指稱、意向性和純意向?qū)ο螅ㄓ⑽模?/H1>
發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-06-04 11:16
本文選題：intentional + speaker ； 參考：《邏輯學(xué)研究》2017年01期
【摘要】：要使信念和其他命題態(tài)度語境的量化有意義,存在兩個(gè)大的困難。一個(gè)是所指稱的對(duì)象可能不存在;另一個(gè)是共指稱詞項(xiàng)的替換性原則可能會(huì)在這樣的語境下被破壞。我將在本文中論證,第一個(gè)問題可以通過如下方式解決:將信念對(duì)象看成是一類實(shí)體,這種實(shí)體不管它是否存在,都可以被指稱。我將概述一種存在物的理論來使其可行。此外,我將論證,指示性指稱本身不是直接指稱;而且,當(dāng)所涉及的共指稱的兩個(gè)詞項(xiàng)都以直接指稱的方式使用時(shí),不存在替換性問題。
[Abstract]:There are two major difficulties in quantifying the context of beliefs and other propositional attitudes. One is that the object may not exist, the other is that the substitution principle of co-referential terms may be broken in this context. I will argue in this paper that the first problem can be solved by treating a belief object as a class of entities that can be referred to no matter whether it exists or not. I will outline an existential theory to make it feasible. In addition, I will argue that the indicative reference is not a direct reference per se; moreover, there is no question of substitution when the two terms of the co-reference in question are used in a direct manner.
【作者單位】： 奧斯陸大學(xué)哲學(xué)系;南京大學(xué)哲學(xué)系;
【分類號(hào)】：B812
，
本文編號(hào)：1977162
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/shekelunwen/ljx/1977162.html
本文選題：intentional + speaker ； 參考：《邏輯學(xué)研究》2017年01期
【摘要】：要使信念和其他命題態(tài)度語境的量化有意義,存在兩個(gè)大的困難。一個(gè)是所指稱的對(duì)象可能不存在;另一個(gè)是共指稱詞項(xiàng)的替換性原則可能會(huì)在這樣的語境下被破壞。我將在本文中論證,第一個(gè)問題可以通過如下方式解決:將信念對(duì)象看成是一類實(shí)體,這種實(shí)體不管它是否存在,都可以被指稱。我將概述一種存在物的理論來使其可行。此外,我將論證,指示性指稱本身不是直接指稱;而且,當(dāng)所涉及的共指稱的兩個(gè)詞項(xiàng)都以直接指稱的方式使用時(shí),不存在替換性問題。
[Abstract]:There are two major difficulties in quantifying the context of beliefs and other propositional attitudes. One is that the object may not exist, the other is that the substitution principle of co-referential terms may be broken in this context. I will argue in this paper that the first problem can be solved by treating a belief object as a class of entities that can be referred to no matter whether it exists or not. I will outline an existential theory to make it feasible. In addition, I will argue that the indicative reference is not a direct reference per se; moreover, there is no question of substitution when the two terms of the co-reference in question are used in a direct manner.
【作者單位】： 奧斯陸大學(xué)哲學(xué)系;南京大學(xué)哲學(xué)系;
【分類號(hào)】：B812
，
本文編號(hào)：1977162
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/shekelunwen/ljx/1977162.html
最近更新
教材專著
