Graduate studies at Western
In Reading Brandom (2009)
|Abstract||Robert Brandom claims that the theory of meaning he presents in Making It Explicit is expressively complete—i.e., it successfully applies to the language in which the theory of meaning is formulated. He also endorses a broadly Kripkean approach to the liar paradox. I show that these two commitments are incompatible, and I survey several options for resolving the problem.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
David Lauer (2009). Genuine Normativity, Expressive Bootstrapping, and Normative Phenomenalism. Etica and Politica / Ethics & Politics 11 (1):321-350.
Chris Fox & Shalom Lappin, Achieving Expressive Completeness and Computational Efficiency for Underspecified Scope Representations.
Henri Galinon (2009). A Note on Generalized Functional Completeness in the Realm of Elementrary Logic. Bulletin of the Section of Logic 38 (1):1-9.
Claire Horisk (2007). The Expressive Role of Truth in Truth-Conditional Semantics. Philosophical Quarterly 57 (229):535–557.
Leo K. C. Cheung (2000). The Tractarian Operation N and Expressive Completeness. Synthese 123 (2):247-261.
Philippe Schlenker (2010). Super Liars. The Review of Symbolic Logic 3 (3):374-414.
Keith Simmons (1993). Universality and the Liar: An Essay on Truth and the Diagonal Argument. Cambridge University Press.
Added to index2009-05-20
Total downloads21 ( #65,479 of 738,751 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,778 of 738,751 )
How can I increase my downloads?