Nice one! I had a couple of questions, but the more basic one is this. The relation of in virtue of/grounding need not, it seems, hold only among truths: you yourself introduce it via the example of an action being wrong in virtue of some facts about consequences. But then what would be wrong with a more direct explication of truthmaker in terms of in virtue of, along the following line?
(*) A truthmaker for a given truth is something in virtue of which the truth is true.
I guess one reason to be worried about that kind of definition is that we might want to allow, e.g., that grounded things (like people, say) can ground things (like football teams). But Ross doesn't, I take it, want to say that people are truthmakers for anything. In other words, you can have a chain of things related by the IVO relation, and Ross wants to define truthmaking in such a way that it gets you down to the ultimate ungrounded things.
At least, that's my immediate thought about your suggestion.
I need your precious help. I think I've read into one of your papers about the truthmaker theory something like the following suggestion: *if you have states of affairs, then you don't really need to have their constituents and vice versa*. Am I right?
6 comments:
Hi Ross,
Nice one! I had a couple of questions, but the more basic one is this. The relation of in virtue of/grounding need not, it seems, hold only among truths: you yourself introduce it via the example of an action being wrong in virtue of some facts about consequences. But then what would be wrong with a more direct explication of truthmaker in terms of in virtue of, along the following line?
(*) A truthmaker for a given truth is something in virtue of which the truth is true.
(With 'most' and 'between', sorry ;-).)
@Dan,
I guess one reason to be worried about that kind of definition is that we might want to allow, e.g., that grounded things (like people, say) can ground things (like football teams). But Ross doesn't, I take it, want to say that people are truthmakers for anything. In other words, you can have a chain of things related by the IVO relation, and Ross wants to define truthmaking in such a way that it gets you down to the ultimate ungrounded things.
At least, that's my immediate thought about your suggestion.
Dear Ross,
I need your precious help. I think I've read into one of your papers about the truthmaker theory something like the following suggestion: *if you have states of affairs, then you don't really need to have their constituents and vice versa*. Am I right?
酒店經紀 酒店小姐 酒店經紀公司
台北酒店工作 台北酒店經紀人 酒店兼差 酒店兼職 酒店公關 酒店上班 台北酒店上班 酒店打工 酒店工作內容 酒店pt 台北酒店 便服店 禮服店 酒店 酒店工作 酒店上班時間 酒店上班薪水 酒店上班內容 現領 當日領 酒店經紀 酒店打工 酒店工作 酒店上班 酒店兼差 酒店兼職 打工兼差 打工兼職 台北酒店 酒店應徵 禮服店 酒店 經紀 打工 兼差便服店 台北酒店經紀 酒店薪水 酒店工作內容 酒店時間 酒店經濟 美式餐廳 咖啡廳
打工兼職 打工兼差 酒店營業時間
酒店經濟 酒店面試
2015/08/26
Blogger
Post a Comment