Advertisement

Journal of Philosophical Logic

, Volume 45, Issue 5, pp 485–529 | Cite as

Adding a Conditional to Kripke’s Theory of Truth

  • Lorenzo Rossi
Article

Abstract

Kripke’s theory of truth (Kripke, The Journal of Philosophy 72(19), 690–716; 1975) has been very successful but shows well-known expressive difficulties; recently, Field has proposed to overcome them by adding a new conditional connective to it. In Field’s theories, desirable conditional and truth-theoretic principles are validated that Kripke’s theory does not yield. Some authors, however, are dissatisfied with certain aspects of Field’s theories, in particular the high complexity. I analyze Field’s models and pin down some reasons for discontent with them, focusing on the meaning of the new conditional and on the status of the principles so successfully recovered. Subsequently, I develop a semantics that improves on Kripke’s theory following Field’s program of adding a conditional to it, using some inductive constructions that include Kripke’s one and feature a strong evaluation for conditionals. The new theory overcomes several problems of Kripke’s one and, although weaker than Field’s proposals, it avoids the difficulties that affect them; at the same time, the new theory turns out to be quite simple. Moreover, the new construction can be used to model various conceptions of what a conditional connective is, in ways that are precluded to both Kripke’s and Field’s theories.

Keywords

Naïve truth Kripke’s theory of truth Field’s theories of truth Conditional connective Łukasiewicz logics Partial semantics 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I would like to express my gratitude to Volker Halbach, for all his encouragement and support at various stages of this work, and for the numerous helpful and beneficial discussions on the material of this paper. I am also obliged to Andrea Cantini, Hartry Field, Kentaro Fujimoto, Ole Hjortland, Leon Horsten, Harvey Lederman, Graham Leigh, Hannes Leitgeb, Pierluigi Minari, Carlo Nicolai, Graham Priest, James Studd, Philip Welch, Tim Williamson, and Andy Yu for many useful comments on this work. I am grateful to two anonymous referees for several observations and suggestions that led to improvements. Let me also thank the audiences at the University of Florence, the University of Oxford, the University of Bristol, the LOGICA 2014 Conference, the Humboldt University in Berlin, and the Technical University in Vienna for their precious feedback. Finally, I gratefully acknowledge the support of the Art and Humanities Research Council and of the Scatcherd European Scholarship.

References

  1. 1.
    Aczel, P., & Feferman, S. (1980). Consistency of the unrestricted abstraction principles using an intensional equivalence operator. In J.P. Seldin & J.R. Hindley (Eds.), To H. B. Curry: Essays on combinatory logic, lambda calculus and formalism (pp. 67–98). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bacon, A. (2013). A new conditional for naive truth theory. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 54(1), 87–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beall, J.C. (2009). Spandrels of truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Belnap, N.D. Jr. (1977). A useful four-valued logic. In J. Michael Dunn & G. Epstein (Eds.), Modern uses of multiple-valued logic (pp. 8–37). Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Blamey, S. (2002). Partial logic. In D.M. Gabbay & F. Guenthner (Eds.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic. 2nd edn. (Vol. 5, pp. 261–353). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brady, R. (1971). The consistency of the axioms of abstraction and extensionality in three-valued logic. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 12(4), 447–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brady, R. (1989). The Non-Triviality of Dialectical Set Theory. In G. Priest, R. Routley & J. Norman (Eds.), Paraconsistent logic: essays on the inconsistent (pp. 437–470). München: Philosophia Verlag.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Burgess, J.P. (2009). Friedman and the axiomatization of Kripke’s theory of truth. In N. Tennant (Ed.), Foundational adventures. Essays in honour of Harvey Friedman. London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cantini, A. (1996). Logical frameworks for truth and abstraction. An axiomatic study, volume 135 of Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cantini, A. (2002). Osservazioni su Autoriferimento e Verità. Annali del Dipartimento di Filosofia dell’Università di Firenze, VIII, 53–76.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cook, R.T. (2007). On the indefinite extensibility of language. In J.C. Beall (Ed.), The revenge of the liar. New essays on the paradox (pp. 31–52). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dummett, M.E.A. (1958). Truth. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 59 (1958–1959), 141–162. New Series.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Feferman, S. (1984). Toward useful type-free theories, I. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 49(1), 75–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Field, H. (2002). Saving the truth schema from paradox. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 31(1), 1– 27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Field, H. (2003). A revenge-immune solution to the semantic paradoxes. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 32(2), 139–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Field, H. (2004). The consistency of the naïve theory of properties. The Philosophical Quarterly, 54(214), 78–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Field, H. (2007). Solving the paradoxes, escaping revenge. In J.C. Beall (Ed.), The revenge of the liar. New essays on the paradox, cit (pp. 78–144).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Field, H. (2008). Saving truth from paradox. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Field, H. (2011). Comments on Martin’s and Welch’s comments. The Review of Symbolic Logic, 4(3), 360–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Field, H. (2014). Naive truth and restricted quantification: saving truth a whole lot better. Review of Symbolic Logic, 7, 147–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fischer, M., Halbach, V., Speck, J., & Stern, J. (2015). Axiomatizing semantic theories of truth? The Review of Symbolic Logic, 8, 257–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gottwald, S. (2001). A treatise on many-valued logics, Studies in Logic and Computation Vol. 9. Baldock: Research Studies Press.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gupta, A., & Belnap, N.D.Jr. (1993). The revision theory of truth. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Halbach, V., & Horsten, L. (2006). Axiomatizing Kripke’s theory of truth. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 71(2), 677–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Halbach, V. (2011). Axiomatic theories of truth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Horsten, L. (2011). The Tarskian turn. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kaye, R. (1991). Models of Peano Arithmetic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kremer, M. (1988). Kripke and the logic of truth. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 17(3), 327– 332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kripke, S. (1975). Outline of a theory of truth. The Journal of Philosophy, 72(19), 690–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Leitgeb, H. (2007). On the metatheory of Field’s “Solving the Paradoxes, Escaping Revenge”. In J.C. Beall (Ed.), The revenge of the liar. New essays on the paradox, cit., 159–183. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Malinowski, G. (1993). Many-valued logics, Oxford logic guides Vol. 25. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Martin, D.A. (2011). Field’s Saving Truth from Paradox: some things it doesn’t do. The Review of Symbolic Logic, 4(3), 339–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    McGee, V. (1989). Applying Kripke’s theory of truth. The Journal of Philosophy, 86(10), 530–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    McGee, V. (1991). Truth, vagueness, and paradox: an essay on the logic of truth. Indianapolis and Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Moschovakis, Y.N. (2008). Elementary induction on abstract structures. New York and Amsterdam: North- Holland and Elsevier (1974), unabridged republication by Dover Books.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Restall, G. (1992). Arithmetic and truth in Łukasiewicz’s infinitely valued logic. Logique Et Analyse, 139(140), 303–312.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Rossi, L. Graphs, Truth, and Conditional(s), under review.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Soames, S. (1999). Understanding truth. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Tarski, A. (1983). The concept of truth in formalized languages, Polish original version 1933, German translation 1935, English translation of the German version in Alfred Tarski (J. Corcoran (Ed.)), Logic, semantics, metamathematics, 2nd edn. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Van Dalen, D. (2012). Logic and structure. New York Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Welch, P. (2008). Ultimate truth vis à vis stable truth. The Review of Symbolic Logic, 1(1), 126–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Welch, P. (2011). Truth, logical validity and determinateness : a commentary on Field’s Saving Truth from Paradox. The Review of Symbolic Logic, 4(3), 248–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Welch, P. (2014). Some observations on truth hierarchies. The Review of Symbolic Logic, 7(1), 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Yablo, S. (1982). Grounding, dependence, and paradox. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 11(1), 117–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of PhilosophyUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations