Advertisement

Synthese

, Volume 191, Issue 14, pp 3393–3406 | Cite as

Tarski’s one and only concept of truth

  • Jeroen Smid
Article

Abstract

In a recent article, David (Tarski’s convention T and the concept of truth, pp. 133–156, 2008) distinguishes between two interpretations of Tarski’s work on truth. The standard interpretation has it that Tarski gave us a definition of truth in-L within the meta-language; the non-standard interpretation, that Tarski did not give us a definition of true sentence in L, but rather a definition of truth, and Tarski does so for L within the meta-language. The difference is crucial: for on the standard view, there are different concepts of truth, while in the alternative interpretation there is just one concept. In this paper we will have a brief look at the distinction between these two interpretations and at the arguments David gives for each view. We will evaluate one of David’s arguments for the alternative view by looking at Tarski’s ‘On the concept of truth in formalized languages’ (CTF), and his use of the term ‘extension’ therein, which, we shall find, yields no conclusive evidence for either position. Then we will look at how Tarski treats ‘satisfaction’, an essential concept for his definition of ‘true sentence’. It will be argued that, in light of how Tarski talks about ‘satisfaction’ in Sect. 4 of ‘CTF’ and his claims in the Postscript, the alternative view is more likely than the standard one.

Keywords

Tarski Truth Satisfaction True-in-L 

Abbreviations

CTF

On the concept of truth in formalized languages

EP

Extension Principle

Notes

Acknowledgments

Many thanks to Arianna Betti, Iris Loeb, and three anonymous reviewers for commenting on previous versions of this paper. Thanks also to Jonathan Sozek for proofreading my manuscript. Whatever mistakes remain are entirely my own.

References

  1. Burgess, A. G., & Burgess, J. P. (2011). Truth. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Carnap, R. (1963). Intellectual autobiography, in the philosophy of Rudolf Carnap. In P. A. Schilpp (Ed.), The library of living philosophers (Vol. 11). La Selle: Open Court.Google Scholar
  3. David, M. (2008). Tarski’s convention T and the concept of truth. In Patterson (Ed.), New essays on Tarski and philosophy (pp. 133–156). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Feferman, S. (2008). Tarski’s conceptual analysis of semantical notions. In Patterson (Ed.), New essays on Tarski and philosophy (pp. 72–93). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Field, H. (1972). Tarski’s Theory of Truth. The Journal of Philosophy, 69(13), 347–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Kirkham, R. L. (1995). Theories of truth—A critical introduction. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Künne, W. (2003). Conceptions of truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Moreno, L. F. (2001). Tarskian truth and the correspondence theory. Synthese, 126, 123–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Murawski, R., & Wolenski, J. (2008). Tarski and his polish predecessors on truth. In Patterson (Ed.), New essays on Tarski and philosophy (pp. 21–43). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Patterson, D. (2012). Alfred Tarski: Philosophy of language and logi. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Quine, W. V. O. (1953). From a logical point of view. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Raatikainen, P., et al. (2008). Truth, correspondence, models, and Tarski. In S. Philström, et al. (Eds.), Approaching truth: Essays in honour of Ilkka Niiniluoto (pp. 107–119). London: College Press.Google Scholar
  13. Sher, G. (1999). What is Tarski’s Theory of Truth? Topoi, 18, 149–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Simons, P. (2009). Twardowski on Truth. The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication, 4, 1–14.Google Scholar
  15. Tarski, A. (1935[1956]). The concept of truth in formalized languages, logic, semantics, metamathematics; papers from 1923 to 1938 (pp. 152–278). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy & Cognitive ScienceLund UniversityLundSweden
  2. 2.Faculty of PhilosophyVU University AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations