Innocent Statements and Their Metaphysically Loaded Counterparts

One puzzling feature of talk about properties, propositions and natural numbers is that statements that are explicitly about them can be introduced apparently without change of truth conditions from statements that don’t mention them at all. Thus it seems that the existence of numbers, properties and propositions can be established ‘from nothing’. This metaphysical puzzle is tied to a series of syntactic and semantic puzzles about the relationship between ordinary, metaphysically innocent statements and their metaphysically loaded counterparts, statements that explicitly mention numbers, properties and propositions, but nonetheless appear to be equivalent to the former. I argue that the standard solutions to the metaphysical puzzles make a mistaken assumption about the semantics of the loaded counterparts. Instead I propose a solution to the syntactic and semantic puzzles, and argue that this solution also gives us a new solution to the metaphysical puzzle. I argue that instead of containing more semantically singular terms that aim to refer to extra entities, the loaded counterparts are focus constructions. Their syntactic structure is in the service of presenting information with a focus, but not to refer to new entities. This will allow us to spell out Frege’s metaphor of content carving.

[1]  Thomas Hofweber,et al.  Empty Names, Fiction, and the Puzzles of Non-Existence , 2000 .

[2]  Gideon Rosen,et al.  The Refutation of Nominalism ( , 1993 .

[3]  Steven E. Boër,et al.  Knowing Who , 1985 .

[4]  Hartry Field,et al.  Realism, Mathematics, and Modality , 1989 .

[5]  Harold T. Hodes Logicism and the Ontological Commitments of Arithmetic , 1984 .

[6]  Thomas Hofweber Schiffer's New Theory of Propositions , 2006 .

[7]  Thomas Hofweber Inexpressible Properties and Propositions , 2003 .

[8]  Bob Hale,et al.  The Reason's Proper Study , 2001 .

[9]  Manfred Krifka The Semantics of Questions and the Focusation of Answers , 2008 .

[10]  S. Schiffer The things we mean , 2003 .

[11]  M. Dummett Frege: Philosophy of Language , 1973 .

[12]  Stephen Shiffer,et al.  Language-Created Language-Independent Entities , 1996 .

[13]  Ray Jackendoff,et al.  Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar , 1972 .

[14]  Daniel Büring,et al.  The Meaning of Topic and Focus: The 59th Street Bridge Accent , 1997 .

[15]  S. Schiffer A paradox of meaning , 1994 .

[16]  Friederike Moltmann,et al.  Propositional Attitudes Without Propositions , 2003, Synthese.

[17]  B. Brogaard Number words and ontological commitment , 2007 .

[18]  David I. Beaver,et al.  The Handbook of Logic and Language , 1997 .

[19]  Glenn Kessler,et al.  Mathematics and Modality , 1978 .

[20]  P. Culicover,et al.  English Focus Constructions and the Theory of Grammar , 1990 .

[21]  Hartry Field Which Undecidable Mathematical Sentences Have Determinate Truth Values , 2001 .

[22]  Thomas Hofweber,et al.  Number Determiners, Numbers, and Arithmetic , 2005 .

[23]  Barbara H. Partee,et al.  Noun Phrase Interpretation and Type‐shifting Principles , 2008 .

[24]  P. Schlenker Clausal Equations (A Note on the Connectivity Problem) , 2002 .

[25]  Jeffrey C. King Designating Propositions , 2006 .

[26]  Thomas Hofweber A Puzzle about Ontology , 2005 .

[27]  Michael Scholar,et al.  ARISTOTLE's ETHICAL THEORY , 1969 .

[28]  Mats Rooth Association with focus , 1985 .

[29]  Willard Van Orman Quine,et al.  Word and Object , 1960 .

[30]  G. Frege Die Grundlagen der Arithmetik : eine logisch mathematische Untersuchung über den Begriff der Zahl , 1884 .

[31]  D. Durante Ontological Commitment , 2007 .

[32]  J. Saul,et al.  Direct Reference: From Language to Thought. , 1993 .