Can we make sense of MacFarlane’s relative truth?

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Gariazzo, Matías
Data de Publicação: 2017
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: por
Título da fonte: Manuscrito (Online)
Texto Completo: https://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/manuscrito/article/view/8649852
Resumo: John MacFarlane’s truth relativism (2005, 2007, 2011, 2014) makes use of two notions of propositional truth: a monadic assessment sensitive one taken to be our ordinary truth notion, and a non-monadic one that is meant to account for the assessment sensitivity of the former notion. Some authors (Cappelen and Hawthorne, 2009, 2011; Montminy, 2009; Soames, 2011) contend that any theory introducing a technical non-monadic truth notion has to make sense of it (i.e. show that it is a truth notion) by defining or characterizing it in terms of ordinary monadic truth. First, I give some reasons why the relativist should not discard this approach to make sense of the notion of truth relative to a context of assessment. Second, I argue that an illuminating characterization of this notion must provide an answer to a dilemma Paul Boghossian (2011) poses to the relativist. Third, I single out the characterization that can answer this dilemma. Finally, I contend that the relativist still needs to show that this solution works for each case subject to a relativist treatment.
id UNICAMP-17_a100c005b82a867e7ca495537823e736
oai_identifier_str oai:ojs.periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br:article/8649852
network_acronym_str UNICAMP-17
network_name_str Manuscrito (Online)
repository_id_str
spelling Can we make sense of MacFarlane’s relative truth?Truth relativism. Assessment sensitivity. Monadic truth. Non-monadic truth.John MacFarlane’s truth relativism (2005, 2007, 2011, 2014) makes use of two notions of propositional truth: a monadic assessment sensitive one taken to be our ordinary truth notion, and a non-monadic one that is meant to account for the assessment sensitivity of the former notion. Some authors (Cappelen and Hawthorne, 2009, 2011; Montminy, 2009; Soames, 2011) contend that any theory introducing a technical non-monadic truth notion has to make sense of it (i.e. show that it is a truth notion) by defining or characterizing it in terms of ordinary monadic truth. First, I give some reasons why the relativist should not discard this approach to make sense of the notion of truth relative to a context of assessment. Second, I argue that an illuminating characterization of this notion must provide an answer to a dilemma Paul Boghossian (2011) poses to the relativist. Third, I single out the characterization that can answer this dilemma. Finally, I contend that the relativist still needs to show that this solution works for each case subject to a relativist treatment.Universidade Estadual de Campinas2017-07-11info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionPesquisa teóricaapplication/pdfhttps://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/manuscrito/article/view/8649852Manuscrito: Revista Internacional de Filosofia; v. 40 n. 2 (2017): abr./jun.; 39-70Manuscrito: International Journal of Philosophy; Vol. 40 No. 2 (2017): abr./jun.; 39-70Manuscrito: Revista Internacional de Filosofía; Vol. 40 Núm. 2 (2017): abr./jun.; 39-702317-630Xreponame:Manuscrito (Online)instname:Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)instacron:UNICAMPporhttps://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/manuscrito/article/view/8649852/16266Copyright (c) 2017 Manuscritoinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessGariazzo, Matías2017-11-09T09:23:45Zoai:ojs.periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br:article/8649852Revistahttps://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/manuscritoPUBhttps://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/manuscrito/oaimwrigley@cle.unicamp.br|| dascal@spinoza.tau.ac.il||publicacoes@cle.unicamp.br2317-630X0100-6045opendoar:2017-11-09T09:23:45Manuscrito (Online) - Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Can we make sense of MacFarlane’s relative truth?
title Can we make sense of MacFarlane’s relative truth?
spellingShingle Can we make sense of MacFarlane’s relative truth?
Gariazzo, Matías
Truth relativism. Assessment sensitivity. Monadic truth. Non-monadic truth.
title_short Can we make sense of MacFarlane’s relative truth?
title_full Can we make sense of MacFarlane’s relative truth?
title_fullStr Can we make sense of MacFarlane’s relative truth?
title_full_unstemmed Can we make sense of MacFarlane’s relative truth?
title_sort Can we make sense of MacFarlane’s relative truth?
author Gariazzo, Matías
author_facet Gariazzo, Matías
author_role author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Gariazzo, Matías
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Truth relativism. Assessment sensitivity. Monadic truth. Non-monadic truth.
topic Truth relativism. Assessment sensitivity. Monadic truth. Non-monadic truth.
description John MacFarlane’s truth relativism (2005, 2007, 2011, 2014) makes use of two notions of propositional truth: a monadic assessment sensitive one taken to be our ordinary truth notion, and a non-monadic one that is meant to account for the assessment sensitivity of the former notion. Some authors (Cappelen and Hawthorne, 2009, 2011; Montminy, 2009; Soames, 2011) contend that any theory introducing a technical non-monadic truth notion has to make sense of it (i.e. show that it is a truth notion) by defining or characterizing it in terms of ordinary monadic truth. First, I give some reasons why the relativist should not discard this approach to make sense of the notion of truth relative to a context of assessment. Second, I argue that an illuminating characterization of this notion must provide an answer to a dilemma Paul Boghossian (2011) poses to the relativist. Third, I single out the characterization that can answer this dilemma. Finally, I contend that the relativist still needs to show that this solution works for each case subject to a relativist treatment.
publishDate 2017
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2017-07-11
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
Pesquisa teórica
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/manuscrito/article/view/8649852
url https://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/manuscrito/article/view/8649852
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv por
language por
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv https://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/manuscrito/article/view/8649852/16266
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv Copyright (c) 2017 Manuscrito
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv Copyright (c) 2017 Manuscrito
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Universidade Estadual de Campinas
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Universidade Estadual de Campinas
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Manuscrito: Revista Internacional de Filosofia; v. 40 n. 2 (2017): abr./jun.; 39-70
Manuscrito: International Journal of Philosophy; Vol. 40 No. 2 (2017): abr./jun.; 39-70
Manuscrito: Revista Internacional de Filosofía; Vol. 40 Núm. 2 (2017): abr./jun.; 39-70
2317-630X
reponame:Manuscrito (Online)
instname:Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)
instacron:UNICAMP
instname_str Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)
instacron_str UNICAMP
institution UNICAMP
reponame_str Manuscrito (Online)
collection Manuscrito (Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Manuscrito (Online) - Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv mwrigley@cle.unicamp.br|| dascal@spinoza.tau.ac.il||publicacoes@cle.unicamp.br
_version_ 1800216566995877888