Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorNyseth, Fredrik
dc.date.accessioned2021-04-19T08:38:26Z
dc.date.available2021-04-19T08:38:26Z
dc.date.issued2020-05-19
dc.description.abstractAccording to linguistic conventionalism, necessities are to be explained in terms of the conventionally adopted rules that govern the use of linguistic expressions. A number of influential arguments against this view concerns the ‘Truth-Contrast Thesis’. This is the claim that necessary truths are fundamentally different from contingent ones since they are not made true by ‘the (worldly) facts’. Instead, they are supposed to be something like ‘true in virtue of meaning’. This thesis is widely held to be a core commitment of the conventionalist position, and the view is frequently rejected on the grounds that this thesis is untenable. I argue that this line of reasoning is mistaken. While the thesis should be rejected (although not for the reasons often given), it is not, I argue, entailed by linguistic conventionalism – nor was it invariably accepted by the paradigmatic conventionalists.en_US
dc.identifier.citationNyseth F. Linguistic Conventionalism and the Truth-Contrast Thesis. The Philosophical Quarterly. 2020en_US
dc.identifier.cristinIDFRIDAID 1888183
dc.identifier.issn0031-8094
dc.identifier.issn1467-9213
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10037/20926
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherOxford University Pressen_US
dc.relation.journalThe Philosophical Quarterly
dc.rights.accessRightsopenAccessen_US
dc.rights.holderCopyright 2020 The Author(s)en_US
dc.subjectVDP::Humanities: 000::Philosophical disciplines: 160en_US
dc.subjectVDP::Humaniora: 000::Filosofiske fag: 160en_US
dc.titleLinguistic Conventionalism and the Truth-Contrast Thesisen_US
dc.type.versionpublishedVersionen_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.typeTidsskriftartikkelen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US


File(s) in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following collection(s)

Show simple item record