Noûs 44 (3):433-450 (2010)

Authors
Alexis Burgess
Pomona College
Abstract
There are three general ways to approach reconciliation: from the side of nonfactualism, from the side of deflationism, or from both sides at once. To approach reconciliation from a given side, as I will use the expression, just means to attend in the first instance to the details of that side’s position. (It will be important to keep in mind that the success of an approach from one side may ultimately require concessions from the other side.) The only attempts at reconciliation in the literature of which I am aware fall in to the first of these three categories. Such writers argue that the tension between our –isms can be resolved by paying sufficiently close attention to the nature of nonfactualism. While I have nothing against this approach in principle, I do have reservations about the particular proposals that have been made in its pursuit. The first section of the present paper briefly develops a line of objection against one such proposal, in order to motivate the approach to reconciliation from the side of deflationism. In section two, I argue that the deflationist can and should reject the inference from (2) to (3) above. Section three addresses a special problem of reconciliation for the nonfactu- alist who continues to use the discourse she takes to be factually defective. By paying close attention to the details of deflationism about reference, I show how a deflationist about truth might avoid this problem. I conclude that deflationism can be developed in a way that renders it compatible with nonfactualism
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1111/j.1468-0068.2010.00749.x
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 50,391
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Meaning.Paul Horwich - 1998 - Oxford University Press.
Truth and Other Enigmas.Michael A. E. Dummett - 1978 - Harvard University Press.
The Status of Content.Paul A. Boghossian - 1990 - Philosophical Review 99 (2):157-84.
Disquotational Truth and Factually Defective Discourse.Hartry Field - 1994 - Philosophical Review 103 (3):405-452.

View all 9 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Semantic Non-Factualism in Kripke’s Wittgenstein.Daniel Boyd - 2017 - Journal for the History of Analytical Philosophy 5 (9).
Mainstream Semantics + Deflationary Truth.Alexis Burgess - 2011 - Linguistics and Philosophy 34 (5):397-410.
Deflationism and Referential Indeterminacy.David E. Taylor - 2017 - Philosophical Review 126 (1):43-79.
Quine on Matters of Fact.David Taylor - 2016 - Synthese 193 (2):605-636.
Justice for Unicorns.Eliot Michaelson - 2012 - Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 112 (3pt3):351-360.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

‘Two Dogmas’ -- All Bark and No Bite?Paul A. Gregory - 2003 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 67 (3):633 - 648.
‘Two Dogmas’ -- All Bark and No Bite?Paul A. Gregory - 2003 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 67 (3):633–648.
On the Determination Argument Against Deflationism.Douglas Patterson - 2007 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 88 (2):243–250.
Leave Truth Alone: On Deflationism and Contextualism.Daniel Whiting - 2011 - European Journal of Philosophy 19 (4):607-624.
Levity.Leon Horsten - 2009 - Mind 118 (471):555-581.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2010-07-02

Total views
102 ( #89,040 of 2,326,127 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
6 ( #130,279 of 2,326,127 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes