more on this theme     |     more from this thinker


Single Idea 15651

[filed under theme 5. Theory of Logic / E. Structures of Logic / 7. Predicates in Logic ]

Full Idea

Quantification over (certain) properties can be mimicked in a language with a truth predicate by quantifying over formulas. Instead of saying that Tom has the property of being a poor philosopher, we can say 'x is a poor philosopher' is true of Tom.

Gist of Idea

Instead of saying x has a property, we can say a formula is true of x - as long as we have 'true'

Source

Volker Halbach (Axiomatic Theories of Truth (2005 ver) [2005], 1.1)

Book Ref

'Stanford Online Encyclopaedia of Philosophy', ed/tr. Stanford University [plato.stanford.edu], p.2


A Reaction

I love this, and think it is very important. He talks of 'mimicking' properties, but I see it as philosophers mistakenly attributing properties, when actually what they were doing is asserting truths involving certain predicates.


The 10 ideas from 'Axiomatic Theories of Truth (2005 ver)'

Truth definitions don't produce a good theory, because they go beyond your current language [Halbach]
Axiomatic theories of truth need a weak logical framework, and not a strong metatheory [Halbach]
Instead of a truth definition, add a primitive truth predicate, and axioms for how it works [Halbach]
In semantic theories of truth, the predicate is in an object-language, and the definition in a metalanguage [Halbach]
We can use truth instead of ontologically loaded second-order comprehension assumptions about properties [Halbach]
Instead of saying x has a property, we can say a formula is true of x - as long as we have 'true' [Halbach]
Should axiomatic truth be 'conservative' - not proving anything apart from implications of the axioms? [Halbach]
If truth is defined it can be eliminated, whereas axiomatic truth has various commitments [Halbach]
Deflationists say truth merely serves to express infinite conjunctions [Halbach]
To prove the consistency of set theory, we must go beyond set theory [Halbach]