Abstract

This essay catalogues the varieties of intentional entailment and systematically explores the relationships between them, giving particular attention to the intentional entailments used by Roderick Chisholm. Various principles of "realistic" doxastic logic are evaluated and provisional axiomatizations of intentional entailment are proposed. Then it is argued that there are doxastically non-contingent propositions--propositions that can't be believed or that must be believed--and that these create "paradoxes" of doxastic implication that are analogous to the "paradoxes" of strict implication. Many significant counterexamples are generated by the paradoxes