, Volume 170, Issue 1, pp 1–5 | Cite as

Relativizing utterance-truth?



In recent years, some people have held that a radical relativist position is defensible in some philosophically interesting cases, including future contingents, predicates of personal taste, evaluative predicates in general, epistemic modals, and knowledge attributions. The position is frequently characterized as denying that utterance-truth is absolute. I argue that this characterization is inappropriate, as it requires a metaphysical substantive contention with which moderate views as such need not be committed. Before this, I also offer a more basic, admittedly less exciting alternative characterization of the position, in terms of departing from the Kaplan–Lewis–Stalnaker two-dimensional framework.


Relativism Utterance-truth Utterances Sentence Context Contextualism Two-dimensionalism 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Egan A., Hawthorne J., Weatherson B. (2005) Epistemic modals in context. In: Preyer G., Peter G.(eds) Contextualism in philosophy. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  2. Lewis, D. (1980). Index, context, and content. In S. Kanger & S. Öhman (Eds.), Philosophy and grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel. Reprinted in Papers in philosophical logic, Cambridge University Press, 1998 (q.v.).Google Scholar
  3. MacFarlane J. (2003) Future contingents and relative truth. Philosophical Quarterly 53: 321–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. MacFarlane J. (2005) Making sense of relative truth. Proceeding of the Aristotelian Society 105: 321–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ICREA at LOGOSUniversitat de BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.ArchéUniversity of St AndrewsFifeScotland

Personalised recommendations