In defence of an argument against truthmaker maximalism

• Authors: Gołosz Jerzy
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

The paper analyses the argument proposed by Milne (2005) against truthmaker maximalism and shows that the objections raised to this argument by de Sa and Zardini, and Rodriguez-Pereyra are misguided because the first one misuses the vagueness of some terms; and the second one is based on a fallacy of petitio principii (this is exactly the same type of objection as it was raised by Rodriguez-Pereyra against the Milne’s argument).

Keywords

EN

truthmakers; truthmaker maximalism; Milne; de Sa; Zardini; Rodriguez-Pereyra

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Mikołaja Kopernika (Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń)
• Journal: Logic and Logical Philosophy
• Year: 2015
• Volume: 24
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 105–109

Dates

published

2015-03-01

online

2014-08-14

Contributors

author

Gołosz Jerzy

• Institute of Philosophy, Jagiellonian University, ul. Grodzka 52, 31–044 Kraków, Poland

References

• Armour-Garb, B., and J. A. Woodbridge, 2010, “Truthmakers, paradox and plausibility”, Analysis, 70:11–23. DOI: 10.1093/analys/anp123
• Armstrong, D., 2000, “Difficult cases in the theory of truthmaking”, The Monist, 83: 150–160. DOI: 10.5840/monist200083112
• López de Sa, D., and E. Zardini, 2006, “Does this sentence have no truthmaker?”, Analysis, 66:154–57. DOI: 10.1093/analys/66.2.154
• Milne, P., 2005, “Not every truth has a truthmaker”, Analysis, 65: 221–224. DOI: 10.1093/analys/65.3.221
• Milne, P., 2013, “Not every truth has a truthmaker II” Analysis, 73: 473–481. DOI: analys/ant037
• Priest, G., 1979, “The logic of paradox”, Journal of Philosophical Logic 8: 219–241. DOI: 10.1007/BF00258428
• Rodriguez-Pereyra, G., 2006, “Truthmaker maximalism defended”, Analysis, 66: 260–264. DOI: 10.1093/analys/66.3.260

Identifiers

DOI

10.12775/LLP.2014.018