Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-21T05:29:05.970Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What are the primary bearers of truth?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Peter Hanks
Peter Hanks*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Minnesota, 831 Heller Hall, Minneapolis, MN55455, USA
*
*Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

According to the traditional account of propositional content, propositions are the primary bearers of truth. Here I argue that acts of predication are the primary bearers of truth. Propositions are types of these actions, and they inherit their truth-conditions from their tokens. Against this, many philosophers think that it is a category mistake to say that actions are true or false. Furthermore, even if we grant that token acts of predication have truth-conditions, there are reasons for doubting that types of these actions also have truth-conditions. I respond to these objections in this paper. I also clarify what it means for propositions to inherit truth-conditions from token acts of predication.

Keywords

truthpropositionspredicationtypesinheritance
Type
On Act- and Language-Based Conceptions of Propositions
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 43 , Issue 5-6: Special issue: Essays on the Nature of Propositions , December 2013 , pp. 558 - 574
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Journal of Philosophy 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bar-Hillel, Y. 1973. “Primary Truth Bearers.” Dialectica 27: 303–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanks, P. 2007a. “The Content-Force Distinction.” Philosophical Studies 134: 141–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanks, P. 2007b. “How Wittgenstein Defeated Russell’s Multiple Relation Theory of Judgment.” Synthese 154: 121–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanks, P. 2009. “Recent Work on Propositions.” Philosophy Compass 4: 1–18.Google Scholar
Hanks, P. 2011. “Structured Propositions as Types.” Mind 120: 11–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanks, P. 2013. “First-Person Propositions.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 86: 155–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanks, P. ms. Propositional Content. Under contract with Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, J. 2002. “Designating Propositions.” The Philosophical Review 111: 341–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, J. 2013. “Propositional Unity: What’s the Problem, Who Has It and Who Solves It?” Philosophical Studies 165: 71–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacFarlane, J. 2005. “Making Sense of Relative Truth.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 105: 321–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parsons, T. 1990. Events in the Semantics of English: A Study in Subatomic Semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. 1969. “Natural Kinds.” In Ontological Relativity and Other Essays, 114–138. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. 1968. “Austin on Locutionary and Illocutionary Acts.” The Philosophical Review 77: 405–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strawson, P. F. 1950. “Truth.” In Truth, edited by Blackburn, S., and Simmons, K., 162–182. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.Google Scholar
Tillman, C., Caplan, B., Mclean, B., and Murray, A.. Forthcoming. “Not the Optimistic Type.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy.Google Scholar
Wollheim, R. 1980. Art and Its Objects. 2nd Edition Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar