Dictionary of Arguments


Philosophical and Scientific Issues in Dispute
 
[german]

Screenshot Tabelle Begriffes

 

Find counter arguments by entering NameVs… or …VsName.

Enhanced Search:
Search term 1: Author or Term Search term 2: Author or Term


together with


The author or concept searched is found in the following 7 entries.
Disputed term/author/ism Author
Entry
Reference
Concepts Putnam VI 392
Concepts/Ockham/Putnam: could be mental particulars. - I.e. if characters are particulars as "signs", then any concept we have of the relation between sign and object is another sign. - PutnamVsOckham: Problem: this relation cannot be unambiguously identified by holding up a sign with COW - or another sign, with REFERS.
VI 393
On the other hand: if concepts are not particulars, there may be uses of signs (if they are "in the head") - (Putnam pro). - But: Problem: the use does not clearly single out a relation between the concepts and "real objects". - ((s) "Concept": Here "way of using characters") - If concepts are neither particulars (signs) nor ways of use, only the mysterious "grasping of forms" remains. ---
Putnam V 40ff
Concepts/Putnam: cannot be identical to inner notions, because concepts are public - they are (partially) skills, not incidents. ---
I (b) 63
Cluster Concept/Putnam: E.g."human" as a list of properties - PutnamVs: the speaker does not need to have any knowledge of the laws that rule the electrons. - Even if reference was "socially" determined, this cannot correspond to what "every speaker implicitly means".
I (g) 190
Concept/Possible World/Putnam: modern semantics: functions about possible worlds represent concepts - e.g. the term "this statue" is not equal to the term "this piece of clay". - PutnamVsPossible Worlds: Question: is there in the real world (the actual world) an object to which one of these concepts applies essentially and the other one only accidentally? - Possible Worlds deliver too many objects. PutnamVsKripke:/PutnamVsEssentialism: Kripke's ontology presupposes essentialism, it cannot justify it. - Modal properties are not part of the materialistic equipment of the world. - But Kripke individuates objects by their modal properties. - Essential Characteristics/Putnam: I have not shifted them to "parallel worlds" but rather to possible states of the real world - (e.g. a liquid other than H20 is water). - This is essentialist in as far as it allowed us to discover the nature of water. - We just say water should be nothing else (intention). - That's simply our use and not "built into the world" (intrinsic) - (Kripke ditto). - VsMaterialism: this semantic interpretation does not help him, because it already presupposes reference. - (Materialism wants to gain reference from "intrinsic" causal relationship).

Putnam I
Hilary Putnam
Von einem Realistischen Standpunkt
In
Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Frankfurt 1993

Putnam I (a)
Hilary Putnam
Explanation and Reference, In: Glenn Pearce & Patrick Maynard (eds.), Conceptual Change. D. Reidel. pp. 196--214 (1973)
In
Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993

Putnam I (b)
Hilary Putnam
Language and Reality, in: Mind, Language and Reality: Philosophical Papers, Volume 2. Cambridge University Press. pp. 272-90 (1995
In
Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993

Putnam I (c)
Hilary Putnam
What is Realism? in: Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 76 (1975):pp. 177 - 194.
In
Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993

Putnam I (d)
Hilary Putnam
Models and Reality, Journal of Symbolic Logic 45 (3), 1980:pp. 464-482.
In
Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993

Putnam I (e)
Hilary Putnam
Reference and Truth
In
Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993

Putnam I (f)
Hilary Putnam
How to Be an Internal Realist and a Transcendental Idealist (at the Same Time) in: R. Haller/W. Grassl (eds): Sprache, Logik und Philosophie, Akten des 4. Internationalen Wittgenstein-Symposiums, 1979
In
Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993

Putnam I (g)
Hilary Putnam
Why there isn’t a ready-made world, Synthese 51 (2):205--228 (1982)
In
Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993

Putnam I (h)
Hilary Putnam
Pourqui les Philosophes? in: A: Jacob (ed.) L’Encyclopédie PHilosophieque Universelle, Paris 1986
In
Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993

Putnam I (i)
Hilary Putnam
Realism with a Human Face, Cambridge/MA 1990
In
Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993

Putnam I (k)
Hilary Putnam
"Irrealism and Deconstruction", 6. Giford Lecture, St. Andrews 1990, in: H. Putnam, Renewing Philosophy (The Gifford Lectures), Cambridge/MA 1992, pp. 108-133
In
Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993

Putnam II
Hilary Putnam
Representation and Reality, Cambridge/MA 1988
German Edition:
Repräsentation und Realität Frankfurt 1999

Putnam III
Hilary Putnam
Renewing Philosophy (The Gifford Lectures), Cambridge/MA 1992
German Edition:
Für eine Erneuerung der Philosophie Stuttgart 1997

Putnam IV
Hilary Putnam
"Minds and Machines", in: Sidney Hook (ed.) Dimensions of Mind, New York 1960, pp. 138-164
In
Künstliche Intelligenz, Walther Ch. Zimmerli/Stefan Wolf Stuttgart 1994

Putnam V
Hilary Putnam
Reason, Truth and History, Cambridge/MA 1981
German Edition:
Vernunft, Wahrheit und Geschichte Frankfurt 1990

Putnam VI
Hilary Putnam
"Realism and Reason", Proceedings of the American Philosophical Association (1976) pp. 483-98
In
Truth and Meaning, Paul Horwich Aldershot 1994

Putnam VII
Hilary Putnam
"A Defense of Internal Realism" in: James Conant (ed.)Realism with a Human Face, Cambridge/MA 1990 pp. 30-43
In
Theories of Truth, Paul Horwich Aldershot 1994

SocPut I
Robert D. Putnam
Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community New York 2000

Conceptualism Armstrong Place I 25
Def Conceptualism/Place: (PlatoVs, Aristotle pro, Place pro). Everything belongs to one of these 4 categories: 1) concrete particular
2) property of a particular
3) situation
4) property of a situation (II 31 also property of a property e.g. syntactic relations within a sentence are relations between words. >Universals, >Property, >Situation, >Particulars.
Def words: consist in certain formal properties either of an event (of vocal expression) or particular: (characters). >Words.
II 26
Conceptualism/Armstrong: i.e. there are no abstractions such as numbers, sets or laws of nature (as states in the world, only as formulas that describe something. Universals/Conceptualism: exist in two respects:
1) in the sense in which its instances exist (they really occur)
2) in the sense that living organisms are predisposed to classify particulars, and that the classifications are represented in the semantic conventions of natural language - i.e. as abstractions due to similarities between particulars.

Place II 49
ConceptualismVsAbstractions/Place: VsNominalization of "fragility" in subject position - VsPossible Worlds. >Possible worlds, >Abstraction.
II 56
Conceptualism/Place: but conceptualism does not deny universals.
Place III 110
Conceptualism/Similarity/Place: (pro like Martin): there must be a sense in which two things are similar, so that they can be "of the same kind" - in this sense they cannot be "inexactly" similar U/Species/Conceptualism/Place: U not in addition to the similarities between their instantiations - solution: "species", "U": viewed from the perspective of the object: which properties do the particulars need to have - "concept", "intention": affect the disposition of the mind for classification.

Armstrong I
David M. Armstrong
Meaning and Communication, The Philosophical Review 80, 1971, pp. 427-447
In
Handlung, Kommunikation, Bedeutung, Georg Meggle Frankfurt/M. 1979

Armstrong II (a)
David M. Armstrong
Dispositions as Categorical States
In
Dispositions, Tim Crane London New York 1996

Armstrong II (b)
David M. Armstrong
Place’ s and Armstrong’ s Views Compared and Contrasted
In
Dispositions, Tim Crane London New York 1996

Armstrong II (c)
David M. Armstrong
Reply to Martin
In
Dispositions, Tim Crane London New York 1996

Armstrong II (d)
David M. Armstrong
Second Reply to Martin London New York 1996

Armstrong III
D. Armstrong
What is a Law of Nature? Cambridge 1983


Place I
U. T. Place
Dispositions as Intentional States
In
Dispositions, Tim Crane London New York 1996

Place II
U. T. Place
A Conceptualist Ontology
In
Dispositions, Tim Crane London New York 1996

Place III
U. T. Place
Structural Properties: Categorical, Dispositional, or both?
In
Dispositions, Tim Crane London New York 1996

Place IV
U. T. Place
Conceptualism and the Ontological Independence of Cause and Effect
In
Dispositions, Tim Crane London New York 1996

Place V
U. T. Place
Identifying the Mind: Selected Papers of U. T. Place Oxford 2004
Conceptualism Place Place I 25
Def Conceptualism/Place: (PlatoVs, Aristotle pro, Place pro). Everything belongs to one of these 4 categories: 1) concrete particular
2) property of a particular
3) situation
4) property of a situation (II 31 also property of a property e.g. syntactic relations within a sentence are relations between words. >Universals, >Property, >Situation, >Particulars.
Def words: consist in certain formal properties either of an event (of vocal expression) or particular: (characters). >Words.

Armstrong II 26
Conceptualism/Armstrong: i.e. there are no abstractions such as numbers, sets or laws of nature (as states in the world, only as formulas that describe something. Universals/Conceptualism: exist in two respects:
1) in the sense in which its instances exist (they really occur)
2) in the sense that living organisms are predisposed to classify particulars, and that the classifications are represented in the semantic conventions of natural language - i.e. as abstractions due to similarities between particulars.

Place II 49
ConceptualismVsAbstractions/Place: VsNominalization of "fragility" in subject position - VsPossible Worlds. >Possible worlds, >Abstraction.
II 56
Conceptualism/Place: but conceptualism does not deny universals.
Place III 110
Conceptualism/Similarity/Place: (pro like Martin): there must be a sense in which two things are similar, so that they can be "of the same kind" - in this sense they cannot be "inexactly" similar U/Species/Conceptualism/Place: U not in addition to the similarities between their instantiations - solution: "species", "U": viewed from the perspective of the object: which properties do the particulars need to have - "concept", "intention": affect the disposition of the mind for classification.

Place I
U. T. Place
Dispositions as Intentional States
In
Dispositions, Tim Crane London New York 1996

Place II
U. T. Place
A Conceptualist Ontology
In
Dispositions, Tim Crane London New York 1996

Place III
U. T. Place
Structural Properties: Categorical, Dispositional, or both?
In
Dispositions, Tim Crane London New York 1996

Place IV
U. T. Place
Conceptualism and the Ontological Independence of Cause and Effect
In
Dispositions, Tim Crane London New York 1996

Place V
U. T. Place
Identifying the Mind: Selected Papers of U. T. Place Oxford 2004


Armstrong I
David M. Armstrong
Meaning and Communication, The Philosophical Review 80, 1971, pp. 427-447
In
Handlung, Kommunikation, Bedeutung, Georg Meggle Frankfurt/M. 1979

Armstrong II (a)
David M. Armstrong
Dispositions as Categorical States
In
Dispositions, Tim Crane London New York 1996

Armstrong II (b)
David M. Armstrong
Place’ s and Armstrong’ s Views Compared and Contrasted
In
Dispositions, Tim Crane London New York 1996

Armstrong II (c)
David M. Armstrong
Reply to Martin
In
Dispositions, Tim Crane London New York 1996

Armstrong II (d)
David M. Armstrong
Second Reply to Martin London New York 1996

Armstrong III
D. Armstrong
What is a Law of Nature? Cambridge 1983
Modal Properties Putnam I (g) 189
Nature/essence/Kripke: E.g. Statue: The statue and the piece of clay are two items. The fact that the piece of clay has a modal property, namely, "to be a thing that might have been spherical" is the statue missing.
VsKripke: that sounds initially odd: E.g. when I put the statue on the scale, do I measure then two objects?
E.g. Equally strange is it to say, a human being is not identical with the aggregation of its molecules.
Intrinsic properties/Putnam: E.g. Supposing there are "intrinsic connections" to my thoughts to external objects: then there is perhaps in my brain a spacetime region with quantity-theoretical connections with an abstract object which includes some external objects. >Intrinsic, >extrinsic.
Then this spacetime region will have a similar quantity-theoretical connections with other abstract entities that contain other external objects.
Then the materialist can certainly say that my "thoughts" include certain external objects intrinsically, by identifying these thoughts with a certain abstract entity.
Problem: if this identification should be a train of reality itself, then there must be real essences in the world in a sense that the set theory cannot explain.
Nature/essential properties/PutnamVsKripke: Kripke ontology presupposes essentialism, it cannot serve to justify him.
I (g) 190
Term/Possible World/Putnam: modern semantics: functions about possible worlds represent terms - e.g. the term "this statue" unequals the phrase "this piece of clay" - PutnamVsPossible Worlds: Question: Is there in the actual world an object to which one of these terms significantly and the other only accidentally applies to? - Possible worlds provide too many objects. PutnamVsKripke/PutnamVsEssentialism: its ontology presupposes essentialism, it cannot justify it - modal properties are not part of the materialistic means of the world - but Kripke individuated objects by their modal properties - essential properties/Putnam: I have not shifted them into "parallel worlds" but instead into possible states of the actual world - (other liquid than H20 water) - which is insofar essentialist that we have thus discovered the nature of water - we just say water should not be anything else (intention) - that is our use and not "built into the world" (intrinsic) - (Kripke ditto) - VsMaterialism: this does not help the semantic reading because it presupposes reference - (materialism wants to win reference from "intrinsic" causal relationship).

Putnam I
Hilary Putnam
Von einem Realistischen Standpunkt
In
Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Frankfurt 1993

Putnam I (a)
Hilary Putnam
Explanation and Reference, In: Glenn Pearce & Patrick Maynard (eds.), Conceptual Change. D. Reidel. pp. 196--214 (1973)
In
Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993

Putnam I (b)
Hilary Putnam
Language and Reality, in: Mind, Language and Reality: Philosophical Papers, Volume 2. Cambridge University Press. pp. 272-90 (1995
In
Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993

Putnam I (c)
Hilary Putnam
What is Realism? in: Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 76 (1975):pp. 177 - 194.
In
Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993

Putnam I (d)
Hilary Putnam
Models and Reality, Journal of Symbolic Logic 45 (3), 1980:pp. 464-482.
In
Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993

Putnam I (e)
Hilary Putnam
Reference and Truth
In
Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993

Putnam I (f)
Hilary Putnam
How to Be an Internal Realist and a Transcendental Idealist (at the Same Time) in: R. Haller/W. Grassl (eds): Sprache, Logik und Philosophie, Akten des 4. Internationalen Wittgenstein-Symposiums, 1979
In
Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993

Putnam I (g)
Hilary Putnam
Why there isn’t a ready-made world, Synthese 51 (2):205--228 (1982)
In
Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993

Putnam I (h)
Hilary Putnam
Pourqui les Philosophes? in: A: Jacob (ed.) L’Encyclopédie PHilosophieque Universelle, Paris 1986
In
Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993

Putnam I (i)
Hilary Putnam
Realism with a Human Face, Cambridge/MA 1990
In
Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993

Putnam I (k)
Hilary Putnam
"Irrealism and Deconstruction", 6. Giford Lecture, St. Andrews 1990, in: H. Putnam, Renewing Philosophy (The Gifford Lectures), Cambridge/MA 1992, pp. 108-133
In
Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993

Putnam II
Hilary Putnam
Representation and Reality, Cambridge/MA 1988
German Edition:
Repräsentation und Realität Frankfurt 1999

Putnam III
Hilary Putnam
Renewing Philosophy (The Gifford Lectures), Cambridge/MA 1992
German Edition:
Für eine Erneuerung der Philosophie Stuttgart 1997

Putnam IV
Hilary Putnam
"Minds and Machines", in: Sidney Hook (ed.) Dimensions of Mind, New York 1960, pp. 138-164
In
Künstliche Intelligenz, Walther Ch. Zimmerli/Stefan Wolf Stuttgart 1994

Putnam V
Hilary Putnam
Reason, Truth and History, Cambridge/MA 1981
German Edition:
Vernunft, Wahrheit und Geschichte Frankfurt 1990

Putnam VI
Hilary Putnam
"Realism and Reason", Proceedings of the American Philosophical Association (1976) pp. 483-98
In
Truth and Meaning, Paul Horwich Aldershot 1994

Putnam VII
Hilary Putnam
"A Defense of Internal Realism" in: James Conant (ed.)Realism with a Human Face, Cambridge/MA 1990 pp. 30-43
In
Theories of Truth, Paul Horwich Aldershot 1994

SocPut I
Robert D. Putnam
Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community New York 2000

Omniscience Lewis Schwarz I 178
Omniscience/Lewis/Schwarz: Problem: you have to know all the logical and mathematical truths that follow from what you know already. - Solution: genuine ignorance of contingent truths instead of seeming ignorance of necessary truths. - Numeracy/mathematical solutions: one learns nothing new - previously only cognitive limitation - The brain cannot always retrieve all information. ---
Schwarz I 180
Logical omniscience/Schwarz: the most common objection VsPossible Worlds as an analysis of mental content - solution: rather cognitive limitation: usually no contingent information.

Lewis I
David K. Lewis
Die Identität von Körper und Geist Frankfurt 1989

Lewis I (a)
David K. Lewis
An Argument for the Identity Theory, in: Journal of Philosophy 63 (1966)
In
Die Identität von Körper und Geist, Frankfurt/M. 1989

Lewis I (b)
David K. Lewis
Psychophysical and Theoretical Identifications, in: Australasian Journal of Philosophy 50 (1972)
In
Die Identität von Körper und Geist, Frankfurt/M. 1989

Lewis I (c)
David K. Lewis
Mad Pain and Martian Pain, Readings in Philosophy of Psychology, Vol. 1, Ned Block (ed.) Harvard University Press, 1980
In
Die Identität von Körper und Geist, Frankfurt/M. 1989

Lewis II
David K. Lewis
"Languages and Language", in: K. Gunderson (Ed.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. VII, Language, Mind, and Knowledge, Minneapolis 1975, pp. 3-35
In
Handlung, Kommunikation, Bedeutung, Georg Meggle Frankfurt/M. 1979

Lewis IV
David K. Lewis
Philosophical Papers Bd I New York Oxford 1983

Lewis V
David K. Lewis
Philosophical Papers Bd II New York Oxford 1986

Lewis VI
David K. Lewis
Convention. A Philosophical Study, Cambridge/MA 1969
German Edition:
Konventionen Berlin 1975

LewisCl
Clarence Irving Lewis
Collected Papers of Clarence Irving Lewis Stanford 1970

LewisCl I
Clarence Irving Lewis
Mind and the World Order: Outline of a Theory of Knowledge (Dover Books on Western Philosophy) 1991


Schw I
W. Schwarz
David Lewis Bielefeld 2005
Possible Worlds Brandom II 21
BrandomVsPossible Worlds: instead stress on discursive practice.

