David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Erkenntnis 75 (1):113-122 (2011)
A common objection against deflationism is that it cannot account for the fact that truth depends on reality. Consider the question ‘On what does the truth of the proposition that snow is white depend?’ An obvious answer is that it depends on whether snow is white. Now, consider what answer, if any, a deflationist can offer. The problem is as follows. A typical deflationary analysis of truth consists of biconditionals of the form ‘The proposition that p is true iff p’. Such biconditionals tell us nothing about what the truth of the proposition that p might depend on. Therefore, it seems that a typical deflationist cannot give an answer. Since we know that an answer is available, this throws doubt over the adequacy of deflationism as an account of truth. Articulated here is a defence of deflationism against this objection. It is argued that although biconditionals of the sort mentioned do not explicitly state a dependency between truth and reality, they nevertheless convey one. The reason is that, given the context in which a deflationist invokes the biconditionals, such a dependency is implicated. A potential problem with this defence is that it leaves the deflationist still unable to give an account of what it is for truth to depend on reality. One might think that a deflationist can offer such an account by appealing to truthmaker theory but, it is argued below, truthmaker theory is unavailable to a deflationist. Instead, the deflationist should question the assumption that an account is available
|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
Kent Bach (ed.) (2005). Festchrift for Larry Horn. John Benjamins.
Marian David (1994). Correspondence and Disquotation: An Essay on the Nature of Truth. Oxford University Press.
Donald Davidson (1996). The Folly of Trying to Define Truth. Journal of Philosophy 93 (6):263-278.
Kit Fine (2010). Some Puzzles of Ground. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 51 (1):97-118.
H. P. Grice (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Harvard University Press.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Glen Hoffmann (2007). A Dilemma for the Weak Deflationist About Truth. Sorites 18:129-137.
Leon Horsten (2009). Levity. Mind 118 (471):555-581.
Mark Schroeder (forthcoming). Hard Cases for Combining Expressivism and Deflationist Truth: Conditionals and Epistemic Modals. In Steven Gross & Michael Williams (eds.), (unknown). Oxford.
John Collins (2002). Truth or Meaning? A Question of Priority. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 65 (3):497-536.
Aladdin M. Yaqub (2008). Two Types of Deflationism. Synthese 165 (1):77 - 106.
Huw Price (1997). What Should a Deflationist About Truth Say About Meaning? Philosophical Issues 8:107-115.
Christopher Gauker (2001). T-Schema Deflationism Versus Gödel’s First Incompleteness Theorem. Analysis 61 (270):129–136.
Richard G. Heck Jr (2004). Truth and Disquotation. Synthese 142 (3):317 - 352.
Richard Heck (2005). Truth and Disquotation. Synthese 142 (3):317--352.
Matthew McGrath (1997). Weak Deflationism. Mind 106 (421):69-98.
Cezary Cieśliński (2010). Truth, Conservativeness, and Provability. Mind 119 (474):409-422.
Bernhard Weiss (2009). Minimalism Deflated: Independence Without Substance. Synthese 171 (3):521 - 529.
Arvid Båve (2010). Deflationism and the Primary Truth Bearer. Synthese 173 (3):281 - 297.
By Nic Damnjanovic (2005). Deflationism and the Success Argument. Philosophical Quarterly 55 (218):53–67.
Added to index2011-04-14
Total downloads91 ( #12,422 of 1,096,624 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #71,259 of 1,096,624 )
How can I increase my downloads?