![]() ![]() LePore (ed.), Truth and Interpretation, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. ![]() J.ĭavid, M.: 1994, Correspondence and Disquotation: An Essay on the Nature of Truth, Oxford University Press, New York.ĭavidson, D.: 1969, ‘True to the Facts’, The Journal of Philosophy 66, 748–64.ĭavidson, D.: 1973, ‘Radical Interpretation’, Dialectica 27, 313–28.ĭavidson, D.: 1977, ‘Reality Without Reference’, Dialectica 31, 247–53.ĭavidson, D.: 1986, ‘A Coherence Theory of Truth and Knowledge’, in E. 71–93.Ĭhisholm, R.M.: 1976, Person and Object, George Allen zhangkun Unwin, London.Ĭhisholm, R.M.: 1977, Theory of Knowledge, 2nd ed., Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N. L.: 1987, ‘A Neglected Theory of Truth’, in Philosophical Essays, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., pp. ![]() 137–39.īumyeat, M.F.: 1976, ‘Protagoras and Self-Refutation in Plato’s Theaetetus’, Philosophical Review 85, 172–95.Ĭandlish, S.: 1989, ‘The Truth About F. B.: 1994, Making it Explicit: Reasoning, Representing, and Discursive Commitment, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.īrentano, F.: 1915, ‘Über den Satz: veritas est adaequatio rei et intellectus’, in Wahrheit und Evidenz, Felix Meiner Verlag, Hamburg, 1974, pp. Stock (eds.), Clarendon Press, Oxford.īrandom, R. H.: 1994: Writings on Logic and Metaphysics,J. 2, The Macmillan Company, New York.īonJour, L.: 1985: The Structure of Empirical Knowledge, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.īradley, F. Comp., Indianapolis, 1982.īlackburn, S.: 1984, Spreading the Word: Groundings in the Philosophy of Language, Clarendon Press, Oxford.īlanshard, B.: 1941, The Nature of Thought, vol. Comp., Indianapolis.īerkeley, G.: 1734, A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge, K. Perry: 1983, Situations and Attitudes, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.īeater, G.: 1982, Quality and Concept, Clarendon Press, Oxford.īennett, J.: 1988, Events and their Names, Hackett Pub. Warnock (eds.), Oxford University Press, Oxford 1979, pp. L.: 1961, ‘Unfair to Facts’, in Philosophical Papers, 3d ed., J. Warnock (eds.), Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1979, pp. 24, reprinted in Philosophical Papers, 3d ed., J. L.: 1950, ‘Truth’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, suppl. M.: 1997, A World of States of Affairs, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Īustin, J. Barnes (ed.), Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1984.Īrmstrong, D. P.: 1996, A Realist Conception of Truth, Cornell University Press, Ithaca and London.Īristotle: The Complete Works of Aristotle: The Revised Oxford Translation, J. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.Īlston, W. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. A theory with this structure will give at least some unity to the general notion of truth. The derived notions have to be explained in terms of the primary notion together with certain relations that hold between the basic truth bearers, on the one hand, and the non-basic truth bearers on the other. The primary notion has to be explained in terms of some feature that does not itself contain any notion of truth. One way to achieve this is by selecting a category of basic truth bearers and taking the associated subnotion of truth as primary, while treating the others as derived. ![]() Still, the over-all theory will aim to show that the general notion of truth is not just a bare disjunction it will aim to show that the subnotions are all tied (each in its own manner) to a single explanatory ground. Here the general notion of truth is partitioned into four subnotions, sentence-truth, statement-truth, belief-truth, and proposition-truth, each of which will have to be given its own account. Instead, a general theory of truth will have to take the form of a disjunction: x is true just in case x is either a true sentence or a true statement or a true belief or a true proposition. It seems unlikely that a single feature could account for ‘x is true’ with ‘x’ ranging over truth bearers of arbitrary type. The significant differences among these four categories are responsible for a considerable amount of complexity in the theory of truth. But what kind of “something” is at issue here? What are the bearers of truth and falsehood? Philosophical discussions of truth tend to revolve around four broad categories of truth bearers: sentences (utterances), statements (assertions), beliefs (judgments, thoughts), and propositions. A theory of truth is supposed to tell us what it is for something to be true or false. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |