Hubbry Logo
PropositionPropositionMain
Open search
Proposition
Community hub
Proposition
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Proposition
Proposition
Proposition
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

A proposition is a statement that can be either true or false.[1] It is a central concept in the philosophy of language, semantics, logic, and related fields. Propositions are the objects denoted by declarative sentences; for example, "The sky is blue" expresses the proposition that the sky is blue. Unlike sentences, propositions are not linguistic expressions, so the English sentence "Snow is white" and the German "Schnee ist weiß" denote the same proposition. Propositions also serve as the objects of belief and other propositional attitudes, such as when someone believes that the sky is blue.

Formally, propositions are often modeled as functions which map a possible world to a truth value. For instance, the proposition that the sky is blue can be modeled as a function which would return the truth value if given the actual world as input, but would return if given some alternate world where the sky is green. However, a number of alternative formalizations have been proposed, notably the structured propositions view.

Propositions have played a large role throughout the history of logic, linguistics, philosophy of language, and related disciplines. Some researchers have doubted whether a consistent definition of propositionhood is possible, David Lewis even remarking that "the conception we associate with the word ‘proposition’ may be something of a jumble of conflicting desiderata". The term is often used broadly and has been used to refer to various related concepts.

Relation to the mind

[edit]

In relation to the mind, propositions are discussed primarily as they fit into propositional attitudes. Propositional attitudes are simply attitudes characteristic of folk psychology (belief, desire, etc.) that one can take toward a proposition (e.g. 'it is raining,' 'snow is white,' etc.). In English, propositions usually follow folk psychological attitudes by a "that clause" (e.g. "Jane believes that it is raining"). In philosophy of mind and psychology, mental states are often taken to primarily consist in propositional attitudes. The propositions are usually said to be the "mental content" of the attitude. For example, if Jane has a mental state of believing that it is raining, her mental content is the proposition 'it is raining.' Furthermore, since such mental states are about something (namely, propositions), they are said to be intentional mental states.

Explaining the relation of propositions to the mind is especially difficult for non-mentalist views of propositions, such as those of the logical positivists and Russell described above, and Gottlob Frege's view that propositions are Platonist entities, that is, existing in an abstract, non-physical realm.[2] So some recent views of propositions have taken them to be mental. Although propositions cannot be particular thoughts since those are not shareable, they could be types of cognitive events[3] or properties of thoughts (which could be the same across different thinkers).[4]

Philosophical debates surrounding propositions as they relate to propositional attitudes have also recently centered on whether they are internal or external to the agent, or whether they are mind-dependent or mind-independent entities. For more, see the entry on internalism and externalism in philosophy of mind.

In modern logic

[edit]

In modern logic, propositions are standardly understood semantically as indicator functions that take a possible world and return a truth value. For example, the proposition that the sky is blue could be represented as a function such that for every world if any, where the sky is blue, and for every world if any, where it is not. A proposition can be modeled equivalently with the inverse image of under the indicator function, which is sometimes called the characteristic set of the proposition. For instance, if and are the only worlds in which the sky is blue, the proposition that the sky is blue could be modeled as the set .[5][6][7][8]

Numerous refinements and alternative notions of proposition-hood have been proposed including inquisitive propositions and structured propositions.[9][6] Propositions are called structured propositions if they have constituents, in some broad sense.[10][11] Assuming a structured view of propositions, one can distinguish between singular propositions (also Russellian propositions, named after Bertrand Russell) which are about a particular individual, general propositions, which are not about any particular individual, and particularized propositions, which are about a particular individual but do not contain that individual as a constituent.[6]

Objections to propositions

[edit]

Attempts to provide a workable definition of proposition include the following:

Two meaningful declarative sentences express the same proposition, if and only if they mean the same thing.[citation needed]

which defines proposition in terms of synonymity. For example, "Snow is white" (in English) and "Schnee ist weiß" (in German) are different sentences, but they say the same thing, so they express the same proposition. Another definition of proposition is:

Two meaningful declarative sentence-tokens express the same proposition, if and only if they mean the same thing.[citation needed]

The above definitions can result in two identical sentences/sentence-tokens appearing to have the same meaning, and thus expressing the same proposition and yet having different truth-values, as in "I am Spartacus" said by Spartacus and said by John Smith, and "It is Wednesday" said on a Wednesday and on a Thursday. These examples reflect the problem of ambiguity in common language, resulting in a mistaken equivalence of the statements. "I am Spartacus" spoken by Spartacus is the declaration that the individual speaking is called Spartacus and it is true. When spoken by John Smith, it is a declaration about a different speaker and it is false. The term "I" means different things, so "I am Spartacus" means different things.

A related problem is when identical sentences have the same truth-value, yet express different propositions. The sentence "I am a philosopher" could have been spoken by both Socrates and Plato. In both instances, the statement is true, but means something different.

