display all the ideas for this combination of philosophers
11 ideas
10844 | The statement that it is raining perfectly fits the fact that it is raining [Strawson,P] |
Full Idea: What could fit more perfectly the fact that it is raining than the statement that it is raining? | |
From: Peter F. Strawson (Truth [1950], §2) |
19145 | We can explain truth in terms of satisfaction - but also explain satisfaction in terms of truth [Davidson] |
Full Idea: Truth is easily defined in terms of satisfaction (as Tarski showed), but, alternatively, satisfaction can be taken to be whatever relation yields a correct account of truth. | |
From: Donald Davidson (Truth and Predication [2005], 2) | |
A reaction: Davidson is assessing which is the prior 'primitive' concept, and he votes for truth. A perennial problem in philosophy, and very hard to find reasons for a preference. The axiomatic approach grows from taking truth as primitive. Axioms for satisfaction? |
19146 | Satisfaction is a sort of reference, so maybe we can define truth in terms of reference? [Davidson] |
Full Idea: That the truth of sentences is defined by appeal to the semantic properties of words suggests that, if we could give an account of the semantic properties of words (essentially, of reference or satisfaction), we would understand the concept of truth. | |
From: Donald Davidson (Truth and Predication [2005], 2) | |
A reaction: If you thought that words were prior to sentences, this might be the route to go. Davidson gives priority to sentences, and so prefers to work from the other end, which treats truth as primitive, and then defines reference and meaning. |
19174 | Axioms spell out sentence satisfaction. With no free variables, all sequences satisfy the truths [Davidson] |
Full Idea: Axioms specify how each unstructured predicate is satisfied by a particular sequence. Then recursive axioms characterise complex sentences built from simpler ones. Closed sentences have no free variables, so true sentences are satisfied by all sequences. | |
From: Donald Davidson (Truth and Predication [2005], 7) | |
A reaction: I take 'all sequences' to mean all combinations of objects in the domain. Thus nothing in domain contradicts the satisfied sentences. Hence Tarski's truth is said to be 'true in a model', where the whole system vouches for the sentence. |
23288 | When Tarski defines truth for different languages, how do we know it is a single concept? [Davidson] |
Full Idea: We have to wonder how we know that it is some single concept which Tarski indicates how to define for each of a number of well-behaved languages. | |
From: Donald Davidson (Truth Rehabilitated [1997], P.11) | |
A reaction: Davidson says that Tarski makes the assumption that it is a single concept, but fails to demonstrate the fact. This resembles Frege's Julius Caesar problem - of how you know whether your number definition has defined a number. |
23297 | The language to define truth needs a finite vocabulary, to make the definition finite [Davidson] |
Full Idea: If the definition of the truth predicate is to be finite (Tarski insisted on this), the definition must take advantage of the fact that sentences, though potentially infinite in number, are constructed from a finite vocabulary. | |
From: Donald Davidson (The Folly of Trying to Define Truth [1999], p.23) | |
A reaction: Not sure whether this is in the object language or the meta-language, though I guess the former. |
10841 | The word 'true' always refers to a possible statement [Strawson,P] |
Full Idea: It is of prime importance to distinguish the fact that the use of 'true' always glances backwards or forwards to the actual or envisaged making of a statement by someone. | |
From: Peter F. Strawson (Truth [1950], §1) | |
A reaction: 'The truth of this matter will never be known'. Strawson is largely right, but it is crazy for any philosopher to use the word 'always' if they can possibly avoid it. |
19136 | Many say that Tarski's definitions fail to connect truth to meaning [Davidson] |
Full Idea: It is complained that Tarski's definitions do not establish the connection between truth and meaning that many philosophers hold to be essential. | |
From: Donald Davidson (Truth and Predication [2005], 1) | |
A reaction: This, of course, was Davidson's big mission - to build on Tarski's theory a view of truth which dovetailed it with theories of meaning and reference. |
19139 | Tarski does not tell us what his various truth predicates have in common [Davidson] |
Full Idea: There is no indication in Tarski's formal work of what it is that his various truth predicates have in common, and this is part of the content of the concept. | |
From: Donald Davidson (Truth and Predication [2005], 1) | |
A reaction: This seems like a good question to raise. If I list all the 'red' things, I can still ask what qualifies them to all appear on the same list. |
19147 | Truth is the basic concept, because Convention-T is agreed to fix the truths of a language [Davidson] |
Full Idea: The key role of Convention-T in determining that truth, as characterised by the theory, has the same extension as the intuitive concept of truth makes it seem that it is truth rather than reference that is the basic primitive. | |
From: Donald Davidson (Truth and Predication [2005], 2) | |
A reaction: The key strength of Tarski's account is that it specifies the extension of 'true' for a given language (as expressed in a richer meta-language). |
19172 | To define a class of true sentences is to stipulate a possible language [Davidson] |
Full Idea: When we enquire whether a truth definition defines the class of true sentences in a particular language, we are thinking of the truth definition as stipulating a possible language. | |
From: Donald Davidson (Truth and Predication [2005], 7) | |
A reaction: Thus I might say "Nij wonk yang" is true if and only if snow is white, and make my first step towards a new language. An interesting way of looking at Tarski's project. |