What are we to accept, and what are we to reject
| Abstract | I’m delighted to have the opportunity to respond to Hartry Field’s Saving Truth From Paradox [3]. This is a wonderful book: it’s clear and precise, interesting and engaging, and deep and important all at once. Truth and the paradoxes.. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | No categories specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,664 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Only published papers are available at libraries |
Similar books and articlesGreg Restall (2010). What Are We to Accept, and What Are We to Reject, While Saving Truth From Paradox? Philosophical Studies 147 (3).
Stewart Shapiro (2010). So Truth is Safe From Paradox: Now What? Philosophical Studies 147 (3).
Kevin Scharp (2007). Replacing Truth. Inquiry 50 (6):606 – 621.
Michael Pendlebury (2010). Facts and Truth-Making. Topoi 29 (2):137-145.
Jacob Ross (2006). Rejecting Ethical Deflationism. Ethics 116 (4):742-768.
Hartry H. Field (2008). Saving Truth From Paradox. Oxford University Press.
Kevin Scharp (2010). Truth's Saviour? Philosophical Quarterly 60 (238):183-188.
Gregory Fowler (2008). A Gunk-Friendly Maxcon. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 86 (4):611 – 627.
Heather Dyke (2001). The Pervasive Paradox of Tense. Grazer Philosophische Studien 62 (1):103-124.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2010-12-22Total downloads15 ( #78,584 of 549,007 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,261 of 549,007 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
