Singular Propositions and Singular Thoughts

Sullivan, Arthur

doi:10.1305/ndjfl/1039293023

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These benefits are highly visible to external audiences, thanks in part to the transparency rules imposed by the US Congress in response to reported abuses of the family foundation structure for individual and familial enrichment (Silk & Lintott, 2002). As one family philanthropy advisor puts it, "a private foundation is about the least private thing you can have … By meeting Internal Revenue Service reporting requirements, you're opening up your affairs to the world" (Sullivan, 2019). Hence, operating a family foundation opens a BOF's community social engagement to unique public scrutiny.…”

Section: Sew Instrumental Stakeholder Theory and Bof Community Social...mentioning

confidence: 99%

It’s a Family Affair: A Case for Consistency in Family Foundation Giving and Family Firm Community CSR Activity

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although most business-owning families (BOFs) that operate large family firms practice community social engagement both in private via family foundations and in the business domain via community corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs, the relationship between their activities in the two domains remains unclear. Prior literature speculates that BOFs will deprioritize firms’ community CSR when they have family foundations as more efficient vehicles to achieve socioemotional wealth (SEW), which would imply that such BOFs are less ethical in operating their firms. We contrast these speculations by enriching the socioemotional wealth (SEW) approach with instrumental stakeholder theory and cue consistency arguments and theorize that BOFs seek to ensure consistency between their activities in the two domains. Using data from 2008 to 2018 on the 95 largest US public family firms whose BOFs also operate private foundations, we show a positive relationship between family foundation giving and firm community CSR activity. Furthermore, we provide evidence for the boundary conditions of this relationship, showing that it is weaker for firms that do not share the family’s name and stronger for those firms with family leaders who also lead their families’ foundations.

show abstract

Section: Sew Instrumental Stakeholder Theory and Bof Community Social...mentioning

confidence: 99%

It’s a Family Affair: A Case for Consistency in Family Foundation Giving and Family Firm Community CSR Activity

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…First and foremost, as is well-known, the former, with its appeal to singular propositions, is in trouble with the co-reference problem standardly exemplified by Frege's puzzle,9 which descriptivism solves by a standard recourse to Fregean propositions (see, e.g., Perry 2002). Thus, Sullivan 1998 urges that the referentialist should acknowledge Fregean propositions beside Russellian ones. 10 As a matter of fact, referentialism must at least link some- 9 The standard version of Frege's puzzle is based on a supposedly true identity sentence token, i.e.…”

Section: Some Motivationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Description Theory of Singular Reference

Orilia

2005

Dialectica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

According to the received view, descriptivism is a dead end in an attempt to account for singular reference by proper names, indexicals and possibly even incomplete descriptions, for they require referentialism. In contrast to this, I argue for an application of the former to all kinds of singular terms, indexicals in particular, by relying on a view of incomplete descriptions as elliptical in a pragmatic sense. I thus provide a general analysis of singular reference. The proposed approach is in line with the classical theory of propositions, except for admitting "private" ones with subjective mental entities as constituents. On the other hand, there is no commitment to singular Russellian propositions with ordinary objects as constituents and in general to meanings that cannot be "in the mind"

show abstract

“…2 2 See (Sullivan 1998) for an attempt to accommodate fine‐grained Fregean and coarse‐grained Russellian propositions within the same theory. …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The fact that a semantic realist may construe sentential meanings as hyperpropositions refutes Dummett's claim that a semantic realist must identify meanings with truth-conditions. 2 See(Sullivan 1998) for an attempt to accommodate fine-grained Fregean and coarse-grained Russellian propositions within the same theory.3 See (Johnson-Laird 1977) and(Woods 1981) for psychologistically slanted conceptions of procedural semantics. 4 Frege, however, was torn between logical equivalence and cognitive significance (Erkenntniswert) as the principle of individuation to govern Gedanken.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

How hyper are hyperpropositions?

Jespersen

2010

Language and Linguistics Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is an old dispute among logicians and philosophers of language just how finely individuated propositions ought to be. Frege, for one, was torn between two criteria: logical equivalence, which is an exact, but probably also overly crude criterion, and cognitive significance, which is an inexact but arguably on the right track. Possible‐world semantics, taking off around 1960, has gotten much technical and philosophical mileage out of the former criterion, but the insight is catching on that propositions need to be more finely individuated than in terms of mathematical mappings. Sophisticated theories of propositions embrace a three‐tiered strategy, according to which fine‐grained hyperpropositions apply to sentential senses, explicit attitudes, etc.; coarse‐grained possible‐world propositions apply to states‐of‐affairs, implicit attitudes, etc., while truth‐values make up the third tier. This paper explains the rationale for hyperpropositions and outlines one particular theory maintaining that their right calibration is in terms of near‐identity (isomorphism) among abstract procedures. This proposal tallies with the prevalent idea that hyperpropositions are structured meanings.

show abstract

Singular Propositions and Singular Thoughts

Cited by 5 publications

References 7 publications

It’s a Family Affair: A Case for Consistency in Family Foundation Giving and Family Firm Community CSR Activity

It’s a Family Affair: A Case for Consistency in Family Foundation Giving and Family Firm Community CSR Activity

A Description Theory of Singular Reference

How hyper are hyperpropositions?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About