Academic year
2015/2016
Department
Department of Philosophy
University
Universitat de Barcelona
Itinerary
Master courses
Module
Module 7. Issues in Contemporary Theoretical and Practical Philosophy
Code
570639
Credits
5
Language
English
Dates
2015-10-19 - 2015-12-14
Schedule
Mon. 10-13
Location
Room 412, Facultat de Filosofia, UB

Description

This course deals with issues in intensional logic. One is the general topic of the structure, content, individuation and theoretical functions of propositions. The other is the more specialized topic of how to quantify into various positions of attitude complements and what sorts of entities to quantify over. The classes will consist in lectures and discussions. The students have the option to write a 5,000-word term paper at the end of the course.

Please note that the Philosophical Logic course is taught by Bjørn Jespersen. The name of Josefa Toribio occurs as a matter of formality.


Methodology

THEORIES OF PROPOSITIONS

 

Revised Syllabus Course Philosophical Logic

Autumn Term 2015 LOGOS, UB (Bjørn Jespersen)

 

Short description. This course deals with a standard issue in intensional logic, namely propositions. Propositions give rise to such questions as to how they are structured (if indeed they are), what their content is, how they are individuated, and what theoretical functions they serve. The classes will consist in lectures and discussions. The students have the option to write a 5,000-word term paper at the end of the course and receive a mark for it.

 

[1] 19 October.

 

  • Introduction to theories of propositions.

 

[2] 26 October.

  • Soames, S. Direct reference, propositional attitudes, and semantic content. Philosophical Topics 15: 47–87 (1987). 

 

[3] 2 November.

 

  • Bealer, G. Propositions. Mind 107: 1-32 (1998).

 

[4] 9 November.

  • Hanks, P.W. Structured propositions as types. Mind 120: 11-52 (2011). 

 

[5] 16 November.

  • Levine, J. Analysis and decomposition in Frege and Russell. Philosophical Quarterly 52: 195-216 (2002). 

 

[6] 23 November.

  • Sullivan, A. Singular propositions and singular thoughts. Notre Dame 

Journal of Formal Logic 39: 114–127 (1998).

 

[7] 30 November.

  • Tichý, P. Constructions. Philosophy of Science 53: 514-34 (1986). 

 

[8] 7 December.

  • Jespersen, B. Should propositions proliferate? Thought: 

 

[9] 14 December.

 

  • TBA. 

Evaluation

 

 

Deadline for the term paper is January 19th

 

Intended Learning Outcomes:

CB6 – Students should be able to engage in an informed and critical way with advanced texts in philosophical logic both on the discursive and the formal level. 

 

CB9 - Students should be able to present their knowledge and their arguments to specialized audiences in a coherent and articulate way. 

CG2. Students should be able to conceive and carry out projects in their area of ​​expertise.

 

CG3. Students should be able to engage both in general and specific discussions in the area of philosophical logic. They should be able to contribute to a philosophical discussion, both orally and in print,by advancing arguments in favour of particular positions while also anticipating objections and taking those into account.

 

CG4. Students should be able to work both independently and in a team, in an international environment, which involves speaking and writing English at conference level and interacting with individuals that may have a different background in terms of cultural presuppositions and academic training.

 

CG5. Students should be able to identify methodological errors, rhetorical, conventional and uncritical assumptions, vagueness and superficiality.

 

CE1. Students should be able to critically engage with the central concepts and methods of philosophical logic (logical methods applied to philosophical problems).

 

CE2. Students should be able to identify the core arguments and theories of current philosophical logic as these apply to the formal semantics of propositions.

 

CE4. Students should be able to assess the writings of leading contemporary philosophers on the topic of propositions.

 

CE5. Students should acquire the general skill to identify and critically engage with the current state of a particular philosophical debate, and form a reasoned view about it.

 

CE7. Students must acquire command of the terminology that is used in current and classical discussions of propositions.

 

 


Bibliography

[1]     Quantifying-in

 

  • Crawford, S. Quantifiers and propositional attitudes: Quine revisited. Synthese 160: 75–96 (2008).
  • Duží, M. & B. Jespersen. Transparent quantification into hyperintensional objectual attitudes. Synthese 192: pp. 635-77. 
  • Forbes, G. (2000). Objectual attitudes. Linguistics and Philosophy, 23, 141–183.
  • Kaplan, D. (1968). Quantifying in. Synthese, 19, 178–214.
  • Montague, M. (2007). Against propositionalism. Noûs, 42, 503–518. 
  • Quine, W. V. (1956). Quantifiers and propositional attitudes. Journal of Philosophy, 53, 177–187.

 

 

[2]     Propositions

 

  • Bealer, G. Propositions. Mind 107: 1-32 (1998).
  • Hanks, P.W. Structured propositions as types. Mind 120: 11-52. (2011).
  • Kretzmann, N. Medieval logicians on the meaning of the propositio. Journal of Philosophy 67: 767–87 (1970). 
  • Merricks, T. Propositions, OUP (2005). A couple of chapters.
  • Moffett, M. Knowing facts and believing propositions: a solution to the 

problem of doxastic shift, Philosophical Studies 115: 81–97 (2003).

Moltmann, F & M. Textor (eds.). Act-Based Conceptions of Propositional Content, OUP (2015). A couple of chapters. 

  • Soames, S. Direct reference, propositional attitudes, and semantic content, Philosophical Topics 15: 47–87 (1987). 
  • Sullivan, A. Singular propositions and singular thoughts, Norte Dame 

Journal of Formal Logic 39: 114–127 (1998).

  • Tichý, P. Constructions, Philosophy of Science 53: 514-34 (1986).