Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Introduction to Relative Truth

  • Published:
Synthese Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Bach K. (2005). The emperor’s new ‘Know’. In: Preyer G., Peter G. (eds). Contextualism in philosophy: Knowledge, meaning, and truth. Oxford, Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Boghossian P. (2006). What is relativism?. In: Greenough P., Lynch M. (eds). Truth and realism. Oxford, Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Brogaard, B. (2008a). Sea battle semantics. Philosophical Quarterly, 58, 326–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brogaard, B. (2008b). Moral contextualism and moral relativism. Philosophical Quarterly, 58, 385–409.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brogaard, B. (2008c). In defense of a perspectival semantics for ‘Know’. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 86, 439–459.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cappelen H., Lepore E. (2005). Insensitive semantics: A defense of semantic minimalism and speech act pluralism. Oxford, Blackwell

    Google Scholar 

  • Cappelen, H., & Lepore, E. (2006). Book symposia for insensitive semantics in mind and language, and philosophy and phenomenological research. Commentators: Kent Bach, Ann Bezuidenhout, Steve Gross, John Hawthorne, Korta and Perry, Francois Recanati, Stainton, Zoltan Szabo, Ken Taylor, Charles Travis.

  • Cappelen, H., & Lepore, E. (Manuscript). Reply to Macfarlane.

  • Chalmers D. (2004). Epistemic two-dimensional semantics. Philosophical Studies 118, 153–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chalmers, D. (forthcoming a). The multiplicity of meaning.

  • Chalmers, D. (forthcoming b). Propositions and attitude ascriptions: A Fregean account. Nous.

  • Cohen S. (1987). Knowledge, context, and social standards. Synthese 73, 3–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeRose K. (1995). Solving the skeptical problem. The Philosophical Review 104, 1–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeRose K. (2004). Single scoreboard semantics. Philosophical Studies 119, 1–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeRose, K. (forthcoming). ‘Bamboozled by our own words’: Semantic blindness and some objections to contextualism. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research.

  • Dreier J. (1990). Internalism and speaker relativism. Ethics 101, 6–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egan, A. (forthcoming). Epistemic modals, relativism and assertion. Philosophical Studies.

  • Egan A., Hawthorne J., Weatherson B. (2004). Epistemic modals in context. In: Preyer G., Peter G. (eds). Contextualism in philosophy. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 131–168

    Google Scholar 

  • Frege G. (1979). Logic. In: Hermes H., Kambartel H., Kaulbach F. (eds). Posthumous writings trans. Long and White. Chicago, Chicago University Press, pp. 126–151

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillies, T., & von Fintel, K. (Manuscript a). ‘Might’ made right.

  • Gillies, T., & von Fintel, K. (Manuscript b). CIA leaks.

  • Greco, J. (forthcoming). What’s wrong with contextualism?

  • Harman G. (1975). Moral relativism defended. The Philosophical Review 84, 3–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan D. (1989). Demonstratives. In Almog J., Perry J., Wettstein H. (eds). Themes from Kaplan. New York, Oxford University Press, pp. 481–563

    Google Scholar 

  • King, J. (2003). Tense, modality, and semantic values. In J. Hawthorne & D. Zimmerman (Eds.), Philosophical perspectives 17: Language and philosophical linguistics (pp. 195–246).

  • Kölbel M. (2002). Truth without objectivity. Routlegdge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Kölbel M. (2003). Faultless disagreement. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 104, 53–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kölbel M. (2004). Indexical relativism versus genuine relativism. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 12, 297–313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kölbel, M. (Manuscript). Moral relativism.

  • Lasersohn P. (2005). Context dependence, disagreement, and predicates of personal taste. Linguistics and Philosophy 28, 643–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, D. (1980). Index, context and content. In S. Kanger & S. Ohman (Eds.), Philosophy and grammar (pp. 79–100). Dordrecht: Reidel (Reprinted in Papers on Philosophical Logic. Cambridge University Press, 1998, pp. 21–44).

  • Lewis D. (1996). Elusive knowledge. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 74, 549–567

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lopez De Sa, D. (Manuscript a). The many relativisms and the question of disagreement.

  • Lopez De Sa, D. (Manuscript b). What is Said: Indexical vs non-indexical contextualism.

  • MacFarlane J. (2003). Future contingents and relative truth. The Philosophical Quarterly 53, 321–336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacFarlane J. (2005). The assessment sensitivity of knowledge attributions. In: Gendler T.S., Hawthorne J. (eds). Oxford studies in epistemology (Vol. 1). Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 197–233

    Google Scholar 

  • MacFarlane, J. (Manuscript a). Epistemic modalities and relative truth.

  • MacFarlane, J. (Manuscript b). Truth in the garden of forking paths.

  • Montague R. (1973). The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. In: Hintikka J., Moravcsik J., Suppes P. (eds). Approaches to natural language. Dordrecht, Reidel, pp. 221–242

    Google Scholar 

  • Recanati, F. (forthcoming a). Relativized propositions. In M. O’Rourke & C. Washington (Eds.), Situation semantics: Essays on the philosophy of John Perry. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradbord Books.

  • Recanati, F. (forthcoming b). Moderate relativism. In M. Garcia-Carpintero & M. Kolbel (Eds.), Relativizing utterance truth.

  • Richard M. (2004). Contextualism and relativism. Philosophical Studies 119, 215–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salmon N. (1986). Frege’s puzzle. Cambridge, MA, The MIT Press/Bradford Books

    Google Scholar 

  • Salmon N. (1989). Tense and singular propositions. In: Almog Perry, Wettstein (eds). Themes from Kaplan. New York, Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Salmon N. (2003). Tense and intension. In: Jokic A. (ed). Time, tense, and reference. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 107–154

    Google Scholar 

  • Sider, T. (forthcoming). Metametaphysics.

  • Stalnaker R. (1978). Assertion. In: Cole P. (ed). Syntax and semantics, Vol. 9: Pragmatics. New York, Academic Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanley J. (2002). Nominal restriction. In: Peters G., Preyer G. (eds). Logical form and language. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 365–388

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanley J. (2005a). Semantics in context. In: Preyer G. (ed). Contextualism. Oxford, Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanley J. (2005b). Knowledge and practical interests. Oxford, Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanley J., Szabo Z. (2000). On quantifier domain restriction. Mind and Language 15, 219–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weatherson, B. (Manuscript). Questioning contextualism.

  • Wright C. (2003). Truth in ethics, saving the differences. Cambridge, Harvard University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright C. (2006). Intuitionism, realism, relativism and rhubarb. In: Greenough P., Lynch M.P. (eds). Truth and realism. Oxford, Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, University of Missouri, St. Louis, MO, 63121, USA

    Berit Brogaard

  2. Philosophy Program, RSSS, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, 0200, Australia

    Berit Brogaard

Authors
  1. Berit Brogaard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Berit Brogaard.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Brogaard, B. Introduction to Relative Truth . Synthese 166, 215–229 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-007-9288-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-007-9288-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation