July 5 — Becky Keller – note Friday meeting because of “some kind of American holiday”July 11 — Alex Kiefer – room will be Philosophy 201B (downstairs to the right)July 18 — Kathryn PendoleyJuly 25 — Andrew LeeAug 1 — Simon BrownAug 8 — tbdAug 12ish— Henry ShevlinAug 22 — Andrew Richmond
July 5 — Becky Keller – note Friday meeting because of “some kind of American holiday”July 11 — Alex Kiefer – room will be Philosophy 201B (downstairs to the right)July 18 — Kathryn PendoleyJuly 25 — Andrew LeeAug 1 — Simon BrownAug 8 — tbdAug 12ish— Henry ShevlinAug 22 — Andrew Richmond
July 5 — Becky Keller – note Friday meeting because of “some kind of American holiday”July 11 — Alex Kiefer – room will be Philosophy 201B (downstairs to the right)July 18 — Kathryn PendoleyJuly 25 — Andrew LeeAug 1 — Simon BrownAug 8 — tbdAug 12ish— Henry ShevlinAug 22 — Andrew Richmond
July 5 — Becky Keller – note Friday meeting because of “some kind of American holiday”July 11 — Alex Kiefer – room will be Philosophy 201B (downstairs to the right)July 18 — Kathryn PendoleyJuly 25 — Andrew LeeAug 1 — Simon BrownAug 8 — tbdAug 12ish— Henry ShevlinAug 22 — Andrew Richmond
July 5 — Becky Keller – note Friday meeting because of “some kind of American holiday”July 11 — Alex Kiefer – room will be Philosophy 201B (downstairs to the right)July 18 — Kathryn PendoleyJuly 25 — Andrew LeeAug 1 — Simon BrownAug 8 — tbdAug 12ish— Henry ShevlinAug 22 — Andrew Richmond
July 5 — Becky Keller – note Friday meeting because of “some kind of American holiday”July 11 — Alex Kiefer – room will be Philosophy 201B (downstairs to the right)July 18 — Kathryn PendoleyJuly 25 — Andrew LeeAug 1 — Simon BrownAug 8 — tbdAug 12ish— Henry ShevlinAug 22 — Andrew Richmond
July 5 — Becky Keller – note Friday meeting because of “some kind of American holiday”July 11 — Alex Kiefer – room will be Philosophy 201B (downstairs to the right)July 18 — Kathryn PendoleyJuly 25 — Andrew LeeAug 1 — Simon BrownAug 8 — tbdAug 12ish— Henry ShevlinAug 22 — Andrew Richmond
Our next meeting will be on September 6 and we will go over Christian List’s survey article on Social Choice from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
You should come to one of the three (3) Ask a Philosopher booths we have scheduled for the month of September!
Saturday 9/7, 10:00-2:00 @ the Borough Hall Greenmarket
Saturday 9/14, 11:00-3:00 @ the Market at the Brooklyn Museum
Saturday 9/21, 10:00-2:00 @ the McCarren Park Greenmarket
A sensible approach to the semantics of tense says that present tense and past tense “refer” to the evaluation time and to some pre-evaluation time, respectively. Indeed, this seems to be the case in unembedded sentences (e.g., Mary is thirty-five, Mary was thirty-five). But embedded tenses seem to misbehave: (1) does not express the proposition that two months prior to s* (= the speech time) Joseph was sure about the truth of [Mary is currently thirty-five]; this proposition is expressed by (2). Assuming that tenses are indexical expressions does not automatically solve the problem, since (1) does not express the proposition that two months prior to s* Joseph was sure about the truth of [Mary will be thirty-five at s*] either; that proposition is expressed by (3). (In addition, (2) does not express the proposition that two months prior to s* Joseph was sure about the truth of [Mary will be thirty-five at some s** < s*].) In fact, (1) roughly expresses the proposition that two months prior to s* Joseph was sure about the truth of [Mary is currently thirty-five and will still be thirty-five at s*] (Smith (1978), Enc (1987)). Indeed, unlike (1), (1′) is usually quite odd (presumably because most speakers presuppose that, like them, Joseph can accept that Mary is thirty-five for a period of two – sometimes even twelve – months, but not that she is thirty-five for a period of twenty months). To explain why the embedded past in (2) “refers” to the embedded evaluation time, and why the embedded present in (1)/(1’) “refers” to a time much larger than that, we assume, with Abusch (1997), that these embedded tenses are indexical expressions governed by general constraints on ‘de re’ attitude reports, including – crucially – the Upper Limit Constraint. Expanding on Abusch (1997) and Percus (2013), we derive the Upper Limit Constraint itself from general principles as well.
Logic and Metaphysics Workshop Fall 2019
September 2 GC Closed NO MEETING
September 9 Yael Sharvit, UCLA
September 16 Ole Hjortland and Ben Martin, Bergen
September 23 Alessandro Rossi, StAndrews
September 30 GC Closed NO MEETING
October 7 Dongwoo Kim, GC
October 14 GC Closed NO MEETING
October 21 Rohit Parikh, GC
October 28 Barbara Montero, GC
November 4 Sergei Aretmov, GC
November 11 Martin Pleitz, Muenster
November 18
November 25
December 2 Jessica Wilson, Toronto
December 9 Mark Colyvan, Sydney
December 16 MAYBE A MEETING; MAYBE NOT