Skip to main content

The Truth Rule: Definitional or Essential?

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Modeling and Using Context (CONTEXT 2019)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 11939))

  • 446 Accesses

Abstract

This paper is about the norm of truth for assertion, which I henceforth call “The Truth Rule”, and is formulated as follows: “One ought to assert only what is true”. I argue that The Truth Rule as thus formulated is a norm for assertion in a specific sense. I defend the view that assertion is, by its nature, governed by the rule according to which one ought to assert only what is true.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    In Frege: Philosophy of Language, in the chapter on “Assertion”, Dummett argues, “there is no such thing as a game in which the object is to try to lose”. We would better not say that two people are playing chess but that they have both agreed to try to lose, but we shall say that they are trying to win but that what they are playing is not chess, but a variant of it, in which players try to be checkmated rather than to checkmate the opponent’s king (Dummett 1973: 320).

  2. 2.

    Thanks to the anonymous referee for bringing out this objection.

  3. 3.

    Dummett’s remark is only about the idea that our means of identifying what game is being played is through the players’ intention of arriving at the winning position, but that this latter is not required in those cases where we have associated consequences, insofar as these consequences are in force at the end of the game and will make known which game was being played, whether a player played with the intention of winning or not.

  4. 4.

    The question arises at this point as to the possibility of cheating in a game. It seems to me that, with respect to the acts within practices with definitional constitutive rules, cheating amounts to getting out of the act of which the constitutive rule is definitional –and not out of the practice as a whole. If one ‘castles’ while the squares between the king and the rook involved in castling are occupied, one cannot be said to have castled, while one can be said to have cheated with respect to the game of chess as a whole.

  5. 5.

    For this distinction, I am indebted to a paper by D. Miller, who introduces a similar distinction between intra- vs. meta-institutional concepts. [See Miller (1981)] To go further, see Carnap (1950).

  6. 6.

    See Millikan (1984).

References

  • Anscombe, G.E.M.: On brute facts. Analysis 18(3), 69–72 (1957)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Carnap, R.: Empiricism, semantics and ontology. Revue Internationale de Philosophie 4(11), 20–40 (1950)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Crosby, J.: Speech act theory and phenomenology. In: Burkhardt, A. (ed.) Speech Acts, Meaning, and Intentions, pp. 62–88. The Gruyter, Berlin (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  • DuBois, J.M.: Adolf Reinach: metaethics and the philosophy of law. In: Drummond, J.J., Embree, L. (eds.) Phenomenological Approaches to Moral Philosophy: A Handbook. CTPH, pp. 327–346. Springer, Dordrecht (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9924-5_17

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dummett, M.: Truth. Proc. Aristot. Soc. 59(1), 141–162 (1959)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dummett, M.: Frege, Philosophy of Language. Harper & Row, New York (1973)

    Google Scholar 

  • MacFarlane, J.: What is assertion? In: Brown, J., Cappelen, H. (eds.) Assertion: New Philosophical Essays, pp. 80–97. Oxford University Press, New York (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D.: Constitutive rules and essential rules. Philos. Stud. 39(2), 183–197 (1981)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millikan, R.G.: Language, Thought, and Other Biological Categories. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1984)

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinach, A.: The apriori foundations of the civil law. In: Crosby, J.F. (tr.) Irving Texas. International Academy of Philosophy Press (1983)

    Google Scholar 

  • Searle, J.: Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge University Press, London (1969)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tummolini, L., Castelfranchi, C.: The cognitive and behavioral mediation of institutions. Cogn. Syst. Res. 7(2–3), 307–323 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, T.: Knowledge and Its Limits. Oxford University Press, New York (2000)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maryam Ebrahimi Dinani .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Ebrahimi Dinani, M. (2019). The Truth Rule: Definitional or Essential?. In: Bella, G., Bouquet, P. (eds) Modeling and Using Context. CONTEXT 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11939. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34974-5_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34974-5_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-34973-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-34974-5

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics