Such propositions are abstract objects.
For more detail, see the entry on propositions.
They are propositions whose only invariable parts are logical ideas.
Philosophy of language has isolated a class of propositions that are supposed to fail of truth-value.
First, if the expressivist accepts moral propositions, what is the difference between expressivism and realism?
Nothing obviously follows about the epistemic status of such propositions or about beliefs in such propositions.
And if there are no moral propositions, then moral sentences do not express propositions, and so lack truth-value.
No one supposes that the first of these propositions is true, in spite of the fact that it coheres with a set of propositions.
The first type comprises the most basic kind of hypothetical propositions, which take categorical propositions as their parts.
Both are objections to the inference from there being propositions to the claim that propositions have the surprising features.
It might seem odd to have a hierarchy especially designed to stratify the propositions and then claim that there are no propositions.
Let A stand for a list of propositions A1, …, Ar accepted as holding in S, and B* for a list B1*, …, Bs* of propositions holding in T.
Versions of this view vary both according to which properties they take propositions to be, and what they take propositions to be properties of.
At one extreme, coherence theorists can hold that the specified set of propositions is the largest consistent set of propositions currently believed by actual people.
In particular, they will not be able to believe propositions attributing specific errors to them, and propositions that entail these off-limit propositions.
Russellian and Fregean views make claims about what sorts of things are the constituents of propositions—but don’t tell us what the structured propositions so constituted are.
Yet at the bottom level such a view seems to require singular propositions, which are the basic or atomic propositions upon which the complex propositions are built.
This highlights an important feature of structured proposition accounts that distinguishes them from the other main competing account of propositions, namely the account of propositions as sets of possible worlds (to be discussed below).
P is composed of those propositions the subject wants to keep private (call the propositions in this set ‘personal propositions’), and I is composed of those individuals with respect to whom S wants to keep the personal propositions private.
As for the conversion of contingency propositions (neither necessary nor impossible), Kilwardby notes that while the converted propositions of indefinite (utrumlibet) contingency are of the same type of contingency, the conversion of natural contingency propositions (true about most cases) results in contingency propositions when contingency means possibility proper (not impossible).
On this page, there are 20 sentence examples for Propositions. They are all from high-quality sources and constantly processed by lengusa's machine learning routines.
Just use the " " button to fragment sentence examples and start your learning flow.
Example output from one of your searches:
As for the conversion of contingency propositions neither necessary nor impossible Kilwardby notes that while the converted propositions of indefinite utrumlibet contingency are of the same type of contingency the conversion of natural contingency propositions true about most cases results in contingency propositions when contingency means possibility proper not impossible