These problems are addressed in predicate logic by using a variable for the problematic term, so that "X is a philosopher" can have Socrates or Plato substituted for X, illustrating that "Socrates is a philosopher" and "Plato is a philosopher" are different propositions. Similarly, "I am Spartacus" becomes "X is Spartacus", where X is replaced with terms representing the individuals Spartacus and John Smith.

In other words, the example problems can be averted if sentences are formulated with precision such that their terms have unambiguous meanings.

A number of philosophers and linguists claim that all definitions of a proposition are too vague to be useful. For them, it is just a misleading concept that should be removed from philosophy and semantics. W. V. Quine, who granted the existence of sets in mathematics,[12] maintained that the indeterminacy of translation prevented any meaningful discussion of propositions, and that they should be discarded in favor of sentences.[13]

Statements

[edit]

In logic and semantics, the term statement is variously understood to mean either:

  1. A meaningful declarative sentence that is true or false,[citation needed] or
  2. a proposition. Which is the assertion that is made by (i.e., the meaning of) a true or false declarative sentence.[14][15]

In the latter case, a (declarative) sentence is just one way of expressing an underlying statement. A statement is what a sentence means, it is the notion or idea that a sentence expresses, i.e., what it represents. For example, it could be said that "2 + 2 = 4" and "two plus two equals four" are two different sentences expressing the same statement. As another example, consider that the Arabic numeral '7', the Roman numeral 'VII', and the English word 'seven' are all distinct from the underlying number.[16]

Philosopher of language Peter Strawson (1919–2006) advocated the use of the term "statement" in sense (2) in preference to proposition. Strawson used the term "statement" to make the point that two declarative sentences can make the same statement if they say the same thing in different ways. Thus, in the usage advocated by Strawson, "All men are mortal." and "Every man is mortal." are two different sentences that make the same statement.

In either case, a statement is viewed as a truth bearer.

Examples of sentences that are (or make) true statements:

  • "Socrates is a man."
  • "A triangle has three sides."
  • "Madrid is the capital of Spain."

Examples of sentences that are also statements, even though they aren't true:

  • "All toasters are made of solid gold."
  • "Two plus two equals five."

Examples of sentences that are not (or do not make) statements:

  1. "Who are you?"
  2. "Run!"
  3. "Greenness perambulates."
  4. "I had one grunch but the eggplant over there."
  5. "King Charles III is wise."
  6. "Broccoli tastes good."
  7. "Pegasus exists."

The first two examples are not declarative sentences and therefore are not (or do not make) statements. The third and fourth are declarative sentences but, lacking meaning, are neither true nor false and therefore are not (or do not make) statements. The fifth and sixth examples are meaningful declarative sentences, but are not statements but rather matters of opinion or taste. Whether or not the sentence "Pegasus exists." is a statement is a subject of debate among philosophers. Bertrand Russell held that it is a (false) statement.[citation needed] Strawson held it is not a statement at all.[citation needed]

As an abstract entity

[edit]

In some treatments, "statement" is introduced in order to distinguish a sentence from its informational content. A statement is regarded as the information content of an information-bearing sentence. Thus, a sentence is related to the statement it bears like a numeral to the number it refers to. Statements are abstract logical entities, while sentences are grammatical entities.[16][17]

Historical usage

[edit]

By Aristotle

[edit]

In Aristotelian logic a proposition was defined as a particular kind of sentence (a declarative sentence) that affirms or denies a predicate of a subject, optionally with the help of a copula.[18] Aristotelian propositions take forms like "All men are mortal" and "Socrates is a man."

Aristotelian logic identifies a categorical proposition as a sentence which affirms or denies a predicate of a subject, optionally with the help of a copula. An Aristotelian proposition may take the form of "All men are mortal" or "Socrates is a man." In the first example, the subject is "men", predicate is "mortal" and copula is "are", while in the second example, the subject is "Socrates", the predicate is "a man" and copula is "is".[18]

By the logical positivists

[edit]

Often, propositions are related to closed formulae (or logical sentence) to distinguish them from what is expressed by an open formula. In this sense, propositions are "statements" that are truth-bearers. This conception of a proposition was supported by the philosophical school of logical positivism.

Some philosophers argue that some (or all) kinds of speech or actions besides the declarative ones also have propositional content. For example, yes–no questions present propositions, being inquiries into the truth value of them. On the other hand, some signs can be declarative assertions of propositions, without forming a sentence nor even being linguistic (e.g. traffic signs convey definite meaning which is either true or false).

Propositions are also spoken of as the content of beliefs and similar intentional attitudes, such as desires, preferences, and hopes. For example, "I desire that I have a new car", or "I wonder whether it will snow" (or, whether it is the case that "it will snow"). Desire, belief, doubt, and so on, are thus called propositional attitudes when they take this sort of content.[10]

By Russell

[edit]

Bertrand Russell held that propositions were structured entities with objects and properties as constituents. One important difference between Ludwig Wittgenstein's view (according to which a proposition is the set of possible worlds/states of affairs in which it is true) is that on the Russellian account, two propositions that are true in all the same states of affairs can still be differentiated. For instance, the proposition "two plus two equals four" is distinct on a Russellian account from the proposition "three plus three equals six". If propositions are sets of possible worlds, however, then all mathematical truths (and all other necessary truths) are the same set (the set of all possible worlds).[citation needed]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Proposition

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A proposition is the primary bearer of truth and falsity, serving as the sharable object of propositional attitudes such as , desire, and , and as the of declarative across different languages and contexts. Unlike concrete utterances or thoughts, propositions are abstract entities that can be expressed by multiple yet remain the same in meaning, making them central to semantics, logic, and metaphysics. Philosophers have debated the nature of propositions since antiquity, with early discussions emerging among the Stoics in the 3rd century BCE, who termed them lekta as the incorporeal meanings of sentences capable of being true or false. Medieval thinkers like (1079–1142) further developed the concept through dicta, abstract contents that bear truth values independently of mind or language. In the modern era, figures such as and (in his 1837 Wissenschaftslehre) advanced the view of propositions as mind-independent, abstract objects—termed Sätze an sich by Bolzano—capable of eternal truth or falsity. and initially endorsed propositions in the early 20th century but later questioned their existence, favoring analyses in terms of facts or sentences instead. Contemporary theories often portray propositions as structured entities, composed of objects, properties, and relations (as in Jeffrey King's 2007 account), or as possible states of affairs (, 1982), though alternatives include unstructured sets of possible worlds or conceptualist views tying them to cognitive content. Key challenges include their —how to determine when two propositions are identical—and their ontological status, whether they exist platonically or depend on human thought. These debates underscore propositions' role in resolving puzzles like the and Frege's sense-reference distinction, influencing fields from to .

Definition and Nature

Core Definition

In , a proposition is defined as the primary bearer of truth or falsity, serving as an abstract entity that constitutes the semantic content shared across equivalent expressions. Unlike linguistic such as sentences or utterances, propositions are not tied to any specific formulation but represent the invariant meaning that determines whether a claim is true or false. This distinction underscores propositions as necessary components in semantic theories, where they function independently of the medium of expression. Key attributes of propositions include their status as abstract objects, which allows them to be the targets of cognitive acts such as , assertion, or . They are sharable across minds and contexts, enabling the same proposition to be entertained by multiple individuals without alteration in its . For instance, the proposition expressed by "Snow is white" in English remains true when conveyed equivalently in French as "La neige est blanche," illustrating its independence from particular languages or dialects. The term "proposition" derives etymologically from the Latin propositio, meaning "something put forward" or "a setting forth," reflecting its role in presenting claims for evaluation. This nomenclature highlights the foundational function of propositions in and reasoning, as entities proposed for acceptance or rejection based on their truth. In , propositions are often distinguished from , which are in a . A sentence, such as "The cat is on the mat," is a grammatical sequence of words that can be uttered or written, but it does not inherently possess a ; rather, it serves as a vehicle for expressing meaning. Propositions, by contrast, are the abstract semantic contents or meanings conveyed by such sentences, capable of being true or false independently of their linguistic expression. Multiple sentences in different languages or even synonymous variants in the same language can express the identical proposition, highlighting the non-linguistic nature of propositions. Propositions also differ from statements, which refer to the act of asserting or uttering a declarative sentence in a specific context. A statement is performative, involving a speaker's commitment to the truth of what is said, such as when someone declares, "It is raining," thereby making an assertion. The proposition, however, is the shareable content that underlies the statement—the objective information that "It is raining" conveys—existing apart from any particular act of assertion and serving as the primary bearer of truth value. Furthermore, propositions must be differentiated from beliefs and judgments, which are mental attitudes or psychological relations toward those propositions. A , for instance, occurs when an individual accepts a proposition as true, such as believing that "The orbits the Sun," but the belief itself is the subjective stance, not the proposition it concerns. Similarly, a judgment involves the cognitive act of affirming or denying a proposition's truth, yet the proposition remains the neutral content under evaluation, sharable across different minds and independent of any individual's psychological state. This conceptual framework draws heavily from Gottlob Frege's distinction between (Sinn) and (Bedeutung), where propositions are identified with the senses of complete sentences, often termed "thoughts." The of a sentence is its cognitive content or mode of presentation, which determines its (the ) without being reducible to it; for example, the sentences "The morning star is bright" and "The is bright" share the same () but express different due to varying modes of presenting . These thoughts, as abstract entities in a "third realm" beyond the physical and mental, provide the objective foundation for truth bearers while avoiding conflation with linguistic or psychological phenomena.

Historical Development

Ancient Origins

The earliest conceptions of propositions in trace back to thought, where implicit notions of truth-bearers appear in 's . posited eternal, unchanging Forms as the ultimate realities to which sensible particulars approximate, serving as the objects of true knowledge and judgment, though he did not explicitly articulate propositions as linguistic or logical units. These Forms functioned as paradigms for truth, influencing later developments by suggesting that assertions about reality must align with ideal structures, a foundation would adapt and refine. Aristotle provided the first systematic treatment of propositions in his work (Greek: Peri Hermeneias), defining them as apophantic statements—declarative sentences with a subject-predicate structure that affirm or deny something about the world, thereby possessing truth values. He distinguished these from other speech acts, such as questions or commands, emphasizing that only apophantic propositions can be true or false because they express a connection (or lack thereof) between a subject and a predicate, mirroring the structure of thought and corresponding to states of affairs in reality. For instance, a simple proposition like " is wise" asserts the predicate "wise" of the subject "," and its truth depends on whether this predication holds in the world. The Stoics in the 3rd century BCE further developed the , terming propositions lekta—incorporeal sayables or meanings of that are the primary bearers of truth and falsity, distinct from the material sounds or writings that express them. In , further developed propositional categories and their logical relations, classifying them into assertoric (stating what is actually the case, e.g., ""), problematic (expressing possibility, e.g., "Some men may be mortal"), and apodeictic (indicating necessity, e.g., "All men must be mortal"). These categories form the basis of his syllogistic logic, where propositions serve as premises in deductions. Central to this framework is the , which diagrams the inferential relationships among categorical propositions: contradiction (opposites cannot both be true or false, e.g., "All A are B" vs. "Some A are not B"), contrariety (universal affirmatives and negatives cannot both be true, e.g., "All A are B" vs. "No A are B"), subcontrariety (particular affirmatives and negatives cannot both be false, e.g., "Some A are B" vs. "Some A are not B"), and subalternation (universals imply particulars, e.g., "All A are B" implies "Some A are B"). This structure, introduced to analyze validity in syllogisms, underscores propositions as the building blocks of demonstrative reasoning, linking language, thought, and reality in a coherent system.

Medieval and Early Modern Views

Medieval thinkers like Peter Abelard (1079–1142) further developed the concept through dicta, abstract contents that bear truth values independently of mind or language. In scholastic philosophy, Thomas Aquinas developed a theory of propositions as acts of the intellect's second operation, involving composition or division to form composite understandings that signify truth or falsity, distinct from simple terms that signify basic conceptions. Propositions, or enuntiabilia, represent mental acts that apprehend the esse rei (being of a thing) through judgment, such as affirming "Socrates is white" to reflect the inherence of a form in a subject. Aquinas viewed spoken or written signs as secondary, immediately signifying concepts that mediate between the mind and reality, with propositions conveying adaequatio intellectus et rei (conformity of intellect and thing). John Duns Scotus built on this by analyzing propositions through syncategorematic terms like "every" or "some," which structure logical form without independent signification, enabling neutral propositions that lack immediate assent or dissent until their categorematic terms (e.g., "triangle") are fully understood. Unlike Aquinas, who equated predication with assertion and located truth in the act of judgment, Scotus allowed for unasserted truths and distinguished formal from objective truth in propositional analysis. William of Ockham advanced by treating propositions as elements of a natural mental , composed of simple or acts of understanding rather than complex structures with parts, rejecting abstract entities in favor of psychological subsistence in the . Mental propositions signify naturally through similarity to particulars, forming universals as abstracted from individuals, without requiring real extra-mental universals. This conceptualist approach emphasized that propositions' truth arises from their correspondence to singular things, aligning with Ockham's Razor by eliminating unnecessary ontological commitments. Key debates in this period centered on universals and , where a term's supposition () determines a proposition's truth by standing for individuals (personal supposition) or universal natures (simple supposition), as in "man" suppositing distributively in "every man runs" but for the itself in "man is a ." In nominalist views like Ockham's, supposition shifted with context to only particulars, avoiding realist commitments to universals as forms, thus grounding propositional truth in direct relation to individuals rather than abstract entities. Early modern philosophy marked a shift, with René Descartes identifying clear and distinct ideas as self-evident propositional contents, such as "I think, therefore I am," serving as foundations for certain knowledge independent of sensory doubt. These ideas function as innate intellectual concepts whose clarity ensures truth when perceived attentively, forming the basis for deductive propositions in epistemology. John Locke, in his empiricist framework, distinguished propositions as perceptions of agreement or disagreement among ideas—derived solely from sensory experience—while ideas themselves are immediate objects of knowledge by acquaintance, not reducible to propositional form without linguistic mediation. Locke's Essay Concerning Human Understanding posits that all knowledge is propositional, involving compositional relations like identity or causation, but foundational awareness of simple ideas precedes such judgments.

