David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Prolegomena 8 (1):233-241 (2009)
The slingshot argument is a reductio purporting to show that if there are facts at all there is only one to which all true statements correspond. If facts are not non-trivially individuable then this presumably must render the notion of fact and, by implication, theories such as the correspondence theory of truth incoherent. Church and Davidson (among others) deployed the slingshot in exoneration of the Fregean conclusion that there is a uni-referent – the ‘True’ – for all true statements. The slingshot relies crucially on treating definite descriptions as singular, referring terms, a treatment that is rendered unnecessary on Russell’s theory of descriptions. If this is so, friends of facts such as Russell can rest content. I, however, argue against the thesis that Russell’s theory so succeeds and develop what Gödel could have meant when, in thinking about this application of Russellian semantics, was prompted to write: “I cannot help feeling that the problem raised by Frege’s puzzling conclusion has only been evaded by Russell’s theory of descriptions and that there is something behind it which is not yet completely understood.” (1944: 215). I conclude by suggesting that the coarse-grained, folk theory of facts to which the slingshot objection incontestably applies is in need of being fine-grained into a scientifically more sophisticated theory, and that such an account is to be found in a Tarskian definition of truth which, moreover, also succeeds in placing the correspondence theory of truth on a secure and satisfactory footing
|Keywords||Gödel Russell slingshot argument Tarski truth|
|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
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Rafal Urbaniak (2009). Slingshot Arguments: Two Versions. The Reasoner 3.
Stephen Neale & Josh Dever (1997). Slingshots and Boomerangs. Mind 106 (421):143-168.
Greg Restall (2004). One Way to Face Facts. Philosophical Quarterly 54 (216):420–426.
Jaroslav Peregrin, Stephen Neale, Facing Facts, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2001, Xv + 254 Pp. [REVIEW]
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.
Michael Baumgartner (2010). Shallow Analysis and the Slingshot Argument. Journal of Philosophical Logic 39 (5):531-556.
James O. Young (2002). The Slingshot Argument and the Correspondence Theory of Truth. Acta Analytica 17 (2):121-132.
A. C. Genova (2001). How Wittgenstein Escapes the Slingshot. Journal of Philosophical Research 26:1-22.
Yaroslav Shramko & Heinrich Wansing (2009). The Slingshot Argument and Sentential Identity. Studia Logica 91 (3):429 - 455.
Added to index2010-04-28
Total downloads19 ( #83,525 of 1,096,280 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #224,942 of 1,096,280 )
How can I increase my downloads?