4

I know that there is some research in philosophy on the difference between (A) "S believes that p" and (B) "S believes in x" (e.g. H. H. Price and Gendler Szabó). But I cannot find anything specific and (especially) formal on the logical structure of a sentence like "Anna believes in God". What I am most interested in: such a sentence seems to avoid any intensional context, because "believes in" expresses just a relation between two singular terms and not a relation between a singular term and a proposition (e.g. "Anna believes that God exists"). Therefore I am especially interested in the following questions:

  1. Am I right that (B) does not trigger an intensional context?
  2. Is there any research in compositional semantics on sentences with the logical form of (B)?
  3. Is or can there be a general account for sentences like (B) or does the semantic analysis always depend on the singular term on the x-variable ("mapping problem")?

Thanks very much in advance.

Improve this question
6
  • Maybe useful Brentano's theory of Intentionality: "All mental references refer to things"; if so; there are no attitudes that are propositional. Commented Sep 17, 2024 at 14:29
  • Please clarify your specific problem or provide additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it's hard to tell exactly what you're asking. Commented Sep 17, 2024 at 16:34
  • Sentences do not avoid intensionality (or any other semantic feature) merely by using ellipsis. "A believes in X" is just a shorthand for "A believes that X is instantiated", where X is some (definite or indefinite) description. That the context is intensional is obvious by substituting some co-extensional Y for X. Compare "Lois Lane believes in Superman's superpowers" to "Lois Lane believes in Clark Kent's superpowers". Commented Sep 17, 2024 at 20:07
  • @Conifold Thank you for the answer, very helpful. But somehow you are providing already an analysis of the sentence ("A believes that X is instantiated"). Why not working with presuppositions instead of this analysis? If "Lois Lane believes in Superman's superpowers" is true then Lois Lane is false if she claims that she does not believe in Clark Kent's superpowers. Just from the sentence it seems not to be obvious that you have to give an intensional analysis. Or am I overlooking something? Commented Sep 17, 2024 at 21:05
  • If one wishes to do that then why distinguish "in" from "that"? Go Millian across the board, it is gratuitous to switch semantic theories over ellipsis. Commented Sep 18, 2024 at 0:03

0

Reset to default

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.