How Much Substitutivity
situation can be thought of in different ways. For Lois, the propositions that Superman can fly and that Clark Kent can fly are two different ways of thinking of the same abstract situation, though, most of the time, she does not realize this. So far as this note is concerned, I shall write simply as if 'so-labelled' means that the words the ascriber uses to specify the belief are the words Lois would herself use to express it (for a less crude account, see, e.g., my 1993). The upshot is that substitution in (1) fails because it changes the reference of the hidden logophor 'so' that is explicit in (4). This analysis can be straightforwardly extended to what I call 'objectual attitudes', such as 'Lois admires Superman but not Clark', 'Lois saw Superman but not Clark', or (5) Luthor fears Superman, but not Clark. Here there is a cognitive attitude towards a material object rather than a proposition, but we can use the same apparatus to provide such statements with readings which resist substitution (see my 1996, 56). As a first step, (5) becomes (6) Luthor fears Superman, so-labelled, but not Clark, so-labelled. Again, the meaning is not obvious, but can be explained in terms of ways of thinking, this time of objects rather than abstract situations. For (6) I would offer (7) Luthor fears Superman under Luthor's so-labelled way of thinking of Superman, but not Clark, under Luthor's so-labelled way of thinking of Clark. If Luthor is afraid of Superman he must think of him in some way.3 In fact he has two 'standing' ways of thinking of him, but is in the fearing relation only with respect to one of the two,4 because the propositional attitudes 2 The situations are abstract in the sense of being abstracted from possible worlds: one and the same situation may obtain at some worlds and not at others. All other parameters, e.g. temporal ones where appropriate, are part of an abstract situation. For semantic innocence, see Davidson 1969, p. 172. 3 Kripke has shown that 'famous deeds' accounts of ways of thinking of objects associated with proper names are not right, but there are alternatives; see Forbes 1990. 4 In a regimentation there are at least two ways of accommodating the 'with respect to'. The most obvious is just to add an extra place to the objectual attitude verb 'fears': fears(x,y,z), meaning x fears y under mode of presentation z. Probably a better alternative is to treat 'under mode of presentation z' as an operator which governs 'x fears y', subscripting 'z' with 'y'; see Forbes 1996, n. 26, for discussion. This content downloaded from 157.55.39.86 on Wed, 20 Apr 2016 04:59:44 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms HOW MUCH SUBSTITUTIVITY? I I which underlie his fear involve only the one labelled 'Superman'.5 Some of Saul's cases do not directly involve attitudes, but attitudes lurk under the surface, so an implicit 'so-labelled' is still plausible. For example, (8) Clark Kent can fly, though he conceals this fact. I suggest that 'conceals this fact' means 'conceals this fact, so-labelled'. 'Conceals' is not an attitude verb, propositional or objectual concealing is an action. But Clark/Superman's goal in so acting is to prevent people from apprehending the fact that he can fly under a way of thinking of that fact which involves their ways of thinking of him labelled 'Clark Kent'. So the labelling of the fact is derivative from the content of ways of thinking of it, and while substitution in (8) does not change the fact, it would invoke a different way of thinking of it. This is the first illustration of how Saul's examples are grist to a Fregean mill. Saul's most interesting cases are ones that do not seem to have any psychological aspect at all, for example, (9) Clark went into the phone booth and Superman came out, where substitution produces the apparently false (10) Clark went into the phone booth and Clark came out. But even in these cases it is plausible that failure of substitution is due to hidden logophor. When we deny that (10) follows from (9), this is because we are interpreting (9) as (11) Clark, so-attired, went into the phone booth, and Superman, soattired, came out. Thus this non-psychological case actually supports a Fregean approach to attitudes: (11) is invoking ways of dressing, which can be related many-one to the clothed person, just as ways of thinking can be related many-one to the object of thought. The first 'so-attired' in (11) means 'attired in the "Clark Kent" way', in which the quotes are obligatory, since we are referring to the style Clark is affecting in situations where others apply 'Clark' to him. Saul's other examples are amenable to the same kind of treatment. A way of dressing is perhaps a special case of a more general notion of a way s One of Saul's cases, 'Clark was in despair because Lois had fallen for Superman', involves one, perhaps two, objectual attitudes (despair possibly being 0-ary). Falling for is an objectual attitude, so 'Superman' cannot be substituted. But Saul holds that 'Clark' cannot be substituted either. However, I doubt if the conventional details of the story can justify this; after all, even when swooping out of the sky, Clark may be thinking 'This is no good, Lois loves only Superman, so-labelled'. Yet this is not to say that the subject-position of an attitude verb is always open to substitution; consider 'Clark often wishes that his clothes were more colourful, but Superman never wishes this'. See my discussion of (9) in the text for how I would explain this example. This content downloaded from 157.55.39.86 on Wed, 20 Apr 2016 04:59:44 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms