ABSTRACT Gareth Evans and Sven Rosenkranz have respectively formulated two objections to truth relativism that would show that this view does not cohere with our practice of asserting. I argue that the relativist should answer such objections by appealing to the notion of assessment sensitivity. Since the relativist accounts for this notion by means of a technical truth predicate relating propositions to contexts of assessment, the task left to her turns out to be to make sense of assessment sensitivity by (...) making sense of this predicate. RESUMO Gareth Evans e Sven Rosenkranz formularam, respectivamente, duas objeções ao relativismo da verdade que mostrariam que esta visão não é coerente com nossa prática de afirmar. Defendo que o relativista deve responder a tais objeções apelando à noção de sensibilidade da avaliação. Tendo em mente que o relativista considera essa noção por meio de um predicado de verdade técnica, a tarefa deixada para ele calha de ser dar sentido à sensibilidade da avaliação mediante dar sentido a esse predicado. (shrink)

John Etchemendy argumenta que, dado el fracaso del análisis tarskianode la noción intuitiva de consecuencia lógica, no hay razones para considerara la formalidad una condición necesaria para dicha relación. En el presentetrabajo critico este argumento. Primeramente, busco mostrar que la crítica deEtchemendy al análisis tarskiano asume dos requisitos de éxito elucidatorio queno es razonable adoptar conjuntamente. En segundo lugar muestro que, rechazadala anterior asunción, dos argumentos a favor de la adecuación extensionalde dicho análisis confieren apoyo al formalismo. Finalmente, menciono algunasconocidas (...) consideraciones de índole pragmática en favor del formalismo. (shrink)

Minimalism proposes a semantics that does not account for speakers' intuitions about the truth conditions of a range of sentences or utterances. Thus, a challenge for this view is to offer an explanation of how its assignment of semantic contents to these sentences is grounded in their use. Such an ..

This paper has three purposes. The first and main one is to show that certain deep disagreements are rationally resolvable. The procedure of rational reso-lution of these disagreements is the same as the one Duncan Pritchard (2011, 2021) thinks that allows to resolve any deep disagreement. Thus, the second purpose of this paper is to give some reasons to think, against Pritchard, that this procedure only allows to resolve a certain kind of deep disagreements. The third purpose, which is treated (...) as subsidiary of the first one, is to defend the characterization of deep disagreement used here against two alternative cha-racterizations. (shrink)