Naive truth and restricted quantification: Saving truth a whole lot better

Review of Symbolic Logic 7 (1):1-45 (2014)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Restricted quantification poses a serious and under-appreciated challenge for nonclassical approaches to both vagueness and the semantic paradoxes. It is tempting to explain as ; but in the nonclassical logics typically used in dealing with vagueness and the semantic paradoxes (even those where thend expect. If we’re going to use a nonclassical logic, we need one that handles restricted quantification better

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,386

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-11-01

Downloads
145 (#125,668)

6 months
16 (#148,627)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Generalized Revenge.Julien Murzi & Lorenzo Rossi - 2020 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 98 (1):153-177.
HYPE: A System of Hyperintensional Logic.Hannes Leitgeb - 2019 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 48 (2):305-405.
Against Disquotation.Andrew Bacon & Jeremy Goodman - 2022 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 100 (4):711-726.
Paths to Triviality.Tore Fjetland Øgaard - 2016 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 45 (3):237-276.

View all 19 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

No fact of the matter.Hartry Field - 2003 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 81 (4):457 – 480.
Universal Logic.Ross Brady - 2006 - Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 13 (4):544-547.
Relevant Restricted Quantification.J. C. Beall, Ross T. Brady, A. P. Hazen, Graham Priest & Greg Restall - 2006 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 35 (6):587-598.
The liar paradox and fuzzy logic.Petr Hájek, Jeff Paris & John Shepherdson - 2000 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 65 (1):339-346.

View all 8 references / Add more references