Frege cases and rationalizing explanations.

Russellians, Relationists, and Fregeans disagree about the nature of propositional‐attitude content. We articulate a framework to characterize and evaluate this disagreement. The framework involves two claims: i) that we should individuate attitude content in whatever way fits best with the explanat...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Nous (0029-4624) Vol. 59; no. 2; pp. 517 - 542
Autores principales: Almotahari, Mahrad, Gray, Aidan
Formato: Artículo
Publicado: Wiley-Blackwell Jun2025
Materias:
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=185068725&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: hlh
    uiTerm: 185068725
    longDbName: Humanities International Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        00294624
        D97
      jtl: Nous (0029-4624)
      issn: 00294624
      maglogo: Y
    pubinfo:
      dt: Jun2025
      vid: 59
      iid: 2
      pid: 480
      pub: Wiley-Blackwell
    artinfo:
      ui:
        185068725
        10.1111/nous.12522
      ppf: 517
      ppct: 25
      formats:
        fmt:
          – @attributes:
              type: T
          – @attributes:
              type: P
              size: 259KB
      tig:
        atl: Frege cases and rationalizing explanations.
      aug:
        au:
          Almotahari, Mahrad
          Gray, Aidan
        affil:
          University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
          University of Illinois, Chicago, USA
      su:
        Propositional attitudes
        Meaning (Philosophy)
        Theory (Philosophy)
      sug:
        subj:
          Propositional attitudes
          Meaning (Philosophy)
          Theory (Philosophy)
      ab: Russellians, Relationists, and Fregeans disagree about the nature of propositional‐attitude content. We articulate a framework to characterize and evaluate this disagreement. The framework involves two claims: i) that we should individuate attitude content in whatever way fits best with the explanations that characteristically appeal to it, and ii) that we can understand those explanations by analogy with other 'higher‐level' explanations. Using the framework, we argue for an under‐appreciated form of Russellianism. Along the way we demonstrate that being more explicit about the framework in which debates about attitude content take place allows us to more precisely characterize the space of possible positions and the dialectic between them.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Article
      src: R
    language: English
    refInfo:
    copyright:
      @attributes:
        flag: Y
      custom: Copyright of Nous (0029-4624) is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
      item: Nous (0029-4624)
      holder: Wiley-Blackwell
      dt:
        @attributes:
          year: 2025
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N