David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Philosophical Logic 14 (3):297 - 349 (1985)
Many topics have not been covered, in most cases because I don't know quite what to say about them. Would it be possible to add a decidability predicate to the language? What about stronger connectives, like exclusion negation or Lukasiewicz implication? Would an expanded language do better at expressing its own semantics? Would it contain new and more terrible paradoxes? Can the account be supplemented with a workable notion of inherent truth (see note 36)? In what sense does stage semantics lie “between” fixed point and stability semantics? In what sense, exactly, are our semantical rules inconsistent? In what sense, if any, does their inconsistency resolve the problem of the paradoxes?The ideals of strength, grounding, and closure together define an intuitively appealing conception of truth. Nothing would be gained by insisting that it was the intuitive conception of truth, and in fact recent developments make me wonder whether such a thing exists. However that may be, until the alternatives are better understood it would be foolish to attempt to decide between them. Truth gives up her secrets slowly and grudgingly, and loves to confound our presumptions
|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
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Landon Rabern, Brian Rabern & Matthew Macauley (2013). Dangerous Reference Graphs and Semantic Paradoxes. Journal of Philosophical Logic 42 (5):727-765.
JC Beall (2000). Fitch's Proof, Verificationism, and the Knower Paradox. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 78 (2):241 – 247.
Jonathan Payne (2015). Review of The Yablo Paradox: An Essay on Circularity. [REVIEW] History and Philosophy of Logic 36 (2):188-190.
Stephen Yablo (1993). Definitions, Consistent and Inconsistent. Philosophical Studies 72 (2-3):147 - 175.
Keith Simmons (1999). Deflationary Truth and the Liar. Journal of Philosophical Logic 28 (5):455-488.
Similar books and articles
James Swindal (2003). Discourse, Reflection and Commitment. Philosophy and Social Criticism 29 (2):147-161.
Simon J. Evnine (2007). Personhood and Future Belief: Two Arguments for Something Like Reflection. Erkenntnis 67 (1):91 - 110.
Michael Pendlebury (2010). Facts and Truth-Making. Topoi 29 (2):137-145.
Louis Dupré (1989). Reflections on the Truth of Religion. Faith and Philosophy 6 (3):260-274.
Volker Halbach (2001). Disquotational Truth and Analyticity. Journal of Symbolic Logic 66 (4):1959-1973.
Gurpreet Rattan (2008). On the Value and Nature of Truth. Journal of Philosophical Research 33:235-251.
James Swindal (1999). Reflection Revisited: Jürgen Habermas's Discursive Theory of Truth. Fordham University Press.
Barbara Fultner (2003). Coordinating Perspectives in Context: Comments on James Swindal's Reflection Revisited. Philosophy and Social Criticism 29 (2):137-146.
Michael Glanzberg (2005). Truth, Reflection, and Hierarchies. Synthese 142 (3):289 - 315.
J. Ketland (2010). Truth, Conservativeness, and Provability: Reply to Cieslinski. Mind 119 (474):423-436.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads91 ( #45,876 of 1,907,353 )
Recent downloads (6 months)13 ( #49,050 of 1,907,353 )
How can I increase my downloads?