David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Inquiry 50 (6):606 – 621 (2007)
Of the dozens of purported solutions to the liar paradox published in the past fifty years, the vast majority are "traditional" in the sense that they reject one of the premises or inference rules that are used to derive the paradoxical conclusion. Over the years, however, several philosophers have developed an alternative to the traditional approaches; according to them, our very competence with the concept of truth leads us to accept that the reasoning used to derive the paradox is sound. That is, our conceptual competence leads us into inconsistency. I call this alternative the inconsistency approach to the liar. Although this approach has many positive features, I argue that several of the well-developed versions of it that have appeared recently are unacceptable. In particular, they do not recognize that if truth is an inconsistent concept, then we should replace it with new concepts that do the work of truth without giving rise to paradoxes. I outline an inconsistency approach to the liar paradox that satisfies this condition.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Jody Azzouni (2007). The Inconsistency of Natural Languages: How We Live with It. Inquiry 50 (6):590 – 605.
Jody Azzouni (2003). The Strengthened Liar, the Expressive Strength of Natural Languages, and Regimentation. Philosophical Forum 34 (3-4):329–350.
Charles Chihara (1979). The Semantic Paradoxes: A Diagnostic Investigation. Philosophical Review 88 (4):590-618.
Matti Eklund (2002). Inconsistent Languages. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 64 (2):251-275.
Citations of this work BETA
Stewart Shapiro (2010). So Truth is Safe From Paradox: Now What? [REVIEW] Philosophical Studies 147 (3):445 - 455.
Arvid Båve (2012). On Using Inconsistent Expressions. Erkenntnis 77 (1):133-148.
Matti Eklund (2007). Meaning-Constitutivity. Inquiry 50 (6):559-574.
Alexis Burgess & David Plunkett (2013). Conceptual Ethics I. Philosophy Compass 8 (12):1091-1101.
Kevin Scharp (forthcoming). Truth, Revenge, and Internalizability. Erkenntnis:1-49.
Similar books and articles
Kevin Scharp (2007). Replacing Truth. Inquiry 50 (6):606-621.
Kevin Scharp (2007). Alethic Vengeance. In J. C. Beall (ed.), Revenge of the Liar: New Essays on the Paradox. Oxford University Press.
Kevin Scharp (2013). Truth, the Liar, and Relativism. Philosophical Review 122 (3):427-510.
Kevin Scharp (2010). Truth's Saviour? [REVIEW] Philosophical Quarterly 60 (238):183 - 188.
Keith Simmons (1993). Universality and the Liar: An Essay on Truth and the Diagonal Argument. Cambridge University Press.
Matt Leonard (2012). Burge's Contextual Theory of Truth and the Super-Liar Paradox. In Michal Pelis Vit Puncochar (ed.), The Logica Yearbook 2011. College Publications.
Bradley Armour-Garb & J. C. Beall (2001). Can Deflationists Be Dialetheists? Journal of Philosophical Logic 30 (6):593-608.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads40 ( #47,489 of 1,140,371 )
Recent downloads (6 months)7 ( #27,582 of 1,140,371 )
How can I increase my downloads?