19th and 20th Century Developments

In the 19th century, advanced a of propositions as objective, timeless entities independent of human minds or . In his Wissenschaftslehre (1837), Bolzano introduced the concept of Sätze an sich ("sentences in themselves" or propositions), which he described as abstract structures composed of ideas that possess inherent truth values, regardless of whether they are ever thought or uttered. These propositions form the basis of logical deduction, where truth is grounded in objective relations among them, rather than subjective beliefs. Bolzano's framework emphasized the autonomy of propositions, distinguishing them from psychological judgments and paving the way for later analytic developments by treating logic as a of objective contents. Gottlob Frege further refined the notion of propositions in the late 19th century, laying foundational groundwork for modern analytic philosophy. In his Begriffsschrift (1879), Frege characterized propositions as Gedanken ("thoughts"), which are objective, shareable contents of sentences that express complete, judgeable truths or falsehoods. Unlike subjective mental acts, these Gedanken exist independently in a "third realm" beyond the physical and psychological, serving as the bearers of truth values and enabling precise logical analysis through his innovative concept-script notation. Frege's ideas influenced subsequent thinkers by establishing propositions as abstract entities central to semantics and logic, distinct from linguistic expressions or personal opinions. Early 20th-century philosophy saw and initially endorse propositions as abstract entities in the analytic tradition, influenced by Frege, but both later questioned their ontological status. Moore, in his 1910–1911 lectures, defended propositions early on but shifted toward analyzing them in terms of possible facts. developed the multiple-relation theory of judgment as an alternative to idealist views of propositions. In his unpublished Theory of Knowledge manuscript (1913), proposed that propositions are not unified entities but complexes involving a judging subject, objects, and a relation among them, avoiding the need for propositions as independent "facts" that could harbor falsehoods. This theory treated as a multi-place relation (e.g., "A believes B is larger than C" relates A, B, "larger than," and C), thereby dissolving traditional propositional unity and aligning with his realist metaphysics. later critiqued and refined this approach in his lectures on The Philosophy of (1918), acknowledging challenges like the order of constituents in false beliefs while emphasizing logical analysis to reveal atomic facts underlying propositions. The logical positivists of the , active in the 1920s and 1930s, reconceived propositions through an empiricist lens, focusing on verifiability to demarcate meaningful statements. In their manifesto The Scientific Conception of the World: The Vienna Circle (1929), and , among others, defined propositions as either empirically verifiable statements about observable facts or logical tautologies, rejecting metaphysical claims lacking empirical content via the verifiability principle. This approach eliminated abstract, non-empirical propositions, treating them instead as linguistic constructs reducible to sensory experience or analytic necessity, thus aiming to purge philosophy of speculative elements. Their views, building on Frege and Russell, solidified propositions as tools for scientific in the analytic tradition.

Propositions in Logic

In Propositional Logic

In propositional logic, propositions are formalized as , denoted by variables such as pp, qq, and rr, each of which assumes exactly one of two truth values: true (T) or false (F). These atoms represent basic statements without any decomposition of their internal structure, serving as the indivisible building blocks for constructing compound formulas. The logical connectives operate on these atomic propositions to form compound expressions. The standard connectives include (¬\neg), conjunction (∧\land), disjunction (∨\lor), (→\to), and biconditional (↔\leftrightarrow). Gottlob Frege's (1879) established a foundational using implication and as primitive connectives, with the others definable in terms of these; for instance, conjunction is equivalent to ¬(p→¬q)\neg (p \to \neg q), and disjunction to ¬p→q\neg p \to q. The semantics of these connectives are precisely defined via truth tables, which systematically list all possible combinations of s for the input propositions and specify the resulting for the compound. Truth tables, first developed by Peirce around 1902 and elaborated by Emil L. Post in his 1921 paper, provide a method to determine the truth-functional behavior of any propositional formula. The for is: p¬pTFFT\begin{array}{c|c} p & \neg p \\ \hline \mathrm{T} & \mathrm{F} \\ \mathrm{F} & \mathrm{T} \\ \end{array} For conjunction (p∧qp \land q): pqp∧qTTTTFFFTFFFF\begin{array}{c|c|c} p & q & p \land q \\ \hline \mathrm{T} & \mathrm{T} & \mathrm{T} \\ \mathrm{T} & \mathrm{F} & \mathrm{F} \\ \mathrm{F} & \mathrm{T} & \mathrm{F} \\ \mathrm{F} & \mathrm{F} & \mathrm{F} \\ \end{array} For disjunction (p∨qp \lor q): pqp∨qTTTTFTFTTFFF\begin{array}{c|c|c} p & q & p \lor q \\ \hline \mathrm{T} & \mathrm{T} & \mathrm{T} \\ \mathrm{T} & \mathrm{F} & \mathrm{T} \\ \mathrm{F} & \mathrm{T} & \mathrm{T} \\ \mathrm{F} & \mathrm{F} & \mathrm{F} \\ \end{array} For implication (p→qp \to q): pqp→qTTTTFFFTTFFT\begin{array}{c|c|c} p & q & p \to q \\ \hline \mathrm{T} & \mathrm{T} & \mathrm{T} \\ \mathrm{T} & \mathrm{F} & \mathrm{F} \\ \mathrm{F} & \mathrm{T} & \mathrm{T} \\ \mathrm{F} & \mathrm{F} & \mathrm{T} \\ \end{array} For biconditional (p↔qp \leftrightarrow q): pqp↔qTTTTFFFTFFFT\begin{array}{c|c|c} p & q & p \leftrightarrow q \\ \hline \mathrm{T} & \mathrm{T} & \mathrm{T} \\ \mathrm{T} & \mathrm{F} & \mathrm{F} \\ \mathrm{F} & \mathrm{T} & \mathrm{F} \\ \mathrm{F} & \mathrm{F} & \mathrm{T} \\ \end{array} A tautology is a that evaluates to true in every possible truth assignment, such as p∨¬pp \lor \neg p, embodying the ; conversely, a contradiction always evaluates to false, as in p∧¬pp \land \neg p. The validity of an argument in propositional logic is assessed through semantic entailment: the conclusion is a tautological consequence of the if, whenever the are true, the conclusion is also true, verifiable exhaustively via truth tables for finite sets of atoms. This framework of propositional logic, known as the sentential calculus, originated with Frege's in 1879 and was systematically axiomatized and integrated into a broader logical foundation by and in Principia Mathematica (1910–1913).

