Pragmatism about Truth-Makers

IF 0.1 4区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY Contemporary Pragmatism Pub Date : 2022-11-14 DOI:10.1163/18758185-bja10052
J. Capps
{"title":"Pragmatism about Truth-Makers","authors":"J. Capps","doi":"10.1163/18758185-bja10052","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Truth-makers are the dark matter of metaphysics. On the one hand, truth-makers seem obvious and necessary: if there are truths then there must be something that makes these truths true. On the other hand, it’s proven difficult to say exactly what these truth-makers are. Even defenders disagree about what sort of entity truth-makers are or whether all truths have truth-makers. Skeptics have questioned whether truth-makers are actually so obvious and necessary, or even whether they exist at all. Here I offer an account of this unhappy state of affairs and a modest proposal. First, I argue that not only are there no good arguments for truth-makers but it’s unlikely that there ever will be. Second I point to how much can be done without resorting to truth-makers in the first place: they are not as essential as often assumed. Finally, I conclude that we needn’t jettison the concept of truth-makers entirely. Understood in a modest and pragmatic spirit we can hold on to truth-makers while recognizing their inherent limitations.","PeriodicalId":42794,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Pragmatism","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contemporary Pragmatism","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18758185-bja10052","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Truth-makers are the dark matter of metaphysics. On the one hand, truth-makers seem obvious and necessary: if there are truths then there must be something that makes these truths true. On the other hand, it’s proven difficult to say exactly what these truth-makers are. Even defenders disagree about what sort of entity truth-makers are or whether all truths have truth-makers. Skeptics have questioned whether truth-makers are actually so obvious and necessary, or even whether they exist at all. Here I offer an account of this unhappy state of affairs and a modest proposal. First, I argue that not only are there no good arguments for truth-makers but it’s unlikely that there ever will be. Second I point to how much can be done without resorting to truth-makers in the first place: they are not as essential as often assumed. Finally, I conclude that we needn’t jettison the concept of truth-makers entirely. Understood in a modest and pragmatic spirit we can hold on to truth-makers while recognizing their inherent limitations.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
真理创造者的实用主义
真理制造者是形而上学的暗物质。一方面,真理制造者似乎是显而易见和必要的:如果有真理,那么一定有什么东西使这些真理成为真理。另一方面,事实证明很难确切地说出这些真相制造者是什么。即使辩护者也不同意真理制造者是什么样的实体,或者是否所有的真理都有真理制造者。怀疑论者质疑真理制造者是否真的如此明显和必要,甚至质疑他们是否存在。在此,我对这种不愉快的状况作一描述,并提出一个小小的建议。首先,我认为真理制造者不仅没有好的理由,而且也不可能有好的理由。其次,我指出,在不首先求助于真理制造者的情况下,我们可以做多少事情:他们并不像人们通常认为的那样重要。最后,我的结论是,我们不需要完全抛弃真理制造者的概念。以谦虚和务实的精神理解,我们可以抓住真理制造者,同时认识到他们固有的局限性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
22
期刊最新文献
Pragmatism as a Compatible Theoretical Lens for Mixed Methods Research in Prehospital Care Democracy as Communication: Towards a Normative Framework for Evaluating Digital Technologies Postpragmatism: Quine, Rorty, and a thoroughgoing Atheoreticism Resonant Experience: An Exploration of the Relational Nature of Meaning and Value Jane Addams and the Limits of Sympathy. Failures, Corrections, and Lessons to be Learned
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1