Trivial Languages

Abstract

I here present and defend what I call the Triviality Theory of Truth (TT), to be understood in analogy with Matti Eklund's Inconsistency Theory of Truth (IT). A specific formulation of (TT) is defended and compared with alternatives found in the literature. A number of objections against the proposed notion of meaningconstitutivity are discussed and held inconclusive. The main focus, however, is on the problem, discussed at length by Gupta and Belnap, that speakers do not accept epistemically neutral conclusions of Curry derivations. I first argue that the facts about speakers' reactions to such Curry derivations do not constitute a problem for (TT) specifically. Rather, they follow from independent, uncontroversial facts. I then propose a solution which coheres with (TT) as I understand it. Finally, I consider a normative reading of their objection and offer a response.The idea that the Liar paradox shows that Bour language is inconsistent^, what is now called the Inconsistency Theory of Truth (IT), goes back at least to Tarski. 1 How exactly to understand the idea that our language is inconsistent is a matter of ongoing debate. I will here expound what I take to be the best rendering of this phrase, by which I mean least contentious explication, which nevertheless captures most of what its adherents take it to involve. However, it is not (IT), but the related Triviality Theory of Truth (TT) that will be the main focus of this paper. As we will see, this theory raises some new questions and has been questioned on grounds irrelevant to (IT). In a nutshell, (TT) says of Curry's paradox (and of the Liar paradox plus ex contradictione quodlibet) what (IT) says about the Liar, namely, that the principles used in the respective paradoxical derivations are

Features and Bugs in Schnieder’s Theory of Properties

“…He thus opposes the "inconsistency theory of properties", which is like Eklund's (2002) inconsistency theory of truth, except concerning the notion of property instead of truth. On Eklund's theory of truth, the meaningconstitutive principle for 'true' is the unrestricted truth equivalence schema, which Eklund takes to be inconsistent, thus making truth an inconsistent concept (other defences of such "inconsistency theories" include Azzouni, 2007;Båve, 2012Båve, , 2018Patterson, 2009;Scharp, 2013: Ch. 2).…”