms of it raised by Williamson; in the final section, I present a conception of propositions, according to which they are equivalence classes of mental representations, for which at least one of the principles comes out as false. (shrink)

Dans son Discours de Métaphysique‚ Leibniz maintient que le concept individuel d'une substance comprend et permet la déduction de tous ses prédicats, et certains prédicats d'une substance lui appartiennent néanmoins d'une manière contingente. Arnauld objecta contre Leibniz que implique la fausseté de — ce qui démontre, selon Arnauld, l'absurdité de . En puisant les réponses de Leibniz à Arnauld dans leur Correspondence, l'auteur soutient que la position de Leibniz, pourvu qu'elle soit interprétée à la lumière des principes générales de sa (...) métaphysique, peux tenir compte d'une distinction véritable entre les propositions nécessaires et contingentes touchant les substances individuelles. Les prédicats d'une substance qui sont liés avec d'autres prédicats de la même substance grâce à une vérité gouvernée par le Principe de Contradiction sont nécessaires ; tandis que ceux qui sont liés avec d'autres prédicats grâce seulement aux principes de Raison Suffisante et de Perfection sont contingents. Mais ceci n'empêche pas que les prédicats contingents autant que les prédicats nécessaires peuvent être déduits du concept individuel complet d'une substance. (shrink)

I discuss Dietrich von Hildebrand, a realist phenomenologist, and Louis Groarke, an Aristotelian. They are close in epistemology and modal metaphysics, but divided about the metaphysical necessity of standard lawlike propositions – i.e., standard natural laws and standard truths about natural kinds. I extract and undermine the reasons of both authors. Hildebrand claims that no standard lawlike proposition is metaphysically necessary, since none is in principle knowable solely by considering essences. I undermine this when I argue that the (...) explanation of positive instances of at least some standard lawlike propositions by the metaphysical necessity of these propositions is quite plausibly true. Groarke claims that some standard lawlike propositions are metaphysically necessary, since their positive instances exemplify natural kinds that make all their members necessarily similar in relevant ways. I undermine this, too, as I point out the obscurity of relevant similarity. Finally I argue against Groarke’s suggestion that an appeal to relevant similarity is presupposed in all acceptable inductive arguments from samples. (shrink)

© The Authors 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Analysis Trust. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: [email protected] Propositions, Trenton Merricks defends a certain vision of the metaphysics of propositions: propositions exist necessarily and they primitively and essentially represent the world as being a certain way. The book is compact but rich: it is packed with arguments, moves at a fast pace, yet is written with admirable clarity.While I am sympathetic to many (...) of Merrick’s conclusions, I found some of his arguments towards these conclusions lacking. In Section 1, I discuss his claim that arguments constituted by propositions cannot be logically valid. In Section 2, I discuss his argument against singular propositions as having the entities they are about as constituents, and in particular his commitment to necessarily existing singular propositions... (shrink)

I would try to reduce the anxiety to realizing that seemingly the same proposition is really different when it is false by pointing out that the contents of two of our beliefs can be different when we think they are the same as well as being the same when we think they are different. That is, belief contents are not infallibly known or knowable in conscious reflective awareness of beliefs. Trying or wanting to accurately perceive what you are thinking does (...) not guarantee success. We can be wrong even about what we believe our beliefs are we don't and maybe can't realize that two beliefs are contradictory). (shrink)

I would try to reduce the anxiety to realizing that seemingly the same proposition is really different when it is false by pointing out that the contents of two of our beliefs can be different when we think they are the same as well as being the same when we think they are different. That is, belief contents are not infallibly known or knowable in conscious reflective awareness of beliefs. Trying or wanting to accurately perceive what you are thinking does (...) not guarantee success. We can be wrong even about what we believe our beliefs are we don't and maybe can't realize that two beliefs are contradictory). (shrink)