Journal of Philosophical Logic 39:531-556 (2010)
|Abstract||According to the standard opinions in the literature, blocking the unacceptable consequences of the notorious slingshot argument requires imposing constraints on the metaphysics of facts or on theories of definite descriptions (or class abstracts). This paper argues that both of these well-known strategies to rebut the slingshot overshoot the mark. The slingshot, first and foremost, raises the question as to the adequate logical formalization of statements about facts, i.e. of factual contexts. It will be shown that a rigorous application of Quine’s maxim of shallow analysis to formalizations of factual contexts paves the way for an account of formalizing such contexts which blocks the slingshot without ramifications for theories of facts or definite descriptions.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
John MacFarlane (2002). Facing Facts. [REVIEW] Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews 200208.
Gonzalo Rodriguez-Pereyra (1999). Truthmaking and the Slingshot. In Uwe Meixner & Peter Simons (eds.), Metaphysics in the Post-Metaphysical Age: Papers of the 22nd International Wittgenstein Symposium. Austrian Ludwig Wittgenstein Society.
Greg Restall (2004). One Way to Face Facts. Philosophical Quarterly 54 (216):420–426.
A. C. Genova (2001). How Wittgenstein Escapes the Slingshot. Journal of Philosophical Research 26:1-22.
Jaroslav Peregrin, Stephen Neale, Facing Facts, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2001, Xv + 254 Pp. [REVIEW]
Rafal Urbaniak (2009). Slingshot Arguments: Two Versions. The Reasoner 3.
Arhat Virdi (2009). The Slingshot Argument, Gödel's Hesitation and Tarskian Semantics. Prolegomena 8 (1):233-241.
Yaroslav Shramko & Heinrich Wansing (2009). The Slingshot Argument and Sentential Identity. Studia Logica 91 (3):429 - 455.
Added to index2010-03-09
Total downloads43 ( #26,169 of 549,087 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,317 of 549,087 )
How can I increase my downloads?