Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma

Texte intégral

(1). .. Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma Philipp Blum Université de Genève PhilEAs, October 25, 2012. ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(2) . Preliminaries: the business of philosophy. Presuppositions The business of philosophy is to make sense of the world, both as we find it and as it is in itself.. ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(3) . Preliminaries: the business of philosophy. Presuppositions The business of philosophy is to make sense of the world, both as we find it and as it is in itself.. ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(4) . Preliminaries: the business of philosophy. Presuppositions The business of philosophy is to make sense of the world, both as we find it and as it is in itself. Part of this account is to provide explanations.. ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(5) . Preliminaries: the business of philosophy. Presuppositions The business of philosophy is to make sense of the world, both as we find it and as it is in itself. Part of this account is to provide explanations.. ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(6) . Preliminaries: the business of philosophy. Presuppositions The business of philosophy is to make sense of the world, both as we find it and as it is in itself. Part of this account is to provide explanations. Such explanations are of a special, ill-understood type. They are neither (purely) causal nor (purely) conceptual.. ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(7) . An opiniated history First, there was Frege.. ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(8) . An opiniated history First, there was Frege. He said that something is an object iff it can be the referent of a name.. ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(9) . An opiniated history First, there was Frege. He said that something is an object iff it can be the referent of a name. And he ran into the paradox of the concept horse.. ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(10) . An opiniated history First, there was Frege. He said that something is an object iff it can be the referent of a name. And he ran into the paradox of the concept horse. Then, there was Quine.. ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(11) . An opiniated history First, there was Frege. He said that something is an object iff it can be the referent of a name. And he ran into the paradox of the concept horse. Then, there was Quine. He said that to be is to be the value of a bound variable.. ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(12) . An opiniated history First, there was Frege. He said that something is an object iff it can be the referent of a name. And he ran into the paradox of the concept horse. Then, there was Quine. He said that to be is to be the value of a bound variable. And he did not allow for intensional contexts.. ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(13) . An opiniated history First, there was Frege. He said that something is an object iff it can be the referent of a name. And he ran into the paradox of the concept horse. Then, there was Quine. He said that to be is to be the value of a bound variable. And he did not allow for intensional contexts. Then, there was Lewis.. ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(14) . An opiniated history First, there was Frege. He said that something is an object iff it can be the referent of a name. And he ran into the paradox of the concept horse. Then, there was Quine. He said that to be is to be the value of a bound variable. And he did not allow for intensional contexts. Then, there was Lewis. He showed how to interpret quantified modal logic in an ontologically serious way.. ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(15) . An opiniated history First, there was Frege. He said that something is an object iff it can be the referent of a name. And he ran into the paradox of the concept horse. Then, there was Quine. He said that to be is to be the value of a bound variable. And he did not allow for intensional contexts. Then, there was Lewis. He showed how to interpret quantified modal logic in an ontologically serious way. And he ended up with modal realism.. ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(16) . An opiniated history First, there was Frege. He said that something is an object iff it can be the referent of a name. And he ran into the paradox of the concept horse. Then, there was Quine. He said that to be is to be the value of a bound variable. And he did not allow for intensional contexts. Then, there was Lewis. He showed how to interpret quantified modal logic in an ontologically serious way. And he ended up with modal realism. Then, there was Armstrong.. ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(17) . An opiniated history First, there was Frege. He said that something is an object iff it can be the referent of a name. And he ran into the paradox of the concept horse. Then, there was Quine. He said that to be is to be the value of a bound variable. And he did not allow for intensional contexts. Then, there was Lewis. He showed how to interpret quantified modal logic in an ontologically serious way. And he ended up with modal realism. Then, there was Armstrong. He did ontological justice to the predicate by accepting universals.. ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(18) . An opiniated history First, there was Frege. He said that something is an object iff it can be the referent of a name. And he ran into the paradox of the concept horse. Then, there was Quine. He said that to be is to be the value of a bound variable. And he did not allow for intensional contexts. Then, there was Lewis. He showed how to interpret quantified modal logic in an ontologically serious way. And he ended up with modal realism. Then, there was Armstrong. He did ontological justice to the predicate by accepting universals. And he ended up with a world of states of affairs. ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(19) . Problems with ontological commitment. ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(20) . Problems with ontological commitment. it overgeneralises Does “there are three ways to make spaghetti” really commit us to ways of making spaghetti?. ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(21) . Problems with ontological commitment. it overgeneralises Does “there are three ways to make spaghetti” really commit us to ways of making spaghetti?. ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(22) . Problems with ontological commitment. it overgeneralises Does “there are three ways to make spaghetti” really commit us to ways of making spaghetti? it undergeneralises “Mary observed what John knows”, “John is something Mary is too, namely generous” and “John works a way Mary has never noticed, namely efficiently” have anaphoric links in positions that are not for names.. ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(23) . Problems with ontological commitment. it overgeneralises Does “there are three ways to make spaghetti” really commit us to ways of making spaghetti? it undergeneralises “Mary observed what John knows”, “John is something Mary is too, namely generous” and “John works a way Mary has never noticed, namely efficiently” have anaphoric links in positions that are not for names.. ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(24) . Problems with ontological commitment. it overgeneralises Does “there are three ways to make spaghetti” really commit us to ways of making spaghetti? it undergeneralises “Mary observed what John knows”, “John is something Mary is too, namely generous” and “John works a way Mary has never noticed, namely efficiently” have anaphoric links in positions that are not for names. General defect: commitment is to domains only; Newman problem.. ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(25) . Truthmaking: the basics Ontological seriousness: . . . the truthmaker insight, as I take it to be, prevents the metaphysician from letting dispositions ‘hang in the air’ as they do in Ryle’s philosophy of mind. For one who espouses truth-makers, such hanging on air is the ultimate sin in metaphysics. (Armstrong 2002: 29). ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(26) . Truthmaking: the basics Ontological seriousness: . . . the truthmaker insight, as I take it to be, prevents the metaphysician from letting dispositions ‘hang in the air’ as they do in Ryle’s philosophy of mind. For one who espouses truth-makers, such hanging on air is the ultimate sin in metaphysics. (Armstrong 2002: 29). ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(27) . Truthmaking: the basics Ontological seriousness: . . . the truthmaker insight, as I take it to be, prevents the metaphysician from letting dispositions ‘hang in the air’ as they do in Ryle’s philosophy of mind. For one who espouses truth-makers, such hanging on air is the ultimate sin in metaphysics. (Armstrong 2002: 29) The truthmaking intuition: 1. Truth is relational: being true is being made true by something.. ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(28) . Truthmaking: the basics Ontological seriousness: . . . the truthmaker insight, as I take it to be, prevents the metaphysician from letting dispositions ‘hang in the air’ as they do in Ryle’s philosophy of mind. For one who espouses truth-makers, such hanging on air is the ultimate sin in metaphysics. (Armstrong 2002: 29) The truthmaking intuition: 1. Truth is relational: being true is being made true by something.. ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(29) . Truthmaking: the basics Ontological seriousness: . . . the truthmaker insight, as I take it to be, prevents the metaphysician from letting dispositions ‘hang in the air’ as they do in Ryle’s philosophy of mind. For one who espouses truth-makers, such hanging on air is the ultimate sin in metaphysics. (Armstrong 2002: 29) The truthmaking intuition: 1. Truth is relational: being true is being made true by something. 2. Truth is grounded: true truthbearers are true because the world is how it is; truth is never brute.. ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(30) . Truthmaking: the basics Ontological seriousness: . . . the truthmaker insight, as I take it to be, prevents the metaphysician from letting dispositions ‘hang in the air’ as they do in Ryle’s philosophy of mind. For one who espouses truth-makers, such hanging on air is the ultimate sin in metaphysics. (Armstrong 2002: 29) The truthmaking intuition: 1. Truth is relational: being true is being made true by something. 2. Truth is grounded: true truthbearers are true because the world is how it is; truth is never brute.. ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(31) . Truthmaking: the basics Ontological seriousness: . . . the truthmaker insight, as I take it to be, prevents the metaphysician from letting dispositions ‘hang in the air’ as they do in Ryle’s philosophy of mind. For one who espouses truth-makers, such hanging on air is the ultimate sin in metaphysics. (Armstrong 2002: 29) The truthmaking intuition: 1. Truth is relational: being true is being made true by something. 2. Truth is grounded: true truthbearers are true because the world is how it is; truth is never brute. These two tenets are interrelated: the relationality of truth means that the grounds must enter into true ascriptions of truth; the groundedness means that the other relatum of such ascriptions must be of an ontological, rather than say of an epistemological or representational nature. ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(32) . First stab: necessitation and supervenience. Truthmaking as necessitation: a makes it true that p iff a exists ∧ !(a exists → p). ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(33) . First stab: necessitation and supervenience. Truthmaking as necessitation: a makes it true that p iff a exists ∧ !(a exists → p). Two problems: (A) The relation is not cross-categorical.. ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(34) . First stab: necessitation and supervenience. Truthmaking as necessitation: a makes it true that p iff a exists ∧ !(a exists → p). Two problems: (A) The relation is not cross-categorical. (B) Dependence cannot be caracterised modally.. ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(35) . First stab: necessitation and supervenience. Truthmaking as necessitation: a makes it true that p iff a exists ∧ !(a exists → p). Two problems: (A) The relation is not cross-categorical. (B) Dependence cannot be caracterised modally. (C) Specific focus on existence facts.. ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(36) . Supervenience is not enough The strongest truthmaking principle Lewis (2003: 26) is prepared to accept: . . . every proposition, no matter what lesser subject matter it may have, is entirely about being. It cannot have different truth values in two worlds exactly alike with respect to being.. ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(37) . Supervenience is not enough The strongest truthmaking principle Lewis (2003: 26) is prepared to accept: . . . every proposition, no matter what lesser subject matter it may have, is entirely about being. It cannot have different truth values in two worlds exactly alike with respect to being.. ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(38) . Supervenience is not enough The strongest truthmaking principle Lewis (2003: 26) is prepared to accept: . . . every proposition, no matter what lesser subject matter it may have, is entirely about being. It cannot have different truth values in two worlds exactly alike with respect to being. Three problems: 1. It rules out indiscernible worlds (on plausible criteria for the individuation of possible worlds).. ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(39) . Supervenience is not enough The strongest truthmaking principle Lewis (2003: 26) is prepared to accept: . . . every proposition, no matter what lesser subject matter it may have, is entirely about being. It cannot have different truth values in two worlds exactly alike with respect to being. Three problems: 1. It rules out indiscernible worlds (on plausible criteria for the individuation of possible worlds).. . It does not solve problem (A): It does not capture ontological seriousness.. 2. ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(40) . Supervenience is not enough The strongest truthmaking principle Lewis (2003: 26) is prepared to accept: . . . every proposition, no matter what lesser subject matter it may have, is entirely about being. It cannot have different truth values in two worlds exactly alike with respect to being. Three problems: 1. It rules out indiscernible worlds (on plausible criteria for the individuation of possible worlds).. . It does not solve problem (A): It does not capture ontological seriousness. 3. It does not solve problem (B): It does not rule out 2. malignant necessitators. ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(41) . Explaining the T -schema Tarski’s T -schema: It is true that p iff p. ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(42) . Explaining the T -schema Tarski’s T -schema: It is true that p iff p Eutyphro question: which side wears the trousers?. ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(43) . Explaining the T -schema Tarski’s T -schema: It is true that p iff p Eutyphro question: which side wears the trousers? (3) because (2), (2) because (1): (1) Sam is a dog.. ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(44) . Explaining the T -schema Tarski’s T -schema: It is true that p iff p Eutyphro question: which side wears the trousers? (3) because (2), (2) because (1): (1) Sam is a dog. (2) “Sam is a dog” is true.. ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(45) . Explaining the T -schema Tarski’s T -schema: It is true that p iff p Eutyphro question: which side wears the trousers? (3) because (2), (2) because (1): (1) Sam is a dog. (2) “Sam is a dog” is true. (3) “Sam is a dog” is made true by Sam.. ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(46) . Explaining the T -schema Tarski’s T -schema: It is true that p iff p Eutyphro question: which side wears the trousers? (3) because (2), (2) because (1): (1) Sam is a dog. (2) “Sam is a dog” is true. (3) “Sam is a dog” is made true by Sam.. ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(47) . Explaining the T -schema Tarski’s T -schema: It is true that p iff p Eutyphro question: which side wears the trousers? (3) because (2), (2) because (1): (1) Sam is a dog. (2) “Sam is a dog” is true. (3) “Sam is a dog” is made true by Sam. So far, so good.. ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(48) . TTT as an explanatory theory of truth. ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(49) . TTT as an explanatory theory of truth. Being true is (nothing but) being made true.. ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(50) . TTT as an explanatory theory of truth. Being true is (nothing but) being made true.. Denying truthmaker maximalism (every truth has a truthmaker) commits us to dualism about truth.. ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(51) . TTT as an explanatory theory of truths. ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(52) . TTT as an explanatory theory of truths It is a mistake to think that the explanations of truths offered by truthmaker theory are claims to the effect that they have such-and-such truthmakers. Consider: (4) Sam is a dog because “Sam is a dog” is made true by Sam.. ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(53) . TTT as an explanatory theory of truths It is a mistake to think that the explanations of truths offered by truthmaker theory are claims to the effect that they have such-and-such truthmakers. Consider: (4) Sam is a dog because “Sam is a dog” is made true by Sam.. ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(54) . TTT as an explanatory theory of truths It is a mistake to think that the explanations of truths offered by truthmaker theory are claims to the effect that they have such-and-such truthmakers. Consider: (4) Sam is a dog because “Sam is a dog” is made true by Sam. (5) “Sam is a dog” is true because it is made true by Sam.. ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(55) . TTT as an explanatory theory of truths It is a mistake to think that the explanations of truths offered by truthmaker theory are claims to the effect that they have such-and-such truthmakers. Consider: (4) Sam is a dog because “Sam is a dog” is made true by Sam. (5) “Sam is a dog” is true because it is made true by Sam.. ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(56) . TTT as an explanatory theory of truths It is a mistake to think that the explanations of truths offered by truthmaker theory are claims to the effect that they have such-and-such truthmakers. Consider: (4) Sam is a dog because “Sam is a dog” is made true by Sam. (5) “Sam is a dog” is true because it is made true by Sam. (6) “Sam is a dog” is true because of Sam.. ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(57) . TTT as an explanatory theory of truths It is a mistake to think that the explanations of truths offered by truthmaker theory are claims to the effect that they have such-and-such truthmakers. Consider: (4) Sam is a dog because “Sam is a dog” is made true by Sam. (5) “Sam is a dog” is true because it is made true by Sam. (6) “Sam is a dog” is true because of Sam.. ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(58) . TTT as an explanatory theory of truths It is a mistake to think that the explanations of truths offered by truthmaker theory are claims to the effect that they have such-and-such truthmakers. Consider: (4) Sam is a dog because “Sam is a dog” is made true by Sam. (5) “Sam is a dog” is true because it is made true by Sam. (6) “Sam is a dog” is true because of Sam. Both (4) and (5) are false. (6), however, is true.. ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(59) . TTT as an explanatory theory of truths It is a mistake to think that the explanations of truths offered by truthmaker theory are claims to the effect that they have such-and-such truthmakers. Consider: (4) Sam is a dog because “Sam is a dog” is made true by Sam. (5) “Sam is a dog” is true because it is made true by Sam. (6) “Sam is a dog” is true because of Sam. Both (4) and (5) are false. (6), however, is true. (6) is the statement that Sam is the truthmaker of “Sam is a dog”. ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(60) . Truthmaking is explanation by things Not everyone is happy with the identification of being made true with being true because of.. ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(61) . Truthmaking is explanation by things Not everyone is happy with the identification of being made true with being true because of. A long tradition, from Kant to Brandom and McDowell holds that explanations necessarily stay within the realm of reason. TTT is opposed to this tradition, and derives from this opposition the right to claim to be a version of the correspondance theory of truth.. ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(62) . Truthmaking is explanation by things Not everyone is happy with the identification of being made true with being true because of. A long tradition, from Kant to Brandom and McDowell holds that explanations necessarily stay within the realm of reason. TTT is opposed to this tradition, and derives from this opposition the right to claim to be a version of the correspondance theory of truth. Truthmaking, as explanation by things, is cross-categorical (solving problem (A)), non-modal (solving problem (B)) and does not privilege existence facts (solving ‘problem’ C).. ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(63) . Beyond dogs. . . – to facts? From TTT to states of affairs: If it is said that the truthmaker for a truth could have failed to make the truth true, then we will surely think that the alleged truthmaker was insufficient by itself and requires to be supplemented in some way. A contingently sufficient truthmaker will be true only in circumstances that obtain in this world. But then these circumstances, whatever they are, must be added to give the full truthmaker. (Armstrong 1997: 116). ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(64) . Beyond dogs. . . – to facts? From TTT to states of affairs: If it is said that the truthmaker for a truth could have failed to make the truth true, then we will surely think that the alleged truthmaker was insufficient by itself and requires to be supplemented in some way. A contingently sufficient truthmaker will be true only in circumstances that obtain in this world. But then these circumstances, whatever they are, must be added to give the full truthmaker. (Armstrong 1997: 116). ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(65) . Beyond dogs. . . – to facts? From TTT to states of affairs: If it is said that the truthmaker for a truth could have failed to make the truth true, then we will surely think that the alleged truthmaker was insufficient by itself and requires to be supplemented in some way. A contingently sufficient truthmaker will be true only in circumstances that obtain in this world. But then these circumstances, whatever they are, must be added to give the full truthmaker. (Armstrong 1997: 116). This presupposes necessitarianism. Better have contingent truthmaking than states of affairs. ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(66) . Explanation by things rationalising: Sam left Maria because of Sally.. ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(67) . Explanation by things rationalising: Sam left Maria because of Sally. evidential: They must be at home because of the light.. ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(68) . Explanation by things rationalising: Sam left Maria because of Sally. evidential: They must be at home because of the light. causal: They had an accident because of the worn-off break.. ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(69) . Explanation by things rationalising: Sam left Maria because of Sally. evidential: They must be at home because of the light. causal: They had an accident because of the worn-off break. theoretical: Tritium is unstable because of its extra electron.. ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(70) . Explanation by things rationalising: Sam left Maria because of Sally. evidential: They must be at home because of the light. causal: They had an accident because of the worn-off break. theoretical: Tritium is unstable because of its extra electron. essential: Tropes are non-transferrable because of their nature.. ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(71) . Explanation by things rationalising: Sam left Maria because of Sally. evidential: They must be at home because of the light. causal: They had an accident because of the worn-off break. theoretical: Tritium is unstable because of its extra electron. essential: Tropes are non-transferrable because of their nature. mathematical: 2 is between 1 and 3 because of 1,2,3.. ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(72) . Explanation by things rationalising: Sam left Maria because of Sally. evidential: They must be at home because of the light. causal: They had an accident because of the worn-off break. theoretical: Tritium is unstable because of its extra electron. essential: Tropes are non-transferrable because of their nature. mathematical: 2 is between 1 and 3 because of 1,2,3. metaphysical: “Humphrey possibly wins” is true because because of his (winning) counterpart.. ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(73) . Just a connective?. ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(74) . Just a connective? Mulligan (2010) distinguishes the truth predicate “. . . is true” (which takes a singular term to make a sentence) from the truth connective “it is true that . . . ” (which takes a sentence to make a sentence) and asks which one wears the trousers, answering that the connective, not the predicate is fundamental.. ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(75) . Just a connective? Mulligan (2010) distinguishes the truth predicate “. . . is true” (which takes a singular term to make a sentence) from the truth connective “it is true that . . . ” (which takes a sentence to make a sentence) and asks which one wears the trousers, answering that the connective, not the predicate is fundamental. But non-committal quantification is mysterious.. ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(76) . Just a connective? Mulligan (2010) distinguishes the truth predicate “. . . is true” (which takes a singular term to make a sentence) from the truth connective “it is true that . . . ” (which takes a sentence to make a sentence) and asks which one wears the trousers, answering that the connective, not the predicate is fundamental. But non-committal quantification is mysterious. And we lack an explanation of: It is true that p because p.. ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(77) . Just a connective? Mulligan (2010) distinguishes the truth predicate “. . . is true” (which takes a singular term to make a sentence) from the truth connective “it is true that . . . ” (which takes a sentence to make a sentence) and asks which one wears the trousers, answering that the connective, not the predicate is fundamental. But non-committal quantification is mysterious. And we lack an explanation of: It is true that p because p. Mulligan (2004: 407) bites this bullet.. ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(78) . Facts on the cheap?. ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(79) . Facts on the cheap? Recently, Kevin Mulligan has flirted with the idea that truthmaker maximalism may even be strengthened: It is true that p iff “p” is made true by the fact that p.. ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(80) . Facts on the cheap? Recently, Kevin Mulligan has flirted with the idea that truthmaker maximalism may even be strengthened: It is true that p iff “p” is made true by the fact that p. Such trivial truthmaking relegates all interesting questions to the theory of fact-making.. ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(81) . Facts on the cheap? Recently, Kevin Mulligan has flirted with the idea that truthmaker maximalism may even be strengthened: It is true that p iff “p” is made true by the fact that p. Such trivial truthmaking relegates all interesting questions to the theory of fact-making. But fact-making cannot play the theoretical rôle of truthmaking: Pleonastic facts mirror sentences (thus problem (A) is not solved).. ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(82) . Facts on the cheap? Recently, Kevin Mulligan has flirted with the idea that truthmaker maximalism may even be strengthened: It is true that p iff “p” is made true by the fact that p. Such trivial truthmaking relegates all interesting questions to the theory of fact-making. But fact-making cannot play the theoretical rôle of truthmaking: Pleonastic facts mirror sentences (thus problem (A) is not solved). The dependence of truth on reality is not dependence between facts: the latter is constitution, the first is grounding.. ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(83) . Facts on the cheap? Recently, Kevin Mulligan has flirted with the idea that truthmaker maximalism may even be strengthened: It is true that p iff “p” is made true by the fact that p. Such trivial truthmaking relegates all interesting questions to the theory of fact-making. But fact-making cannot play the theoretical rôle of truthmaking: Pleonastic facts mirror sentences (thus problem (A) is not solved). The dependence of truth on reality is not dependence between facts: the latter is constitution, the first is grounding. Pleonastic facts do not exist. Nothing really existing contains things such as negations and implications. ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(84) . Conclusion. ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(85) . Conclusion. Rather than trying to make our life easy, we should bravely face the explanatory demands imposed upon us by TTT.. ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(86) . Conclusion. Rather than trying to make our life easy, we should bravely face the explanatory demands imposed upon us by TTT.. The hard work has only just begun.. ... Philipp Blum. . ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... Truthmaking – in Defense of a Dogma. . ... . ... . ... . ... ..

(87)