Ethan Russo

The question of Absolute Generality is whether quantifiers are ever as general as can be. Absolutists claim that quantifiers sometimes are absolutely general, while Relativists claim that quantifiers are never absolutely general. Although diverse philosophers have found the Relativist ethos compelling, it has been hard to articulate a consistent thesis which says what the Relativist seems to want to say. In this paper, I offer Relativists a way forward: I argue that what is needed to successfully state Relativism is a way of generalizing that is non-quantificational. After showing how to define such a device of generalization in terms of identity between properties in a higher-order logical language, I use the device to articulate a form of Relativism which I prove to be consistent and which I argue captures the intuitive vision of the Relativist.

According to intensional approaches to modeling content (such as "possible worlds semantics"), sentences which are logically equivalent express the same proposition. Partisans of hyperintensionality think this is too coarse-grained. Though there has been substantial interest recently in developing hyperintensional approaches to modeling content, we are still in early days: it is not clear how fine-grained propositions are on the various approaches, and we do not have a systematic map of how the various approaches relate to each other. In this paper, I begin to sketch that map: I show that two prominent hyperintensional approaches can be seen not as rivals but, in large part, as two sides of the same coin. One is the truthmaker semantics, and the other, the "two-component" approach, models propositions as ordered pairs of "truth-conditional content'' and "subject matter''. I show, in particular, that certain versions of the two approaches approaches actually converge when it comes to these questions of fineness of grain.