Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-s22k5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-13T02:04:56.383Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Toward a Modest Correspondence Theory of Truth: Predicates and Properties

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 April 2009

Patricia Marino
Patricia Marino
Affiliation:
University of Waterloo
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Correspondence theories are frequently charged with being either implausible—metaphysically troubling and overly general—or trivial—collapsing into deflationism's “‘P’ is true iff P.” Philip Kitcher argues for a “modest” correspondence theory, on which reference relations are causal relations, but there is no general theory of denotation. In this article, I start by showing that, understood this way, “modest” theories are open to charges of triviality. I then offer a refinement of modesty, and take the first steps toward articulating a modest correspondence theory, giving a particular account of the relation between predicates, properties, and extensions. Finally, I argue that my account does not collapse into a deflationary one.

Type
Articles
Information
Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review / Revue canadienne de philosophie , Volume 47 , Issue 1 , Winter 2008 , pp. 81 - 102
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Philosophical Association 2008

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

Alston, William 1996 A Realist Conception of Truth. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Blackburn, Simon 1984 Spreading the Word. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Blackburn, Simon 1988 “Attitudes and Contents.” Ethics, 98: 501–1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackburn, Simon 1993 Essays in Quasi-Realism. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackburn, Simon 1994 The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Blackburn, Simon 1998 Ruling Passions. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
David, Marian 2005 “The Correspondence Theory of Truth.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall Edition). Edited by Edward N. Zalta. URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2005/entries/truthcorrespondence.Google Scholar
Field, Hartry 1972 “Tarski's Theory of Truth.” Journal of Philosophy, 69: 347–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Field, Hartry 2001a “Deflationist Views of Meaning and Content.” In Truth and the Absence of Fact. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 104–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Field, Hartry 2001b “Disquotational Truth and Factually Defective Discourse.” In Truth and the Absence of Fact. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 222–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbard, Allan 1990 Wise Choices Apt Feelings. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbard, Allan 2003 Thinking How to Live. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gupta, Anil 1993 “A Critique of Deflationism.” Philosophical Topics, 21: 57–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horwich, Paul 1998 Truth. 2nd ed.New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, Frank, Oppy, Graham, and Smith, Michael 1994 “Minimalism and Truth-Aptness.” Mind, 103: 287–3.2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, Philip 2002 “On the Explanatory Role of Correspondence Truth.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 64: 346–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leeds, Stephen 1978 “Theories of Reference and Truth.” Erkenntnis, 13: 111–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leeds, Stephen 1995 “Truth, Correspondence, and Success.” Philosophical Studies, 79: 1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackie, J. L. 1977 Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Marino, Patricia 2002 Language and the World: Correspondence Versus Deflationary Theories of Truth. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Irvine.Google Scholar
Marino, Patricia 2005 “Expressivism, Deflationism, and Correspondence.” The Journal of Moral Philosophy, 2: 171–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marino, Patricia 2006 “What Should a Correspondence Theory Be and Do?” Philosophical Studies, 127: 415–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, Douglas 2003 “What Is a Correspondence Theory of Truth?” Synthèse, 137: 421–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pears, David 1985 “Introduction.” In Russell, Bertrand, The Philosophy of Logical Atomism. Edited by Pears, David. Oxford: Open Court.Google Scholar
Putnam, Hilary 1978 Meaning and the Moral Sciences. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Russell, Bertrand 1912 The Problems of Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Russell, Bertrand 1985 The Philosophy of Logical Atomism. Edited by Pears, David. Oxford: Open Court.Google Scholar
Strawson, P. F. 1964 “Truth.” In Truth. Edited by Pitcher, George. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, pp. 18–53. First published in Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, suppl. vol. 24 (1950): 129–56.Google Scholar
Walker, Ralph C. S. 1997 “Theories of Truth.” In A Companion to the Philosophy of Language. Edited by Hale, B. and Wright, C.. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, pp. 309–30.Google Scholar
Wilson, Mark 1982 “Predicate Meets Property.” Philosophical Review, 91: 549–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Mark 1985 “What Is This Thing Called ‘Pain’?—The Philosophy of Science behind the Contemporary Debate.” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 66: 227–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Mark 1994 “Can We Trust Logical Form?” Journal of Philosophy, 91: 519–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Mark 2000 “Inference and Correlational Truth.” In Circularity, Definition and Truth. Edited by Chapuis, A. and Gupts, A.. New Delhi: Indian Council on Philosophical Research, pp. 371–95.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig 1961 Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Translated by Pears, D. F. and McGuinness, B. F.. London: Routledge.Google Scholar