找回密码
 To register

QQ登录

只需一步,快速开始

扫一扫,访问微社区

Titlebook: Unity, Truth and the Liar; The Modern Relevance Shahid Rahman,Tero Tulenheimo,Emmanuel Genot Book 2008 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

[复制链接]
楼主: fumble
发表于 2025-3-26 22:38:02 | 显示全部楼层
发表于 2025-3-27 01:11:05 | 显示全部楼层
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.
发表于 2025-3-27 05:45:06 | 显示全部楼层
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.
发表于 2025-3-27 10:01:22 | 显示全部楼层
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.
发表于 2025-3-27 14:25:36 | 显示全部楼层
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.
发表于 2025-3-27 19:40:11 | 显示全部楼层
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
发表于 2025-3-28 00:10:33 | 显示全部楼层
发表于 2025-3-28 05:24:57 | 显示全部楼层
发表于 2025-3-28 09:16:25 | 显示全部楼层
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.
发表于 2025-3-28 10:46:21 | 显示全部楼层
 关于派博传思  派博传思旗下网站  友情链接
派博传思介绍 公司地理位置 论文服务流程 影响因子官网 SITEMAP 大讲堂 北京大学 Oxford Uni. Harvard Uni.
发展历史沿革 期刊点评 投稿经验总结 SCIENCEGARD IMPACTFACTOR 派博系数 清华大学 Yale Uni. Stanford Uni.
|Archiver|手机版|小黑屋| 派博传思国际 ( 京公网安备110108008328) GMT+8, 2025-5-1 11:22
Copyright © 2001-2015 派博传思   京公网安备110108008328 版权所有 All rights reserved
快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表