A SECOND OPINION ON RELATIVE TRUTH
In 'An undermining diagnosis of relativism about truth', Horwich claims that the notion of relative truth is either explanatorily sterile or explanatorily superfluous. In the present paper, I argue that Horwich's explanatory demands set the bar unwarrantedly high: given the philosophi...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Universidade Estadual de Campinas
2015-01-01
|
| Series: | Manuscrito |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-60452015005002004&lng=en&tlng=en |
| _version_ | 1818543865382043648 |
|---|---|
| author | RAMIRO CASO |
| author_facet | RAMIRO CASO |
| author_sort | RAMIRO CASO |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | In 'An undermining diagnosis of relativism about truth', Horwich claims that the notion of relative truth is either explanatorily sterile or explanatorily superfluous. In the present paper, I argue that Horwich's explanatory demands set the bar unwarrantedly high: given the philosophical import of the theorems of a truth-theoretic semantic theory, Horwich's proposed explananda, what he calls acceptance facts, are too indirect for us to expect a complete explanation of them in terms of the deliverances of a theory of meaning based on the notion of relative truth. And, to the extent that there might be such an explanation in certain cases, there is no reason to expect relative truth to play an essential, ineliminable role, nor to endorse the claim that it should play such a role in order to be a theoretically useful notion. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-11T22:40:58Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-1235dd76cdfa43aaa7a964ee14ae58f5 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2317-630X |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-11T22:40:58Z |
| publishDate | 2015-01-01 |
| publisher | Universidade Estadual de Campinas |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Manuscrito |
| spelling | doaj.art-1235dd76cdfa43aaa7a964ee14ae58f52022-12-22T00:47:47ZengUniversidade Estadual de CampinasManuscrito2317-630X2015-01-0100010.1590/0100-6045.2015.V38N2.RCS0100-60452015005002004A SECOND OPINION ON RELATIVE TRUTHRAMIRO CASOIn 'An undermining diagnosis of relativism about truth', Horwich claims that the notion of relative truth is either explanatorily sterile or explanatorily superfluous. In the present paper, I argue that Horwich's explanatory demands set the bar unwarrantedly high: given the philosophical import of the theorems of a truth-theoretic semantic theory, Horwich's proposed explananda, what he calls acceptance facts, are too indirect for us to expect a complete explanation of them in terms of the deliverances of a theory of meaning based on the notion of relative truth. And, to the extent that there might be such an explanation in certain cases, there is no reason to expect relative truth to play an essential, ineliminable role, nor to endorse the claim that it should play such a role in order to be a theoretically useful notion.http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-60452015005002004&lng=en&tlng=entruth relativismradical relativismtruth-theoretic semantics |
| spellingShingle | RAMIRO CASO A SECOND OPINION ON RELATIVE TRUTH Manuscrito truth relativism radical relativism truth-theoretic semantics |
| title | A SECOND OPINION ON RELATIVE TRUTH |
| title_full | A SECOND OPINION ON RELATIVE TRUTH |
| title_fullStr | A SECOND OPINION ON RELATIVE TRUTH |
| title_full_unstemmed | A SECOND OPINION ON RELATIVE TRUTH |
| title_short | A SECOND OPINION ON RELATIVE TRUTH |
| title_sort | second opinion on relative truth |
| topic | truth relativism radical relativism truth-theoretic semantics |
| url | http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-60452015005002004&lng=en&tlng=en |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT ramirocaso asecondopiniononrelativetruth AT ramirocaso secondopiniononrelativetruth |