The foundations of two-dimensional semantics

structure in need of content. Different interpretations flesh out this content in different ways. The interpretations are not necessarily incompatible, although it is possible that some are ill-defined, or rest on false presuppositions. The relations between these interpretations, however, are not well-understood. The main project of this paper is to explore the different ways in which a twodimensional framework can be understood. What are the fundamental concepts underlying different interpretations of the framework? How are these related? How do the differences between these interpretations explain the differences in the scope and strength of the claims that are made for them? Which interpretations of the framework yield the strongest connections between the first dimension and the rational domain? Garcia chap04.tex V1 December 24, 2005 4:00 P.M. Page 64 64 David J. Chalmers

[1]  G. McCulloch,et al.  The Varieties of Reference. , 1984 .

[2]  J. Fodor.  Psychosemantics: The Problem of Meaning in the Philosophy of Mind , 1988 .

[3]  Robert C. Stalnaker.  On considering a Possible World as Actual (2001) , 2003 .

[4]  Hamid Vahid,et al.  Conceivability and possibility , 2006 .

[5]  Scott Soames,et al.  Reference and description , 2004 .

[6]  George Bealer,et al.  A Priori knowledge and the scope of philosophy , 1996 .

[7]  Stephen Yablo,et al.  Concepts and Consciousness@@@The Conscious Mind , 1999 .

[8]  S. Weidenschilling,et al.  A plurality of worlds , 1991, Nature.

[9]  G. Evans,et al.  Reference and Contingency , 1979 .

[10]  Lloyd Humberstone,et al.  Two notions of necessity , 1980 .

[11]  Ted A. Warfield,et al.  Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Mind , 2003 .

[12]  James E. Tomberlin,et al.  On the Plurality of Worlds. , 1989 .

[13]  Robert Stalnaker,et al.  Conceptual analysis, dualism, and the explanatory gap , 1999 .

[14]  Frederick Kroon,et al.  Beyond Rigidity: The Unfinished Semantic Agenda of Naming and Necessity , 2005 .

[15]  Robert Stalnaker,et al.  On Considering a Possible World as Actual , 2001 .

[16]  Assertion , 2008, Practices of Reason.

[17]  Curtis Brown,et al.  What is a Belief State , 1987 .

[18]  Howard K. Wettstein,et al.  Themes from Kaplan , 1989 .

[19]  Rudolf Carnap,et al.  Meaning and Necessity , 1947 .

[20]  Laura Schroeter.  The Rationalist Foundations of Chalmers's 2-D Semantics , 2004 .

[21]  G. Frege.  Über Sinn und Bedeutung , 1892 .

[22]  Frank Jackson,et al.  Reference and Description Revisited , 1998 .

[23]  C. I. Lewis.  The Modes of Meaning , 1943 .

[24]  C. K. Ogden,et al.  The Meaning of Meaning , 1923 .

[25]  B. H Slater,et al.  ATTITUDES DE DICTO AND DE SE , 1999 .

[26]  Anthony Appiah,et al.  Frege's puzzle , 1988 .

[27]  Martin Davies.  Reference, Contingency, and the Two-Dimensional Framework , 2004 .

[28]  Stephen L. White.  PARTIAL CHARACTER AND THE LANGUAGE OF THOUGHT , 1982 .

[29]  David J. Chalmers,et al.  Consciousness and its Place in Nature , 2007 .

[30]  David J. Chalmers,et al.  On Sense And Intension , 2002, Noûs.

[31]  K. Bach.  Varieties of Reference , 1994 .

[32]  D. Chalmers.  Does Conceivability Entail Possibility , 2002 .

[33]  S. Soames.  Beyond Rigidity: The Unfinished Semantic Agenda of Naming and Necessity , 2002 .

[34]  J. Altham.  Naming and necessity. , 1981 .

[35]  Pavel Tichý,et al.  Kripke on necessity a posteriori , 1983 .

[36]  David J. Chalmers,et al.  The Components of Content , 1994 .

[37]  Jordan B. Peterson.  The Meaning of Meaning , 2007 .

[38]  Frank Jackson.  From Metaphysics to Ethics: A Defence of Conceptual Analysis , 2001 .

[39]  Zheng Yan-mei,et al.  Reference and description , 2005 .

[40]  David Braun.  Demonstratives and Their Linguistic Meanings , 1996 .

[41]  F Sommerville,et al.  Beyond Belief , 2018 .

[42]  Manuel García-Carpintero,et al.  Indexicals as token-reflexives , 1998 .