In Predicate and Higher-Order Logic

In predicate logic, also known as , propositions extend beyond the atomic sentences of propositional logic by incorporating predicates, which are relations or properties applied to objects, and quantifiers that bind variables to express generality or existence. A basic propositional form involves a predicate symbol applied to terms, such as FxFx denoting "x is F," where FF is a unary predicate and xx a variable or constant; more complex propositions arise through quantification, for instance, ∀x Fx\forall x \, Fx meaning "for all x, x is F" or ∃x Fx\exists x \, Fx meaning "there exists an x such that x is F." This framework, pioneered by in his 1879 , allows propositions to capture the internal structure of statements involving objects and their attributes, enabling the analysis of arguments with multiple individuals. Quantifiers introduce notions of scope and binding critical to propositional meaning in predicate logic. The scope of a quantifier is the portion of the it governs, determining which variables it binds; for example, in ∀x (Fx→Gy)\forall x \, (Fx \to Gy), the universal quantifier ∀x\forall x binds xx within the conditional, while yy remains free unless further quantified. Binding occurs when a quantifier assigns a value to a variable across its scope, resolving ambiguities in translations; unbound variables, or free variables, function as placeholders that can be instantiated to form specific propositions. These mechanisms ensure that propositions in predicate logic are well-formed and interpretable within a , distinguishing them from the connective-based structures of propositional logic. Bertrand Russell's , developed in his 1905 paper "On Denoting," analyzes definite descriptions—phrases like "the king of "—as scoped propositional structures rather than standalone entities, resolving paradoxes in reference. For the proposition "The king of is bald," Russell proposes the analysis ∃x (Kx∧∀y (Ky→y=x)∧Bx)\exists x \, (Kx \land \forall y \, (Ky \to y = x) \land Bx), where KxKx means "x is king of ," BxBx means "x is bald," the existential quantifier asserts a unique satisfier, and the conjunction enforces uniqueness and the attributed property. This scoped quantification treats the description as a contribution to the overall proposition's truth conditions, avoiding commitment to non-existent objects while preserving the sentence's logical form; if no unique king exists, the entire proposition is false. Russell's approach influences modern treatments of definite descriptions in predicate logic, emphasizing how such phrases expand propositional expressiveness without introducing denotational failures. Higher-order logics build on predicate logic by permitting quantification over predicates, relations, or even propositions themselves, allowing propositions to express properties of properties or modalities. In , for instance, a proposition might quantify over unary predicates as in ∀P (Pa→◊Pa)\forall P \, (Pa \to \Diamond Pa), stating that for all properties PP, if aa has PP, then it is possible that aa has PP, where ◊\Diamond denotes possibility. Alonzo Church's 1940 formulation of the simple theory of types provides a rigorous syntax for such higher-order propositions, using type indices to distinguish individuals (type oo), predicates over individuals (type $1),andhighertypesrecursively,ensuringtype−safequantificationthatpreventsparadoxeslikeRussell′ssetparadox.[](https://www.classes.cs.uchicago.edu/archive/2007/spring/32001−1/papers/church−1940.pdf)Theselogicsenablepropositionstocaptureadvancedconcepts,suchasnecessity(), and higher types recursively, ensuring type-safe quantification that prevents paradoxes like Russell's set paradox.[](https://www.classes.cs.uchicago.edu/archive/2007/spring/32001-1/papers/church-1940.pdf) These logics enable propositions to capture advanced concepts, such as necessity (\forall P , (Pa \to \square Pa)for"allpropertiesoffor "all properties ofa$ are necessary"), but at the cost of increased compared to systems. A cornerstone linking syntactic and semantic aspects of propositions in predicate logic is Kurt Gödel's completeness theorem from 1930, which establishes that every semantically valid proposition—true in all models—is provable from the axioms using logical rules. Formally, for any set of , a sentence is provable it is true in every interpretation satisfying the set, connecting the proof-theoretic notion of propositional validity to its model-theoretic counterpart. This result, proven via the and Henkin constructions in modern expositions, confirms the adequacy of predicate logic for formalizing propositions, ensuring that no valid quantified statement escapes syntactic derivation. Gödel's theorem underscores the robustness of predicate logic propositions, distinguishing them from higher-order variants where completeness may fail due to expressive power.

