A Contextual-Hierarchical Approach to Truth and the Liar Paradox

Glanzberg, Michael

doi:10.1023/b:logi.0000019227.09236.f5

Cited by 111 publications

(57 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Contextual approaches of this kind accept T1 ch in the sense that they assume that all sentences of L 1 express a proposition with respect to M 2 , and that each sentence that expresses a proposition with respect to M 2 , meets the T r 2 -scheme. This suggests that the approaches of Barwise and Etchemendy [1], Glanzberg [6] and Parsons [13] correspond to the standard ch-reconstruction. However, these approaches are led by other philosophical ideas, which are adopted from set theory.…”

Section: The Standard Ch-reconstructionmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…We shall forgo the problem of defining the notion of 'expressing a semantic property' here. 6 Instead we shall concentrate on the semantic diagnoses that express that the liar sentence is true or not true (with respect to truth predicates of different levels). These semantic diagnoses are the common basis of all ch-approaches.…”

Section: Two Ch-reconstructions Of the Strengthened Liar Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There is another group of contextual approaches that seek to solve the strengthened liar problem by discerning between sentences and propositions, and that claim that the existential quantifier in the considered version of the liar sentence 14 is contextually shifting. Examples are the approaches of Barwise and Etchemendy [1], Glanzberg [6] and Parsons [13]. Contextual approaches of this kind accept T1 ch in the sense that they assume that all sentences of L 1 express a proposition with respect to M 2 , and that each sentence that expresses a proposition with respect to M 2 , meets the T r 2 -scheme.…”

Section: The Standard Ch-reconstructionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Contextual-Hierarchical Reconstructions of the Strengthened Liar Problem

Schurz¹

2015

J Philos Logic

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper we shall introduce two types of contextual-hierarchical (from now on abbreviated by 'ch') approaches to the strengthened liar problem. These approaches, which we call the 'standard' and the 'alternative' ch-reconstructions of the strengthened liar problem, differ in their philosophical view regarding the nature of truth and the relation between the truth predicates T r n and T r n+1 of different hierarchy-levels. The basic idea of the standard ch-reconstruction is that the T r n+1 -schema should hold for all sentences of L n . In contrast, the alternative chreconstruction, for which we shall argue in section four, is motivated by the idea that T r n and T r n+1 are coherent in the sense that the same sentences of L n should be true according to T r n and T r n+1 . We show that instances of the standard chreconstruction can be obtained by iterating Kripke's strong Kleene jump operator. Furthermore, we will demonstrate how instances of the alternative ch-reconstruction can be obtained by a slight modification of the iterated axiom system KF and of the iterated strong Kleene jump operator.

show abstract

Section: The Standard Ch-reconstructionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Section: Two Ch-reconstructions Of the Strengthened Liar Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Standard Ch-reconstructionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Contextual-Hierarchical Reconstructions of the Strengthened Liar Problem

Schurz¹

2015

J Philos Logic

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For considerations of space, the technical details of Glanzberg's proposal cannot be presented here (for the details, consult (Glanzberg, 2001(Glanzberg, , 2004). However, it would be useful to go into just sufficient detail to show the implications of Glanzberg's view, and in particular to show that what he calls "extraordinary context sensitivity" is indeed a type of assessment sensitivity.…”

Section: ¬∃P(exp(l P) ∧ T P)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Contextualism, Relativism and the Liar

Sagi

2016

Erkenn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Contextualist theories of truth appeal to context to solve the liar paradox: different stages of reasoning occur in different contexts, and so the contradiction is dispelled. The word 'true' is relativized by the contextualists to contexts of use. This paper shows that contextualist approaches to the liar are committed to a form of semantic relativism: that the truth value of some sentences depends on the context of assessment, as well as the context of use. In particular, it is shown how Simmons's and Glanzberg's contextualist approaches entail relativism. In both cases, the liar sentence gets different semantic evaluations as uttered in a fixed context of use but assessed from different contexts. Shift in context of use alone cannot provide the full explanation of the liar. These contextualist approaches, as originally presented, were thus mischaracterised and they should be re-evaluated according to their full implications.

show abstract

“…To be sure, such a revision is not to be taken lightly (see Terzian, THIS VOLUME), and there is no shortage of classical treatments, either hierarchical (Tarski 1936;Parsons 1974b;Burge 1979;Williamson 1998;Glanzberg 2001Glanzberg , 2004aSchurz 2011), or non-hierarchical (Kripke 1975;McGee 1991;Gupta and Belnap 1993;Maudlin 2004;Leitgeb 2005;Simmons 1993, 2000. But, it has been argued, the alternatives are dire (Kripke 1975;Field 2008), the naïve semantic principles are non-negotiable (Field 2008;Beall 2009; for a criticism of their arguments, see Zardini, THIS VOLUME), and there might be independent reasons for putting the blame on the logic in the first place (Ripley, THIS VOLUME; Zardini, THIS VOLUME).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%