حسن همتائی

We will argue against formulating the propositional unity as a problem of Order, Combinability, or Recognition. We find the issue of Representation surprisingly biased to the Correspondence theory of truth, and we show how wrong it may be to read the question of having truth conditions as a question of truth conditions itself. Finally, we demonstrate how certain structured propositions may escape the arms of the question of unity. We find the problem of having truth conditions to be the most to-the-point question of the nature of propositions.

This paper is a reflection on the nature of Meinongian Propositions (MP), within which properties are ascribed to non-existent objects, preserving the possibility of their being true. Ordinary theories of the propositional unity, I demonstrate, provide explanations to the nature of MP, only in pain of misrepresenting their truth value, violating our intuitions about their constituents, or doubling our ontological commitments. Cognitive accounts e.g. that of Soames, later Russell or Priest, are to work. This paper is a reflection on the nature of Meinongian Propositions (MP), within which properties are ascribed to non-existent objects, preserving the possibility of their being true. Ordinary theories of the propositional unity, I demonstrate, provide explanations to the nature of MP, only in pain of misrepresenting their truth value, violating our intuitions about their constituents or doubling our ontological commitments. Cognitive accounts e.g. that of Soames, later Russell or Priest, are to work. This paper is a reflection on the nature of Meinongian Propositions (MP), within which properties are ascribed to non-existent objects, preserving the possibility of their being true. Ordinary theories of the propositional unity, I demonstrate, provide explanations to the nature of MP, only in pain of misrepresenting their truth value, violating our intuitions about their constituents or doubling our ontological commitments. Cognitive accounts e.g. that of Soames, later Russell or Priest, are to work.

According to Priest’s Modal Meinongianism, every condition expressible in language, characterizes some object(s) satisfying the very condition, either in the actual world or in some other world(s). Similar commitments of other Meinongians, to such an unrestricted principle of characterization (CP), provokes the emergence of the Clark paradox. We argue that the inter-world bleed of information within Priest’s system of logic may ground similar complications. We demonstrate how to secure the possibility of world-shift by employing internal resources of the noneist semantics. This results in triviality; far beyond contradiction. Priest has to put restrictions on the CP.According to Priest’s Modal Meinongianism, every condition expressible in language, characterizes some object(s) satisfying the very condition, either in the actual world or in some other world(s). Similar commitments of other Meinongians, to such an unrestricted principle of characterization (CP), provokes the emergence of the Clark paradox. We argue that the inter-world bleed of information within Priest’s system of logic may ground similar complications. We demonstrate how to secure the possibility of world-shift by employing internal resources of the noneist semantics. This results in triviality; far beyond contradiction. Priest has to put restrictions on the CP.

Is Meinongian dicopulation justified? This is the main problem in this paper and our hypothesis is that Meinongian dicopulaism is counterintuitive. This is despite the rich list of syntactic and semantic features that Meinongian advocates of the double copula strategy attribute to the Meinongian (internal/encoding) mode of predication in contrast with the ordinary mode of predication. That is what we demonstrate in this paper. We argue that neither of the requirement that Meinongian formulas (i.e. those containing the Meinongian mode of predication) must be monadic; nor that they resist lambda abstraction; nor that logical closure governs them; nor that they can be incomplete (or inconsistent) and nor that they are no way contingent, may succeed in discriminating Meinongian from ordinary predications. Nonetheless, dicopulaistic semantics support our intuitive understanding of abstract objects as sets of properties only whence they embrace the counterintuitive conception of multiple denotations; of either copulas or (abstract) objects. Meinongian dicopulaism does not work.

The Unity of the Encoding PropositionAbstract: There is a family of problems under the rubric of “the unity of the proposition”. They ask how is it that (ordinary) propositions are unit wholes over and above their constituting parts, how is it that they are representational and have truth values. In this paper, we propose the very same concern regarding the Meinongian encoding propositions; those propositions that contain the encoding mode of predication rather than the ordinary exemplificational predication. Embracing such a dual mode of predication lets us interpret propositions such as “the round square is round” not only as meaningful but also as true propositions. We demonstrate how to reduce exemplification to encoding. This should dissolve the classical problem of the propositional unity, yet providing a rather new formulation of it.

A derivative (mushtaq) in Sadra’s philosophical jargon, he claims, is what mystics call as “name” (Ism). Elsewhere proposing a subtle distinction between names, descriptions and essences he mentions the word “name” on a par with derivatives. In Mafatih-alghayb he puts this view forward that opposite to real things, mental universal intelligibles are capable of being referred by names. Moreover he claims that there is a hierarchy (species, genus…) of names in divine world on a par with things in real world. Later he rejects the very point of view that only universal essences (quiddities) are capable of being named and surprisingly add particulars as well as secondary intelligibles to the inventory of those who are referred by naes. He seems to enjoy an incredible double status in talking about meanings; a narrow point of view and a wide one; the latter being more evident when addressing reference-less names and name-less references. To be sure, the most novel aspect of Sadra’s theory is on naming the God (Allah). In Al-Asfar, he argues that the name of the God is a name for everything, and the reference of his name, is what referred to by every name. Having this singular property be satisfied, it is hard, if possible, to match ordinary theories of meaning to that of Sadra. That’s why I think those philosophers, Sajjad Rizvi for example, who use modern jargon in their interpretations of Sadrian theory of meaning, do mistakes.