Bra I
R. Brandom
Making it exlicit. Reasoning, Representing, and Discursive Commitment, Cambridge/MA 1994
German Edition:
Expressive Vernunft Frankfurt 2000

Bra II
R. Brandom
Articulating reasons. An Introduction to Inferentialism, Cambridge/MA 2001
German Edition:
Begründen und Begreifen Frankfurt 2001

Possible Worlds Gärdenfors I 176
Possible worlds/GärdenforsVsPossible worlds/Gärdenfors: possible worlds are cognitively inaccessible. (See Gärdenfors 2000. Sec 3.3). Therefore, propositions (that what is expressed by sentences) cannot be possible worlds.

Gä I
P. Gärdenfors
The Geometry of Meaning Cambridge 2014


The author or concept searched is found in the following 9 controversies.
Disputed term/author/ism Author Vs Author
Entry
Reference
Goodman, N. Wessel Vs Goodman, N. I 323
WesselVsGoodman: Thesis: Wessel accepts only one categorial term: Item "g". (and its synonyms). This can be used to simplify the normative semantic tables. This contradicts the assumption of a variety of worlds.
Wessel: there is only one world. WesselVsPossible worlds, Pro Actualism
Goodman must allow various categorical subject terms.
Status of a singular term a and a categorical term b for which applies: a has the task of designating a single object which is not an object.
Wessel: I do not consider a to be a term in this case.

Wessel I
H. Wessel
Logik Berlin 1999
Kamp, H. Stalnaker Vs Kamp, H. II 104
Possible worlds semantics//KampVsPossible worlds semantics/KampVsStalnaker: the approach is not rich enough to represent all differences. Kamp (1988) adopts an example by Barbara Partee: Example Pronoun/pronouns/anaphora/presupposition:
(2) a. Exactly one of 10 balls is not in the bag
b. It is under the sofa
(3) a. Exactly 9 of 10 balls are in the bag
b. It is under the sofa.
Kamp: Suppose the discourse takes place in the same initial context. That means
1. statement: changes the context.
2. statement: is made in the changed context.
II 105
Important argument: the first statements of the two pairs (2a) and (3) are truth conditionally equivalent. – that means they are true in exactly the same set of poss.w.. Context/possible world/poss.w./Kamp: if context are now sets of poss.w. and if assertions add only the truth conditional content to the context, the context will later be the same.
But the contexts on the other side must surely be different in both cases because although (2b) and (3b) are the same sentence it must express different propositions in both cases. "In the second case it cannot refer to "the ball".
KampVsPossible worlds semantics: if the sentences are truth conditionally equivalent no two different sets of poss.w. can be distinguished here.
StalnakerVsVs: it is true that our abstract approach does not predict this difference, namely, because it says nothing about how pronouns function.
Two dimensional semantics/Stalnaker: is no meaning theory.
StalnakerVsKamp: it is not correct that you have to conclude from the fact that the former contexts are identical that the later contexts are also identical. By this you ignore the first way how a speech act changes the context (see above II 102 above).
That a statement was made at all is sufficient, together with any information that follows from it, along with a permanent background information on conventions. Thus one can distinguish two later contexts, relative to which (2b) and (3b) are interpreted.
Pronoun/Stalnaker: "it" apparently requires a context in which a particular individual is prominent.
II 106
Context/possible worlds semantics/StalnakerVsKamp/Stalnaker: solution: as long as the minimal assumption makes that information to determine the content may be relevant only if it is assumed by the speaker that this information is also accessible to the listener, we can be sure that the set of poss.w. that defines the presuppositions is sufficient to represent a context. An assertion changes the context already alone by the fact that it is made!

Stalnaker I
R. Stalnaker
Ways a World may be Oxford New York 2003
Leibniz, G.W. Hintikka Vs Leibniz, G.W. II 40/41
Non-existent Objects/Possible Objects/Unrealized Possibilities/Hintikka: But are not some of these non-existent objects in our own actual world? Hintikka: Thesis: Yes, some of these merely possible objects are in the real world. Bona Fide Object/Hintikka: can exist in one Possible World and be absent in another. World Line/Hintikka: when it comes to which ones can be drawn, existence is not the most important problem. Rather well-definedness. HintikkaVsLeibniz: we also allow that an object exists in several possible worlds. Question: if residents of two different possible worlds may then be identical, when are they?
II 74
VsPossible Worlds Semantics/Hintikka: problem: it seems to absolutize possible worlds and complete sets of possibilia ((s) takes them for granted). Possible Worlds/Leibniz: Thesis, there is a fixed set of possible worlds, under which God makes a selection. HintikkaVsLeibniz: this is extremely doubtful.
II 80
Possible Worlds/Universe/Cross World Identity/HintikkaVsLeibniz/Hintikka: Problem: if possible worlds are entire universes, the frame between them changes too strongly so that it is questionable how individuals should be re-identified.

Hintikka I
Jaakko Hintikka
Merrill B. Hintikka
Investigating Wittgenstein
German Edition:
Untersuchungen zu Wittgenstein Frankfurt 1996

