, Volume 12, Issue 1, pp 31–43 | Cite as

Theories and Theories of Truth

  • Ryan ChristensenEmail author
Original Paper


Formal theories, as in logic and mathematics, are sets of sentences closed under logical consequence. Philosophical theories, like scientific theories, are often far less formal. There are many axiomatic theories of the truth predicate for certain formal languages; on analogy with these, some philosophers (most notably Paul Horwich) have proposed axiomatic theories of the property of truth. Though in many ways similar to logical theories, axiomatic theories of truth must be different in several nontrivial ways. I explore what an axiomatic theory of truth would look like. Because Horwich’s is the most prominent, I examine his theory and argue that it fails as a theory of truth. Such a theory is adequate if, given a suitable base theory, every fact about truth is a consequence of the axioms of the theory. I show, using an argument analogous to Gödel’s incompleteness proofs, that no axiomatic theory of truth could ever be adequate. I also argue that a certain class of generalizations cannot be consequences of the theory.


Truth Axiomatic theories Deflationism Paul Horwich 



This article has been improved by comments on earlier drafts from many people. I want to particularly thank Paul Horwich, Mark Crimmins, John Etchemendy, and John Perry.


  1. Christensen, R. McGee on Horwich. In pressGoogle Scholar
  2. David, M. (2002) Minimalism and the Facts about Truth. In: R. Schantz, ed. What is Truth? New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  3. Davidson, D. (1996) The Folly of Trying to Define Truth. Journal of Philosophy 93: 263–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Grim, P. (1991) The Incomplete Universe: Totality, Knowledge, and Truth. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Gupta, A. (1993) Minimalism. Philosophical Perspectives 7:359–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Halbach, V. (1999) Disquotationalism and Infinite Conjunctions. Mind 108:1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Halbach, V., and Horsten, L. (2002) Contemporary Methods for Investigating the Concept of Truth—An Introduction. In: Halbach and Horsten, eds. Principles of Truth. Fankfurt: Dr. Hänsel-Hohenhausen: 11–36.Google Scholar
  8. Heck, R. (1997) Tarski, Truth, and Semantics. The Philosophical Review 106: 533–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Horwich, P. (1990) Truth, 1st edition. Oxford: Blackwell Press.Google Scholar
  10. Horwich, P. (1998a) Meaning. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Horwich, P. (1998b) Truth, 2nd edition. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Horwich, P. (1999) Davidson on Deflationism. In: Discussions with Donald Davidson: On Truth, Meaning, and Knowledge, edited by U. Zeglen, London, Routledge, 1999.Google Scholar
  13. Horwich, P. (2002) A Defense of Minimalism. In Halbach and Horsten.Google Scholar
  14. Horwich, P. (2006a) Reflections on Meaning. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Horwich, P. (2006b) The Value of Truth. Noûs 40: 347–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. McGee, V. (1992). “Maximal Consistent Sets of Instances of Tarski’s Schema (T).” Journal of Philosophical Logic 21: 235–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kirkham, R. (1992) Theories of Truth. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  18. Raatikainen, P. (2005) On Horwich’s Way Out. Analysis 65: 175–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Soames, S. (1999). Understanding Truth. Oxford: University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Tarski, A. (1983) The Concept of Truth in Formalized Languages. In Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics, 2nd ed. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.Google Scholar
  21. Williamson, T. (2000). Knowledge and its Limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Brigham Young UniversityProvoUSA

Personalised recommendations