Abstract
Throughout his work, Kevin Mulligan has shown an ongoing concern with the theory of metaphysical explanation. What do we aim for, when we, e.g. try to elucidate the natures of essence, value, perception, truthmaking, norms, emotions, relations, and colours? Mulligan has done more than anyone to elucidate what he calls the ‘metaphysical “because”’, in terms of which we formulate metaphysical explanations. Things mentioned on the right-hand side of such explanations, a natural thought goes, are more fundamental than those that are mentioned on the left-hand side. They stand to the latter in a relation of grounding, and the holding of this relation makes the ‘because’ sentence true. In recent work on Künne’s ‘modest account of truth’, however, Mulligan has flirted with the idea that ‘because’-sentences themselves are fundamental, i.e. not further analysable and not underwritten by real relations, in virtue of the obtaining of which they are true. In my contribution to this Festschrift, I argue that we (and he) should resist this temptation: While it is true that operator locutions are often convenient, they do not reveal the fundamental metaphysics. There is no explanation to be had without accepting something doing the explaining.
Mein Grundgedanke ist, dass die ‘logischen Konstanten’ nicht vertreten. Dass sich die Logik der Tatsachen nicht vertreten lässt. (Wittgenstein, Annalen der Natur-und Kunstphilosophie, 14:184–261, 1921, § 4.0312)
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
One misunderstanding is that quantification over ways, not over propositions, is intended (Hofweber (2005, p. 137), David (2006, p. 189), Boghossian (2010, p. 555)). Immediately following Mod 3 , however, Künne (2003, p. 336) makes it clear that ‘things are that way’ functions as a quantificational prosentence in Mod 3 .
- 2.
- 3.
Künne explicitly acknowledges this: ‘Permissible substituends for “p” do not designate values of this variable. […] Permissible substituends for “p” express values of this variable’ (2008, p. 389; cf. also 2003, p. 360). He thinks that our grasp of the nominal mode of ‘introducing’ propositions is based on our grasp of the sentential mode of ‘introducing’ them (2003, p. 367). I am putting scare quotes because a nominalist could plausibly deny that ‘p’ ‘introduces’ any proposition at all.
- 4.
Kneale (1972), in a paper where he proposes the ‘modest’ account (cf. n. 14 below), says that ‘…the lesson to be learnt from the Liar paradox is nothing specially concerned with truth or falsity, but rather that ability to express a proposition can never depend on an ability to designate it’ (1972, p. 243). Harman (1970, p. 99) makes a related point against the ‘modest’ account of Williams (1969).
- 5.
This is how Künne (2003, p. 327) characterises the following remark by Davidson (1996, p. 274), which he takes to be directed equally against his modest account: ‘[T]he same sentence appears twice in instances of Horwich’s schema [“The proposition that p is true iff p”], once after ‘the proposition that’, in a context that requires the result to be a singular term, the subject of a predicate, and once as an ordinary sentence. We cannot eliminate this iteration of the same sentence without destroying all appearance of a theory. But we cannot understand the result of the iteration unless we can see how to make use of the same semantic features of the repeated sentence in both of its appearances—make use of them in giving the semantics of the schema instances. I do not see how this can be done.’
- 6.
I think that the same problem threatens ‘hybrid’ quantification over properties, both into predicate and into singular term position, such as in ‘Ben is impatient, and that is a bad quality in a teacher’ (Künne 2003, p. 366), but I cannot make good on this claim there.
- 7.
Mulligan uses a curious strategy to do so, contemplating the possibility that one introduce an explicitly unbreakable truth operator ‘true + ’, in analogy with ‘probably’, into English, German or French (2010, p. 576). It is not straightforward to determine, however, what light the possibility of such an operator would cast on the actual ‘it is true that …’. Künne calls the suggestion ‘déroutante’ (2011, p. 212).
- 8.
While he agrees that one can, as Frege did with his negation stroke, introduce an unbreakable truth-operator into any language, he thinks that this will not correspond to ‘it is true that…’ (2010a, p. 559; 2011, p. 206).
- 9.
Bach (1997, pp. 222–223) cites Burge (1980, p. 55), Fodor (1978, p. 178) (cited after reprint in Fodor (1981)), Schiffer (1992, p. 491, 505), Soames (1987, pp. 105–106) and Stalnaker (1988, pp. 140–141) as representatives of the orthodox view. I sketch another unorthodox view in my ‘Expressivism about Belief’.
- 10.
Cf. McKinsey (1999, p. 527) for a recent version of this view.
- 11.
Compare Bach (1997, p. 224) for an argument against what he calls the ‘specification assumption’—‘that belief reports specify belief contents, i.e., to be true a belief report must specify a proposition the person believes’ (1997, p. 222)—based on the Paderewski puzzle: ‘According to the descriptivist view, the condition on the truth of a belief report is that the believer believe a certain thing which requires the truth of the proposition expressed by the ‘that’-clause in the belief report. […] Just as “Adam bit a certain apple” does not specify which apple Adam bit, although it entails that there is a certain one that he bit, so “Peter believes that Paderewski had musical talent” does not specify which sort of that-Paderewski-had-musical-talent belief he has, although it requires that there be certain one that he has.’ (1997, p. 226)
- 12.
We will not be able to infer that there is something a and b both believe, for example just on the basis of the truth of ‘a believes that snow is white’ and ‘b croit que la neige est blanche’.
- 13.
This is also why Fine (2012) opts for a notion of ground as an essential operator.
- 14.
In fact, Künne (1983, p. 126) already proposed the modest account and said that it ‘went back’ to Kneale (1972, p. 239) and Mackie (1973, p. 52) (cf. also Mackie (1970, p. 330)). He could also have mentioned Williams (1969, p. 116), to whom Mackie (1973, p. 60) refers. Williams (1971) subsequently defended the ‘modest’ account against the criticism by Sayward (1970) that it presupposes, rather than explains, propositions, before finally giving it up in favour of nihilism in his (1976), which Künne discusses.
- 15.
Both Prior and Lejewski say things pointing in that direction, claiming that the meaning of propositional quantification is to be given in terms of ‘specifications’—‘a “specification” being a sentence in which the prefix “for some p” is dropped, and the remaining variable p replaced by an expression of the sort for which it stands, i.e. a sentence’ (Prior 1971, p. 36)—or their infinite expansions into conjunctions and disjunctions (Lejewski 1970, p. 175). Quine, in the discussion following Lejewski (1970), interprets him this way.
- 16.
Soames (2008, p. 317) even goes so far to call an instance of (l2r) ‘patently ridiculous’.
- 17.
In the second edition, Horwich (1998, p. 105) simply says that ‘[s]ince [that truths are made true by elements of reality] follows from the minimal theory (given certain further facts), it need not be an explicitly stated part of it’.
- 18.
Both Horwich and Wright put scare quotes.
- 19.
In a rather cryptic comment immediately following the quote, Wright goes on to say that even though this comment is ‘fair’, there is not really a problem at all. Künne (2003, p. 157) also finds Wright’s comments ‘not very illuminating’.
- 20.
This is only part of the explanation. For reasons I sketch at some length in my ‘Truthmaking is explanation by things’, I think that ‘truthmaking without truthmakers’ is not truthmaking at all.
References
Bach K (1997) Do belief reports report beliefs? Pac Philos Quart 78:215–241
Boghossian PA (2010) Our grasp of the concept of truth: reflections on Künne. Dialectica 64:553–563
Brentano F (1930) Wahrheit und Evidenz. Felix Meiner, Leipzig
Burge T (1980) The content of propositional attitudes. Noûs 14:53–58
Correia F (2010) Grounding and truth-functions. Logique et Analyse 53:251–279
David MA (2006) Künne on conceptions of truth [review of Künne (2003)]. Grazer Phil Stud 70:179–191
Davidson D (1996) The folly of trying to define truth. J Philos 93:263–278
Fine K (2012) A guide to ground. In: Correia F, Schnieder B (eds) Metaphysical grounding: understanding the structure of reality. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 37–80
Fodor JA (1978) Propositional attitudes. Monist 61:501–523
Harman GH (1970) ‘—is true’ [on Williams (1969)]. Analysis 30:98–99
Hofweber T (2005) Review of Künne (2003). Philos Rev 114:136–138
Horwich P (1990) Truth, Basil Blackwell Publishers, Oxford
Horwich P (1998) Truth, 2nd ed., Basil Blackwell Publishers, Oxford
Kneale WC (1972) Propositions and truth in natural languages. Mind 81:225–243
Künne W (1983) Abstrakte Gegenstände. Semantik und Ontologie. Suhrkamp Verlag, Frankfurt
Künne W (2003) Conceptions of truth. Clarendon Press, Oxford
Künne W (2008) Replies to commentators. Dialectica 62:385–401
Künne W (2010a) Die Philosophische Logik Gottlob Freges. Ein Kommentar mit den Texten des Vorworts zu Grundgesetze der Arithmetik und der Logischen Untersuchungen I-IV. Klostermann, Frankfurt
Künne W (2010b) Replies to Paul Boghossian (2010) and Kevin Mulligan (2010). Dialectica 64:585–615
Künne W (2011) Vérité sans vérités? Réponse à Kevin Mulligan. Philosophiques 38:195–218
Künne W (2013) Truth, without Truth? ‘Propositional Attitudes’ without Propositions? Meaning with Meanings? In: Mulligan K, Kijania-Placek K, Placek T (eds). The History and Philosophy of Polish Logic, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp 160–204
Lejewski C (1970) Quantification and ontological commitment. In: Yourgrau W, Breck AD (eds) Physics, logic, and history, Plenum Press, New York, pp 173–181. (Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Logic, Physical Reality, and History, at the University of Denver, 1968).
Mackie JL (1970) Simple truth. Philos Quart 20:321–333. (Reprinted, in a substantially revised version, as Mackie (1973, Chap. 2))
Mackie JL (1973) Truth, probability and paradox -Studies in philosophical logic. Clarendon Press, Oxford
McKinsey M (1999) The semantics of belief ascriptions. Noûs 33:519–557
Mulligan K (2004) Essence and modality. The quintessence of Husserl’s theory. In: Siebel M, Textor M (eds) Semantik und Ontologie - Beiträge zur philosophischen Forschung. Georg Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung, Hildesheim, pp 387–418
Mulligan K (2010) The truth connective vs. the truth predicate. On taking connectives seriously. Dialectica 64:565–584
Mulligan K (2011) Meaning something and meanings. Grazer Phil Studien 82:255–284
Prior AN (1971) Objects of thought. Oxford University Press, Oxford (Edited by Peter Geach and Anthony Kenny)
Pryor J (2007) Reasons and that-clauses. In: Sosa E, Villanueva E (eds) Philosophical issues 17: the metaphysics of epistemology. Basil Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, pp 217–244
Quine WO (1970) Philosophy of logic. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Richard M (1996) Propositional quantification. In: Copeland BJ (ed) Logic and reality: essays on the legacy of Arthur Prior. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp 437–460
Sayward C (1970) Williams’ definition of “X is True” (on Williams (1969)). Analysis 30:95–97
Schiffer S (1992) Belief ascription. J Philos 89:499–521
Soames S (1987) Substitutivity. In: Thomson JJ (ed) On being and saying: essays for Richard Cartwright. The MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 99–132
Soames S (2008) Truthmakers? Philos Books 49:317–327
Stalnaker RC (1988) Belief attribution and context. In: Grimm R, Merrill DD (eds) Contents of thought. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp 150–166
Sundholm G (2008) Summa de Veritate Hamburgensis: truth according to Wolfgang Künne. Dialectica 62:359–371
Tarski A, 1933. Pojecie prawdy w jezykach nauk dedukcyjnych. Prace Towarzystwa Naukowego Warszawskiego, Wydział III, nauk matematyccznofizycznych (Travaux de la Société des Sciences et des Lettres de Varsovie, Classe III, Sciences Mathématiques et Physiques) 26. English translation Tarski (1956, 152–278)
Williams CJF (1969) What does “X is True” say about X? Analysis 29:113–124
Williams CJF (1971) Truth: a composite rejoinder (to Sayward (1970), Harman (1970), and Jones (1970)). Analysis 32:57–64
Williams CJF (1976) What is truth? Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Williamson T (1999) Truthmakers and the converse Barcan formula. Dialectica 53:253–270
Wittgenstein L (1921) Logisch-philosophische Abhandlung. Annalen der Natur-und Kunstphilosophie 14:184–261. Cited after Logisch-philosophische Abhandlung/Tractatus logico-philosophicus. Suhrkamp Verlag, Frankfurt a M Critical ed by Brian McGuiness and Joachim Schulte
Wright C (1992) Truth and objectivity. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Acknowledgements
Work on this paper was generously supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (grant number 126656) and the Coordinación de Humanidades, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Mexico.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Blum, P. (2014). Connectives, Prenectives and Dishonoured Cheques of Metaphysical Explanation. In: Reboul, A. (eds) Mind, Values, and Metaphysics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04199-5_17
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04199-5_17
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-04198-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-04199-5
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)