Hintikka II
Jaakko Hintikka
Merrill B. Hintikka
The Logic of Epistemology and the Epistemology of Logic Dordrecht 1989
Modal Realism Stalnaker Vs Modal Realism Stalnaker I 36
Proposition/closeness/Stalnaker: whatever propositions are, if there are any at all, there are also sets of them. And for each set of propositions it is definitely true or false, that all of its elements are true. And this is of course again a proposition.
(W5) Closeness-condition: for each set of propositions G there is a proposition A so that G implies A and A implies every element of G.
Stalnaker: that means that for each set of propositions there is a proposition that says that every proposition in the set is true.
So I suppose that the world-stories-theorists wants to add (W5) to his theory.
(W6) Equivalent propositions are identical.
Problem: the problems of (W6) are known. ((s) > hyperintensionalism/ hyperintensionality): propositions that are true in the same worlds are indistinguishable, VsPossible worlds semantics).
I 40
modal realism/MR/Lewis/Stalnaker: by Lewis the actual world (act. wrld.) is only a real part of a reality which consists of many parallel universes which are spatially and temporally separated. Actual world/Lewis/Stalnaker: is then indexically defined as the part that is related to us.
Unrealized possibilities/Possibilia/Lewis/Stalnaker: then actually exists, but in another part of the reality. Its non-actuality only exists in its localisation somewhere else.
((s) This is only a polemical presentation: Localization must be more than "somewhere else". Localization may be not carried out by us for areas that do are not related to us because we have then no knowledge.)
Modal Realism/MR/Stalnaker: divides into
1. semantic thesis: assertions about what is possible and necessary, should be analyzed in concepts about what is true in some or all parts of reality
2. metaphysical thesis: about the existence of possible worlds (poss.w.).
Semantic MR/Stalnaker: problem: VsMR it could be argued that it is not possible to know the metaphysical facts about it even if the semantic part was true.
I 41
Lewis: there is a parallel here to Benacerraf's dilemma of mathematical truth and knowledge.
I 42
EpistemologyVsModal Realism/Stalnaker: the representatives of the epistemological argument against the MR reject the parallel between mathematical objects and realistically construed possibilia. They insist that reference and knowledge require causal relation of concrete things even if that does not apply for abstract things (numbers etc.). Knowledge/LewisVs: why should the limit between what for knowledge and reference requires a causal relation to be made in concepts of the distinction abstract/concrete?
Knowledge/Lewis: instead we should say that reference and knowledge require a causal relation of contigent facts but not the one of modal reality (knowledge about what is possible and necessary).
Modal Realism/knowledge/Lewis: thesis: in the context of MR, we can say that indexical knowledge requires causal relation, but impersonal knowledge does not.
I 43
Platonism/mathematics/Stalnaker: pro Lewis: here knowledge does not have to be based on a causal relation. Then Benacerraf's dilemma can be solved. EpistemologyVsModal realism/Stalnaker: but I still feel the force of the epistemological argument VsMR.
Reference/knowledge/Stalnaker: problem: to explain the difference between knowledge and reference to numbers, sets and cabbages and so on.
I 49
Possible worlds/pos.w./MR/Vsmodal realism/knowledge/verificationism/StalnakerVsLewis: the modal realist can cite no verificationist principles for what he calls his knowledge. Conclusion: problem: the MR cannot say on the one hand that poss.w. things are of the same kind (contingent physical objects) like the real world and say on the other side that poss.w. things are of what we know in the same kind as of numbers, sets, functions. ((s) The latter are not "real" things).

Stalnaker I
R. Stalnaker
Ways a World may be Oxford New York 2003
Modal Realism Chisholm Vs Modal Realism I 19
Non-platonic entities/ChisholmVs: indexical properties: E.g. "the property of being identical with this thing." Singular propositions: e.g. "I am sitting", "This man is standing" times as particulars: "There is a time ..." ChisholmVsPossible Worlds/Po.wo.: as if they contained particulars of the real world. But they can also be understood as a subspecies of facts. Proposition/Chisholm: may instead be regarded as a subspecies of facts.
I 184
ChisholmVsPossible Worlds: in order for me to exist in other possible world I would have to have an individual essence that would be implied by this world.
I 185
If some possible worlds do not contain people, then I am necessarily so that none of these impersonal possible worlds exists. Even if I have no individual essence, some of my properties are essential for me: perhaps my personhood.

Chisholm I
R. Chisholm
The First Person. Theory of Reference and Intentionality, Minneapolis 1981
German Edition:
Die erste Person Frankfurt 1992

Chisholm II
Roderick Chisholm

In
Philosophische Aufsäze zu Ehren von Roderick M. Ch, Marian David/Leopold Stubenberg Amsterdam 1986

Chisholm III
Roderick M. Chisholm
Theory of knowledge, Englewood Cliffs 1989
German Edition:
Erkenntnistheorie Graz 2004
Possible World Sem. Hintikka Vs Possible World Sem. II 74
Cross World Identity/Cross World Identification/Identity/Identification/Individuation/Hintikka: is the main problem of the possible worlds semantics/semantics of possible worlds. This is also about the relation between individuation and identification. VsPossible Worlds Semantics/Hintikka: problem: it seems to absolutize possible worlds and complete sets of possibilia
II 75
Possible Worlds Semantics/Hintikka: on it you can build a theory of questions and answers. I 76 This is about what is possible in more than one world. For this, we must assume much more than is assumed in an extensional language. Reference/Possible Worlds Semantics: here it is not enough to assume only those references that have our expressions in the actual world. Extensional Language/Hintikka: assumes much less than possible worlds semantics. Namely, only the references from the real world.
World Line/Hintikka: is used here for identification (or re-identification) between possible worlds. I 77
VsPossible Worlds Semantics/Hintikka: some authors: the drawing of the world lines is too dependent on the context of use and other pragmatic factors, much more so than in other semantics of natural language.
II 205
Possible Worlds Semantics/Hintikka: does not need any conception of possible worlds as complete cosmological worlds, but only "small worlds", more like event histories or situations, I also speak of "scenarios". Possible Worlds/Hintikka: the term is misleading if you conceive it as complete worlds. Cross World Identification/Cross Identification/Perception/Hintikka: here we must assume situations when it comes to perceptual identification. Because there must be a perceiver in them, and the different situations (possible worlds) must share the perception space of the subject. Possible Worlds Semantics/Perception/HintikkaVsPossible Worlds Semantics: has overlooked this point. Situation/Possible World Semantics/Hintikka. In addition, the possible worlds semantics should study the relations between smaller and larger situations. I 206 Descriptive Cross World Identification/By Way of Description/Hintikka: descriptive identification should take place between parts of the world which are larger than the current perceptual cross identification. I.e. a comparison between "major" and "minor" situations.
Situation Semantics/Barwise/Perry/B/P/Hintikka: their situations semantics is a welcome addition to the possible worlds semantics.
Situation/Hintikka: an interesting question is how small egocentric situations can be put together to give a larger comprehensive "worldview". Relations: there should be at least three types of relations between situations: 1) spatial 2) temporal 3) the distinction between fine-grained and coarse-grained situations. It is best to study them insulated from each other.

Hintikka I
Jaakko Hintikka
Merrill B. Hintikka
Investigating Wittgenstein
German Edition:
Untersuchungen zu Wittgenstein Frankfurt 1996

Hintikka II
Jaakko Hintikka
Merrill B. Hintikka
The Logic of Epistemology and the Epistemology of Logic Dordrecht 1989
Possible Worlds Putnam Vs Possible Worlds I (g) 191
Possible Worlds/logic/PutnamVsPossible Worlds: besides, shrewd logical constructions do not represent an answer to philosophical problems. Sure you can offer with possible worlds as many objects as you want. Even too many.

Putnam I
Hilary Putnam
Von einem Realistischen Standpunkt
In
Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Frankfurt 1993

Putnam I (a)
Hilary Putnam
Explanation and Reference, In: Glenn Pearce & Patrick Maynard (eds.), Conceptual Change. D. Reidel. pp. 196--214 (1973)
In
Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993

Putnam I (b)
Hilary Putnam
Language and Reality, in: Mind, Language and Reality: Philosophical Papers, Volume 2. Cambridge University Press. pp. 272-90 (1995
In
Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993

Putnam I (c)
Hilary Putnam
What is Realism? in: Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 76 (1975):pp. 177 - 194.
In
Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993

Putnam I (d)
Hilary Putnam
Models and Reality, Journal of Symbolic Logic 45 (3), 1980:pp. 464-482.
In
Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993

Putnam I (e)
Hilary Putnam
Reference and Truth
In
Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993

Putnam I (f)
Hilary Putnam
How to Be an Internal Realist and a Transcendental Idealist (at the Same Time) in: R. Haller/W. Grassl (eds): Sprache, Logik und Philosophie, Akten des 4. Internationalen Wittgenstein-Symposiums, 1979
In
Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993

Putnam I (g)
Hilary Putnam
Why there isn’t a ready-made world, Synthese 51 (2):205--228 (1982)
In
Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993

Putnam I (h)
Hilary Putnam
Pourqui les Philosophes? in: A: Jacob (ed.) L’Encyclopédie PHilosophieque Universelle, Paris 1986
In
Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993

Putnam I (i)
Hilary Putnam
Realism with a Human Face, Cambridge/MA 1990
In
Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993

Putnam I (k)
Hilary Putnam
"Irrealism and Deconstruction", 6. Giford Lecture, St. Andrews 1990, in: H. Putnam, Renewing Philosophy (The Gifford Lectures), Cambridge/MA 1992, pp. 108-133
In
Von einem realistischen Standpunkt, Vincent C. Müller Reinbek 1993

Putnam II
Hilary Putnam
Representation and Reality, Cambridge/MA 1988
German Edition:
Repräsentation und Realität Frankfurt 1999

Putnam III
Hilary Putnam
Renewing Philosophy (The Gifford Lectures), Cambridge/MA 1992
German Edition:
Für eine Erneuerung der Philosophie Stuttgart 1997

Putnam IV
Hilary Putnam
"Minds and Machines", in: Sidney Hook (ed.) Dimensions of Mind, New York 1960, pp. 138-164
In
Künstliche Intelligenz, Walther Ch. Zimmerli/Stefan Wolf Stuttgart 1994

Putnam V
Hilary Putnam
Reason, Truth and History, Cambridge/MA 1981
German Edition:
Vernunft, Wahrheit und Geschichte Frankfurt 1990

Putnam VI
Hilary Putnam
"Realism and Reason", Proceedings of the American Philosophical Association (1976) pp. 483-98
In
Truth and Meaning, Paul Horwich Aldershot 1994

Putnam VII
Hilary Putnam
"A Defense of Internal Realism" in: James Conant (ed.)Realism with a Human Face, Cambridge/MA 1990 pp. 30-43
In
Theories of Truth, Paul Horwich Aldershot 1994

SocPut I
Robert D. Putnam
Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community New York 2000
Possible Worlds Verschiedene Vs Possible Worlds Schwarz I 41
Def Possible World/poss.w./Lewis: early: ways how things could be. Van InwagenVs: These are characteristics rather than concrete universes. (StalnakerVsLewis, RichardsVsLewis: ditto). Lewis: later: possible worlds correspond to ways how things could be.
Schwarz: but we do not necessarily have to introduce special entities for it. They could also be grammatical illusions. Even considering possible worlds as entities does not determine what kind of entities they are. E.g.:
Def Possible World/Stalnaker/Schwarz: the determination as (maximum) ways how things could be: then they are special properties or propositions. (Stalnaker 1976(1), Robert Adams, 1974(2)).
Def Possible World/Plantinga: (1974(3), Chapter 4) Maximum circumstances. According to this, a distinction must be made between the existence and existence of a state of affairs. Example: The state of affairs that donkeys could speak exists, but it does not exist. (Existence: Possibility - Existence: Reality? - rather reality (as another term): contains possibilities).
Schw I 42
Def Possible World/Decision Theory/Richard Jeffrey: (1965(4),196f): maximum consistent sentence sets. Since the phrase "donkeys can speak" is consistent, there is a maximum consistent set of sentences that contains it. We express this when we say that there is a possible world... Def Surrogate Four-Dimensionalism/Schwarz: These positions correspond to the facts of the philosophy of time (see above 22), which perceives other times as abstract entities of a different kind from the present.
LewisVs: other times are just as real.
Def Co-Existence/Lewis: two things are in the same world, iff there is a space-time path from one to the other. Consequence:
Possible Worlds/Lewis: are space-time isolated! So there is no causality between them. No event in one possible world causes another in another possible world.
This means further that possible worlds just were not created by us! We also cannot see, measure or visit them from here. (1986e(5),3,80f). Lewis does not care if you call your possible world concrete or abstract. This has no clear meaning (1986e(5),§1,7).
Real World/Lewis: what makes it different from the other possible worlds? Not its concreteness, but the fact that we live in it. Objectively, the real world is as little excellent as any other, or as the present.
"Actual"/Lewis: is an indexical expression like "here" or "now". Therefore, we cannot meaningfully ask whether we live in the real world or in a possible one. Likewise, we cannot ask whether we live in the present or perhaps in the future.
Reality/Lewis/Schwarz: Lewis's analysis of "real" is also shared by opponents of modal realism:
Van InwagenVsModal Realism/InwagenVsLewis: "Concretism". Stalnaker: "extreme modal realism".
Lewis IV 85
Meaning/Reference/Theoretical Terms/TT/Lewis: if we have the denotation of theoretical terms, what about its meaning? But we already have it! Because we have specified its denotation in every possible world. Def Sense/Lewis: Denotation of an expression in each possible world.
I.e. in every possible world the theoretical terms must name the components of whatever the theory T realizes uniquely in this world. If there is no realization in the world, they do not name anything.
Def Sense/Lewis: therefore we can say, the sense is a function (of all or some) possible worlds on named entities.
VsPossible Worlds/VsPossible Worlds/Lewis: some call them occult,
VsVs: but they are not more occult than e.g. infinite amounts, which we can handle very well.


1. Robert C. Stalnaker [1976]: “Possible Worlds”. Nous, 10: 65–75
2. Robert M. Adams [1974]: “Theories of Actuality”. Noˆus, 8: 211–231
3. Alvin Plantinga [1974]: The Nature of Necessity. Oxford: Oxford University P
4. Richard Jeffrey [1965]: The Logic of Decision. New York: McGraw-Hill
5. David Lewis [1986e]: On the Plurality of Worlds. Malden (Mass.): Blackwell





Schw I
W. Schwarz
David Lewis Bielefeld 2005

Lewis I
David K. Lewis
Die Identität von Körper und Geist Frankfurt 1989

Lewis I (a)
David K. Lewis
An Argument for the Identity Theory, in: Journal of Philosophy 63 (1966)
In
Die Identität von Körper und Geist, Frankfurt/M. 1989

Lewis I (b)
David K. Lewis
Psychophysical and Theoretical Identifications, in: Australasian Journal of Philosophy 50 (1972)
In
Die Identität von Körper und Geist, Frankfurt/M. 1989

Lewis I (c)
David K. Lewis
Mad Pain and Martian Pain, Readings in Philosophy of Psychology, Vol. 1, Ned Block (ed.) Harvard University Press, 1980
In
Die Identität von Körper und Geist, Frankfurt/M. 1989

Lewis II
David K. Lewis
"Languages and Language", in: K. Gunderson (Ed.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. VII, Language, Mind, and Knowledge, Minneapolis 1975, pp. 3-35
In
Handlung, Kommunikation, Bedeutung, Georg Meggle Frankfurt/M. 1979

Lewis IV
David K. Lewis
Philosophical Papers Bd I New York Oxford 1983

Lewis V
David K. Lewis
Philosophical Papers Bd II New York Oxford 1986

Lewis VI
David K. Lewis
Convention. A Philosophical Study, Cambridge/MA 1969
German Edition:
Konventionen Berlin 1975

LewisCl
Clarence Irving Lewis
Collected Papers of Clarence Irving Lewis Stanford 1970

LewisCl I
Clarence Irving Lewis
Mind and the World Order: Outline of a Theory of Knowledge (Dover Books on Western Philosophy) 1991
Possible Worlds Stalnaker Vs Possible Worlds I 49
Possible world/poss.w./knowledge/mathematics/StalnakerVsLewis/Stalnaker: I am inclined to say that the poss.w.-theory makes assumptions about the nature of their properties that are - unlike the corresponding assumptions of mathematical platonism - incompatible with the representation of the connection between the knowledge subjects and their objects in the case of poss.w.. poss.w./MR/VsModal realism/knowledge/verificationism/StalnakerVsLewis: the modal realist cannot cite any verificationist principles for what he calls his knowledge.
Conclusion: problem: the MR cannot on the one hand say that poss.w. things are of the same kind as the actual world (contingent physical objects) and say on the other hand that poss.w. are things of which we know by the same kind like of numbers, sets, functions. ((s) Namely no real existing things.).
I 53
StalnakerVsLewis: he contradicts himself because his other thesis about poss.w. about which we can have substantial beliefs contradicts his definition of content (see above).
I 58
Contradiction/Lewis: there is no object howsoever fantastic about which one could tell the truth by contradicting oneself. Footnote:
Takashi YagisawaVsLewis: why not? What should you expect otherwise? Impossible things are impossible.

II 20
Belief ascription/solution/Stalnaker: I always wonder how the poss.w. would be according to what the believer believes. E.g. Pierre: for him there are two cities (Londres and London)
E.g. Lingens in the library: for him there are two men, one named "Lingens" about which the other reads something.
Relations theory/RelTh/Stalnaker: this can reconcile with the assumption that propositions are the belief objects. (Team: Stalnaker pro Relations theory? (1999))
Index/belief/Stalnaker: nevertheless I believe that convictions have an irreducible indexical element.
Solution/Lewis: sets of centered poss.w. as belief objects.
StalnakerVsLewis: although I have accepted that such poss.w. then include a representation of the mental state of the believer.
But that is not what it is about! It is not sufficient that poss.w. that are compatible with one's convictions then include a person who has these convictions (> e.g. Lingens), the believer must identify himself with the person who has this thought!
Proposition/identification/self-identification/Stalnaker: I am not suggesting that this identification is fulfilled by the belief in a proposition.
I now think that this is not at all about some kind of cognitive performance.
Indexical conviction/Stalnaker: (E.g. Perry: memory loss, library, e.g. Lewis: 2 gods (2 omniscient gods, e.g. Castaneda: memory loss): indexical unknowing.
Stalnaker: thesis: people do not differ in what they believe.
II 21
E.g. O'Leary knows that he is in the basement and that Daniels is in the kitchen. And Daniels knows the same thing: that he is in the kitchen and O'Leary in the basement. Everyone knows who and where he is and who and where the other is. The poss.w. that are compatible with the convictions of the two are the same. They argue about nothing.
Yet there is an obvious difference in their doxastic situation: O'Leary identifies himself with the one in the basement and Daniels identifies himself as one who is in the kitchen.
poss.w. semantics/StalnakerVsPossible worlds semantics/Stalnaker: this difference in the belief states of the two is not reflected by a set of poss.w. as belief state.
Solution/Lewis: self-ascription of properties, or - equivalently - sets of centered poss.w..
StalnakerVsLewis: I do not want that.
StalnakerVsLewis: problem: it is wrong to treat the difference in perspective as a dispute (disagreement). The two argue about nothing.
Problem: it is not sure if one can express their agreement with the fact that the set of their uncentered poss.w. is the same. Because
E.g. Heimson/Perry/Stalnaker: (Heimson believes "I am David Hume") all his impersonal beliefs about Hume are correct. Suppose they are the same convictions as the convictions of Hume about Hume.
Stalnaker: nevertheless it would be wrong to say that they argue about nothing. ((s) unlike O'Leary and Daniels).

II 134
Localization/space/time/self-localization/logical space/Lewis/Stalnaker: logical space/Lewis/Stalnaker: set of poss.w. from which one selects one.
Self-localization/physical: in space and time. We usually know where we are. ((s) but we never know all poss.w. in which we could be localized, we cannot distinguish all poss.w. because we do not know everything).
Gods example/Stalnaker: the two know exactly where they are in the logical space.
II 135
But they do not know where within this poss.w. they are. LewisVsTradition: the doctrine of the proposition is focused only on one of the two types of localized belief.
Generalization: is what we need and for that the transition from propositions to properties (as belief objects) serves.

II 144
Gods example/Stalnaker: this is also a case of unknowing, which of two indistinguishable poss.w. is actual. One is actually the actual world while the other exactly the sam, with the exception that the god who sits in the actual world on the highest mountain is this time sitting on the coldest mountain and in fact with all the properties that the god on the highest mountain actually has.
((s) two individuals change places but keep all the properties. This is only possible if localization is not a property)
Omniscience/Stalnaker: then you have to say, the two gods are not really omniscient regarding propositions, but rather omniscient in relation to purely qualitative criteria.
LewisVsStalnaker: Lewis rejects this explanation for two reasons:
1. because he represents the counterpart theory (c.th.) that makes the cross world identity superfluous or meaningless.
2. even without counterpart it would not work because
Assuming that the two gods of world W have traded places in world V assuming the god on the highest knows that his world is W, not V. Assuming he is omniscient with respect to all propositions not only the qualitative propositions.
II 145
V: the world V cannot be relevant because he knows that he does not live there. Problem: there are still two mountains in a poss.w. W where he after all what he knows can live.
StalnakerVsLewis: that does not answer the question: you cannot simply stipulate that the God in W knows something and not V. Because after the explanation we proposed that leads to the fact that he knows on which mountain he lives.
Lewis/Stalnaker: his explanation is plausible if one conceives it as a metaphor for a location in the logical space:
logical space/Lewis/Stalnaker: assume that a map of the logical space divided into large regions match the poss.w. and in smaller subdivisions represent the locations within poss.w..
Important argument: then we can tell someone in which large region he is without telling him exactly where he is located in it.
Modal Realism/MR/logical space/Stalnaker: for him this image might be appropriate.
Actualism/logical space/localization/Stalnaker: for the actualism this image is misleading: to know in which country you are is different to know where in the country you are but it is not so clear that there is a difference between the fact that one knows anything about in which poss.w. one is and knowing which poss.w. is the actual.
Lewis also admits this.
Stalnaker: my approach seems to be really close to the one of Lewis, but no.
Centered poss.w.: one should perhaps instead of indistinguishable poss.w. speak of centered worlds (after Quine). These are then distinguishable.
Indistinguishability/poss.w./Stalnaker: distinct but indistinguishable poss.w. would then be the same worlds but with different centers.
Attitude/properties/propositions/centered world/Lewis: to treat objects of attitudes as sets of centered poss.w. makes them to properties instead of propositions.
Centered poss.w./Stalnaker: I agree that possible situations normally, perhaps even essential, are centered in the sense of a representation of a particular mental state.
II 146
StalnakerVsLewis: but this makes the approach (gods example) more complicated when it comes to the relations between different mental states. E.g. to compare past with current states is then more difficult, or relations between the convictions of different people.
Information/communication/Stalnaker: we need then additional explanation about how information is exchanged. Two examples:
E.g. O'Leary is freed from his trunk and wonders at around nine:
a) "What time was it when I wondered what time it was?"
Stalnaker: that is the same question like the one he asked then.
When he learns that it was three o'clock, his doubt has been eliminated.
Solution: the doubt is eliminated since all possible situations (poss.w.) in which a thought occurs at two different times are involved. The centers of these situations have moved in the sense that it is now nine o'clock and O'Leary no longer in the trunk but it may be that the first occurrence of the then thought is what O'Leary is now thinking about.
Important argument: this moving of the center does not require that the poss.w. that the propositions characterize are changed.
b) "What time was it when I wondered if it was three or four?". (If he wondered twice)
Indistinguishability: even if the two incidents were indistinguishable for O'Leary, it may still be that it was the first time which O'Leary remembers at around nine o'clock.
StalnakerVsLewis: his approach is more complicated. According to his approach we have to say at three o'clock, O'Leary wonders about his current temporal localization in the actual world (act.wrld.) instead of wondering in what poss.w. he is.
Versus: at nine, things are quite different: now he wonders if he lives in a poss.w. in which a particular thought occurred at three or four. This is unnecessarily complicated.
E.g. Lingens, still in the library, meets Ortcutt and asks him "Do you know who I am?" – "You are my cousin, Rudolf Lingens!".
Stalnaker: that seems to be a simple and successful communication. Information was requested and given. The question was answered.
II 147
Proposition/Stalnaker: (Propositions as belief objects) Ortcutt's answer expresses a proposition that distinguishes between possible situations and eliminates Lingen's doubt. StalnakerVsLewis: according to his approach (self-ascription of properties), it is again more complicated:
Lingens: asks if he correctly ascribes himself a certain set of properties i.
Ortcutt: answers by ascribing himself a completely different set of properties.
Lingens: has to conclude then subsequently himself the answer. So all the answers are always indirect in communication. ((s) also StalnakerVsChisholm, implicit).
Communication/Lewis/Chisholm/StalnakerVsLewis/StalnakerVsChsholm: everyone then always speaks only about himself.
Solution/Stalnaker: Lewis would otherwise have to distinguish between attitudes and speech acts and say that speech acts have propositions as object and attitudes properties as an object.
Problem/StalnakerVsLewis: Lewis cannot say by intuition that the content of Ortcutt's answer is the information that eliminates Lingen's doubt.
That is also a problem for Perry's approach. (> StalnakerVsPerry)

Stalnaker I
R. Stalnaker
Ways a World may be Oxford New York 2003