Philosophical Issues

Relation to Mind and Language

In and language, propositions are often understood as the abstract contents of beliefs, serving as shared cognitive structures that individuals grasp independently of particular linguistic expressions. introduced the notion of "" (Sinn) as this shared cognitive content, distinguishing it from (Bedeutung); for Frege, the sense of a proposition constitutes a "thought" (Gedanke) that can be the objective content of multiple beliefs, enabling intersubjective understanding without reducing to private mental images. This view posits propositions as mind-independent entities that underpin belief states, allowing for cognitive equivalence across speakers who comprehend the same sense. Complementing this, Donald Davidson's truth-conditional semantics treats the meaning of sentences as their truth conditions, derived from observable use in linguistic practice, where propositions emerge as the structured contents expressed by sentences in context, linking mental attitudes to public language without positing abstract entities beyond truth-evaluable conditions. The distinction between mental and linguistic propositions highlights tensions in how innate cognitive structures interface with acquired language. Noam Chomsky's theory of (UG) proposes an innate linguistic faculty that includes propositional-like structures—universal principles and parameters for syntax and semantics—that enable humans to generate and comprehend propositional forms, suggesting that mental propositions are biologically prewired and shape linguistic expression from birth. In contrast, Ludwig Wittgenstein's later philosophy, developed in his later work (1953), reconceives propositions not as fixed mental representations but as moves within "language games"—rule-governed social practices embedded in forms of life—where their significance arises from use in communal activities like describing or questioning, rather than isolated cognition. Thus, while Chomsky emphasizes innate mental scaffolding for propositional thought, Wittgenstein stresses the public, performative nature of linguistic propositions. Epistemologically, propositions play a central role as the objects of , particularly in analyses of propositional ("S knows that p"). Edmund Gettier's 1963 cases demonstrate that justified true in a proposition does not suffice for if luck intervenes, as in scenarios where a is true but grounded in false , prompting refinements to require additional conditions like reliability or defeatability. In , a priori propositions—such as necessary truths in or metaphysics—provide foundational epistemic warrant through pure reason, independent of , allowing certain of abstract structures that sensory experience alone cannot yield. A key debate concerns public versus private language, where propositions serve to bridge solipsistic isolation by rooting meaning in shared practices. Wittgenstein's argument against a private —one confined to individual sensations without public criteria—shows that propositions gain intelligibility only through communal agreement and behavioral consistency, countering by demonstrating that mental contents must connect to intersubjective norms to be meaningfully asserted or believed. This integrative function underscores propositions' role in mediating between solitary minds and collective , distinct from mere sentences which vary across languages while expressing the same underlying content.

