transplantation
发表于 2025-3-26 22:38:02
http://reply.papertrans.cn/95/9422/942145/942145_31.png
CLAIM
发表于 2025-3-27 01:11:05
Doubting Thomas: From Bradwardine Back to Anon a truth? An author writing more than a century before Bradwardine thinks the latter, holding that the Liar utterance does not express a proposition. Like Read, Bradwardine repudiates this view. But criticisms of his own theory keep leading us in the direction of that earlier theory. It is the earlier theory that is the right one.
Protein
发表于 2025-3-27 05:45:06
Comments on Stephen Read’s “The Truth-Schema and the Liar”e that applies meaningfully to the sentences of that very language usually lead either to inconsistency (because of some version of semantic paradox) or else to a theory that fails to classify some sentences as true or not true. I will argue that Read‘s account of truth falls into the latter category.
ATP861
发表于 2025-3-27 10:01:22
Models for Liars in Bradwardine’s Theory of Truth that there are models in which this conclusion fails. This should help us elucidate the hidden assumptions required to underpin Bradwardine‘s argument, and to make explicit the content of Bradwardine‘s theory of truth.
强所
发表于 2025-3-27 14:25:36
The Liar Cannot Be Solvedy to shed light on some weak points in Read‘s argument, then I present my own arguments to the effect that any revision of Tarski‘s truth-schema can, in principle, be only a part of the solution to the Liar paradox.
招人嫉妒
发表于 2025-3-27 19:40:11
2214-9775 ussion about truth theory and paradoxes from a semantical, lAndinmy haste, I said: “Allmenare Liars” 1 —Psalms 116:11 The Original Lie Philosophical analysis often reveals and seldom solves paradoxes. To quote Stephen Read: A paradox arises when an unacceptable conclusion is supported by a plausible
Adherent
发表于 2025-3-28 00:10:33
http://reply.papertrans.cn/95/9422/942145/942145_37.png
gentle
发表于 2025-3-28 05:24:57
http://reply.papertrans.cn/95/9422/942145/942145_38.png
Confirm
发表于 2025-3-28 09:16:25
Read and Indirect Revengecertain facts about truth and is, in turn, supported by its attempt to resolve paradoxes that challenge it. Why adopt Read’s favoured theory of truth (which theory I will discuss below)? Are the extant theories inadequate, or otherwise incorrect? Read claims that they are.
宠爱
发表于 2025-3-28 10:46:21
http://reply.papertrans.cn/95/9422/942145/942145_40.png