From 477cb055e6dd5d8d3faaf84032fd15b068f8dfde Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: jim Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2015 09:50:32 -0500 Subject: [PATCH 1/1] post readings --- index.mdwn | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) diff --git a/index.mdwn b/index.mdwn index 7b042e69..b5cb522e 100644 --- a/index.mdwn +++ b/index.mdwn @@ -143,6 +143,8 @@ Types in OCaml and Haskell; Practical advice for working with OCaml and/or Haskell (all will be posted soon); [[Homework|exercises/assignment5]] +> *Reading for next meeting*: [[this short footnote from Kaplan|readings/kaplan-plexy.pdf]]; and, separately, [[this paper|readings/rieppel-beingsthg.pdf]] from Michael Rieppel, a recent Berkeley Philosophy PhD, on Frege's "concept horse" problem (on which, [here is an entry point to some scholarly discussion](http://philpapers.org/rec/PROWIF)). The Rieppel paper is connected to a discussion Jim participated in with Jeff King a few years ago, about the difference between clausal complements and expressions like "the proposition that P" or "the fact that P". We're likely to discuss King's views on this, which were first set out in his paper [Designating propositions](http://philpapers.org/rec/KINDP) and then elaborated in his book *The Nature and Structure of Content*. I will post some selections from the book later, as optional background reading. But the only things from this set that we will expect you all to read are the Kaplan footnote and the Rieppel paper. + > If you're reading along in Hankin, you can look at Chapter 7. > If you're reading along in the Pierce book, the chapters most relevant to this week's discussion are 22 and 23; though for context we also recommend at least Chapters 8, 9, 11, 20, and 29. We don't expect most of you to follow these recommendations now, or even to be comfortable enough yet with the material to be able to. We're providing the pointers as references that some might conceivably pursue now, and others later. -- 2.11.0