Objections and Alternatives

One prominent objection to propositional realism, particularly its Platonist variant positing propositions as abstract, mind- and language-independent entities, comes from W.V.O. Quine's criterion of ontological commitment. In his 1948 essay, Quine argues that acceptance of propositions incurs unnecessary ontological posits, as theoretical discourse commits to entities only insofar as they are indispensable for quantification in the best scientific theories; abstracta like propositions can often be paraphrased away without loss, rendering them "mythical" or superfluous remnants of pre-scientific metaphysics. This critique targets the Platonist commitment to propositions as timeless, structured entities existing independently of human cognition or expression, suggesting instead a naturalistic ontology grounded in observable commitments of empirical theories. Nominalist alternatives seek to eliminate abstract propositions altogether by relocating truth-bearing to linguistic or contextual items. , in his analysis of truth, advocates the view that truth attaches not to abstract propositions but to statements—utterances or sentences embedded in specific contexts of use—emphasizing that truth is a feature of performative acts rather than eternal entities. Complementing this, F.P. Ramsey's deflationary approach in treats propositions as mere linguistic proxies, with truth predicates functioning redundantly: asserting "it is true that p" adds nothing beyond asserting p itself, thus dissolving the need for propositions as substantive bearers and reducing them to convenient verbal devices in and judgment. These views prioritize concrete linguistic practices over abstract , avoiding Platonist extravagance by tying truth directly to sentences or their tokens. Psychological reductions further challenge propositional realism by reconceiving mental content in non-abstract terms, often drawing from early 20th-century . Ludwig Wittgenstein's picture in the 1921 posits propositions as logical pictures or models of reality, depictive structures mirroring possible states of affairs rather than abstract objects, though Wittgenstein later abandoned this in his 1953 for a use-based view of language devoid of fixed pictorial essences. Behaviorist dismissals, exemplified by Gilbert Ryle's 1949 critique in , reject propositional attitudes as "ghostly" inner entities, reducing beliefs and judgments to behavioral dispositions—publicly observable tendencies to act—thereby eliminating propositions from psychological explanation in favor of anti-Cartesian, dispositional analyses. In contemporary philosophy, Jerry Fodor's language-of-thought hypothesis (1975) offers a reductionist alternative by positing an internal "mentalese" syntax of mental symbols, where cognitive states are formulaic representations akin to sentences in a , supplanting unstructured abstract propositions with computationally tractable, syntactically structured vehicles of thought. Post-2000 developments in Bayesian and introduce further tensions, modeling propositional attitudes as credence functions—probabilistic assignments over possible worlds or hypotheses—rather than binary relations to discrete propositions, as seen in predictive frameworks that treat mental states as hierarchical Bayesian inferences integrating sensory data without reliance on classical abstracta. Recent work (as of 2023) has also explored propositions as types of predicative acts, as defended by Peter Hanks (2015) and Scott Soames (2010, 2015), where propositions are act-types that represent and are true of the world through cognitive actions, addressing issues like fine-grained content and truth conditions. Additionally, linguistic approaches emphasize the basis of propositions in sentence meanings and anaphora (Van Elswyk 2020), while comprehensive surveys highlight ongoing debates in metaphysics and semantics (Tillman and Murray 2022). These approaches highlight ongoing challenges to traditional realism, suggesting that evolving scientific models may render propositions otiose or reformulate them probabilistically.

References

  1. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/propositions/
  2. https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1747-9991.2009.00208.x
  3. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-023-04081-x
  4. https://www.etymonline.com/word/proposition
  5. https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100349928
  6. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/frege/
  7. https://home.sandiego.edu/~baber/metaphysics/readings/Frege.SenseAndReference.pdf
  8. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-correspondence/
  9. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-metaphysics/
  10. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-logic/#Prem
  11. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-logic/#Syll
  12. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01445340.2020.1865782
  13. https://epublications.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1309&context=dissertations_mu
  14. https://faculty.fordham.edu/klima/BEAQ.HTM
  15. https://place.asburyseminary.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1380&context=faithandphilosophy
  16. https://www.academia.edu/4720201/Scotus_on_Assertion_and_the_Copula_A_Comparison_with_Aquinas
  17. https://faculty.fordham.edu/klima/zheng.htm
  18. https://philarchive.org/archive/CHIOOM
  19. http://www.logicmuseum.com/wiki/Supposition
  20. https://philosophy.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Supposition-as-Quant.pdf
  21. https://philarchive.org/archive/SMICAD
  22. https://jmphil.org/article/ojs_id/121/
  23. https://archive.org/details/theoryofsciencea0000bolz
  24. https://ia801509.us.archive.org/8/items/in.ernet.dli.2015.149231/2015.149231.Theory-Of-Knowledge_text.pdf
  25. https://sites.ualberta.ca/~francisp/NewPhil448/RussellPhilLogicalAtomismPears.pdf
  26. https://sites.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/Phil_Sci_Core/Phil_Sci_Core_2022/docs/Vienna_Circle_manifesto_JDN.pdf
  27. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/computer-science/atomic-proposition
  28. https://archive.org/download/gottlob-frege-begriffsschrift-english/Gottlob%20Frege%20-%20Begriffsschrift%20%28English%29_text.pdf
  29. https://mulpress.mcmaster.ca/russelljournal/article/download/2056/2081/2399
  30. https://archive.org/details/jstor-2370324
  31. https://archive.org/details/dli.ernet.247278
  32. https://www.classes.cs.uchicago.edu/archive/2007/spring/32001-1/papers/church-1940.pdf
  33. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descriptions/
  34. https://akirarabelais.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/dvdadlf.pdf
  35. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/frege-logic/
  36. https://iep.utm.edu/donald-davidson-language/
  37. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/innateness-language/
  38. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein/
  39. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/
  40. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/
  41. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/private-language/
  42. https://rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phil375/Quine.pdf
  43. https://www.scribd.com/document/220305513/Strawson-Truth
  44. https://gwern.net/doc/philosophy/logic/1927-ramsey.pdf
  45. https://danielwharris.com/teaching/38080/readings/FodorLOT.pdf
  46. https://www.routledge.com/The-Routledge-Handbook-of-Propositions/Tillman-Murray/p/book/9781032267302
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.