Philosophical Studies

, Volume 133, Issue 1, pp 1–22 | Cite as

Epistemic modals, relativism and assertion

Original Paper

Abstract

I think that there are good reasons to adopt a relativist semantics for epistemic modal claims such as ``the treasure might be under the palm tree'', according to which such utterances determine a truth value relative to something finer-grained than just a world (or a <world, time> pair). Anyone who is inclined to relativise truth to more than just worlds and times faces a problem about assertion. It's easy to be puzzled about just what purpose would be served by assertions of this kind, and how to understand what we'd be up to in our use of sentences like ``the treasure might be under the palm tree'', if they have such peculiar truth conditions. After providing a very quick argument to motivate a relativist view of epistemic modals, I bring out and attempt to resolve this problem in making sense of the role of assertions with relativist truth conditions. Solving this problem should be helpful in two ways: first, it eliminates an apparently forceful objection to relativism, and second, spelling out the relativist account of assertion and communication will help to make clear just what the relativist position is, exactly, and why it's interesting.

Keywords

Relativist Relativism Might Epistemic Modal Assertion Self-location Self-locating 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Brian Weatherson, John Hawthorne, Daniel Stoljar, Frank Jackson, Ben Blumson, Seth Yalcin, Karen Bennett, Kent Bach, Matthew Weiner, Jonathan Kvanvig, Eric Swanson, David Chalmers, Agustin Rayo, Dustin Locke, Aaron Bronfman, Michael Allers, Ivan Mayerhofer, and to the participants at the BSPC 2005 for helpful discussion.

References

  1. DeRose, K. (1991). Epistemic possibilities. Philosophical Review, 100, 581–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Egan, A., Hawthorne, J. & Weatherson, B. (forthcoming) In Preyer & Peters (Eds.), Epistemic modals in context, contextualism in philosophy. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  3. Hacking, I. (1967). Possibility. Philosophical Review, 76, 143–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Lasersohn, P. (MS) Context dependence, disagreement, and predicates of personal taste.Google Scholar
  5. Lewis, D. (1979). Attitudes De Dicto and De Se. Philosophical Review, 88, 513–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. MacFarlane, J. (forthcoming a) Epistemic modalities and relative truth.Google Scholar
  7. MacFarlane, J. (forthcoming b) The assessment sensitivity of knowledge attributions, forthcoming in Oxford studies in epistemology. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Perry, J. (1979). The problem of the essential indexical. Nous, 13, 3–21.Google Scholar
  9. Stalnaker, R. (1978). Assertion. Syntax and Semantics, 9, 315–332.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of Michigan/Australian National UniversityAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations