Monday, February 15, 2010

Truthmakers survey

I've posted a draft of a survey-ish paper on truthmakers I've been writing for the Oxford Handbook of Truth; comments welcome!

6 comments:

オテモヤン said...

オナニー
逆援助
SEX
フェラチオ
ソープ
逆援助
出張ホスト
手コキ
おっぱい
フェラチオ
中出し
セックス
デリヘル
包茎
逆援
性欲

Dan López de Sa said...

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.

Dan López de Sa said...

(With 'most' and 'between', sorry ;-).)

Rich Woodward said...

@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.

gg said...

潤滑液,內衣,性感內衣,
自慰器,自慰套,情趣內衣,
情趣娃娃,吊帶襪,煙火,
SM,充氣娃娃,AV,
衣蝶,丁字褲,無線跳蛋,
性感睡衣,按摩棒,電動按摩棒,
飛機杯,角色扮演,跳蛋,
G點,情趣,情趣用品

Anonymous said...

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?