City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works All Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects 2013 Deflationism about ruthT and Meaning Onyoung Oh Graduate Center, City University of New York How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/1687 Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY). Contact: [email protected] Deflationism about Truth and Meaning By Onyoung Oh A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Philosophy in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, The City University of New York 2013 The Graduate Center City University of New York ii © 2013 Onyoung Oh All Rights Reserved iii This manuscript has been read and accepted for the Graduate Faculty in Philosophy in satisfaction of the dissertation requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Stephen Neale Jan. 31. 2013 _______________________________________________ Chair of the Examining Committee Iakovos Vasiliou Jan. 31. 2013 _____________________________________________ Executive Officer Paul Horwich Michael Levin Alex Orenstein __________________ Supervisory Committee The City University of New York iv Abstract Deflationism about Truth and Meaning By Onyoung Oh Adviser: Professor Paul Horwich Abstract The aim of my thesis is to defend a deflationary view of truth and meaning. I characterize the view as a doctrine holding that truth is a purely logical notion, and truth-theoretic notions don’t play a serious explanatory role in an account of meaning and content. We use truth-terms (e.g. ‘true’) everywhere, from the discourse of ordinary conversation to those of the hard science and morality. The ubiquity of truth-terms gives rise to the impression that truth is a profound notion playing substantive explanatory roles. This impression, say deflationists, is unduly inflated—the ubiquity of truth-terms is not a sign of the richness but thinness of the concept of truth. In my thesis, I aim to defend this view by responding to some of its well-known objections. To defend a view often involves a modification, which is especially relevant to the case of deflationism due to the plethora of its variants. I have chosen two variants—Horwich’s and Field’s—in order to find out what features are to be had by a well-rounded variant of deflationism. My special interest is on the merits of a deflationary theory of truth as it is applied to an account of meaning and content. The specifics of each chapter are summarized in the following. In chapter 1, I discuss the background of a deflationary theory of truth by examining the problems with a correspondence theory of truth. I divide a correspondence theory into two kinds: v a fact-based theory and an object-based theory. As examples of a fact-based correspondence theory, Russell’s and early Wittgenstein’s theories are given a critical examination. I then turn to Tarski’s semantic definition of truth. I argue that Tarski’s definition has offered a way to develop a correspondence theory without invoking a fact or fact-like entity. I argue, however, that even a correspondence theory of a Tarski-style is vulnerable to a certain problem—the problem raised by Field. I then turn to reductive/physicalistic theories of reference—Kripke-Putnam’s causal theory of reference, the information theory, and the teleological theory of representation. By arguing against each of these theories, I conclude that the prospect of a correspondence theory of truth is dim. I end this chapter by discussing how the dismal prospect of a correspondence theory of truth has motivated a deflationary theory of truth. In chapter 2, I embark upon the core project of my thesis—developing and defending a deflationary theory of truth and meaning. I devote chapter 2 mainly to the discussion of Field’s pure disquotational theory of truth. According to this view of truth, the concept of truth is at bottom purely disquotational. In this chapter, I try to elaborate and clarify the central ideas underlying this radical version of a deflationary theory of truth. To do so, I focus on some objections leveled against this view: that it cannot accommodate the modal properties of truth and logical derivations involving an attribution of truth to sentences that one does not understand. After criticizing Field’s solutions to these problems, I propose my own solutions. The topic of chapter 3 is the success argument against a deflationary theory of truth, according to which a deflationist cannot make sense of the explanatory role of truth in an account of the success of behavior or theories. In the first half of this chapter, I examine Nic Damnjanovic’s supervenience/compatibilist objection to deflationism. I argue that a supervenience approach to truth is incompatible with a deflationary theory of truth. In the second vi half, I discuss Kitcher’s realist objection to deflationism. Drawing upon the role of truth in an account of the success of scientific theories, Kitcher contends that realism requires a non- deflationary—correspondence—concept of truth. I criticize Kitcher’s argument on the grounds that it conflates the objectivity requirement with the systematicity requirement. I argue that only the first is needed to accommodate the role of truth in an account of the success of a scientific theory. In chapter 4, I aim to defend a deflationary theory of meaning and content. To this end, I carry out three projects—first, defending Horwich’s use theory of meaning against Kripke’s skeptical challenge; second, bringing out the commonalities between Horwich’s and Field’s views of meaning and content; and third, arguing for Field’s deflationary analysis of the role of truth-conditions in psychological explanations. More precisely, I try to bring out the core ideas running through some deflationists’ views of meaning and content such as late Wittgenstein, Horwich, and Field. By doing so, I aim to explain what it involves to state that truth-theoretic notions don’t play a central role in an account of meaning and content, which is the main thesis of Horwich’s and Field’s deflationary views. I end this chapter by defending Field’s view of truth-conditions—not only truth but also truth-conditions are expressive, not explanatory, devices aiding generalization. vii I dedicate this dissertation to my late grandparents. viii Acknowledgements First and foremost I want to express my heartfelt gratitude towards my adviser, Paul Horwich. It has not only been an honor but a life-changing experience to work with him. Thanks to his guidance, I could recognize the sloppiness of my arguments and the biases crippling my understanding. His rigorous, but patient supervision has strengthened my philosophical muscles and widened my philosophical perspectives. I also want to express my gratitude towards Michael Levin for his insightful and relentless comments. Some of the discussions in my thesis would not have existed without his comments. I am also greatly indebted to Michael Devitt for his detailed comments. In particular, his comments on the debate between scientific realism and deflationism helped me clarify my position. I would like to thank Alex Orenstein for reading and commenting on earlier drafts, and he encouraged me when I got off the track. I could not have completed this thesis without Stephen Neale’s understanding and support. As the chair of the examining committee, he has offered me the precious opportunity to complete the revision of my thesis. I am also greatly indebted to Iakovos Vasiliou, the executive officer of the department of philosophy at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York. His warm understanding and encouragement has helped me endure the tough times of the Ph. D pursuit. It would like to express my deepest gratitude towards John Greenwood. His invaluable support has rescued me from despair, self-doubt, and many temptations to give up the Ph. D pursuit. I cannot thank him enough. I also want to express my gratitude towards Hartry Field. I became interested in deflationism about truth and meaning by reading his works on the topic. His candid but often intriguing approach has greatly inspired me, and I have enjoyed solving ix philosophical puzzles raised by him in the way Sherlock Holmes solves his cases. I am also happy to inform my former professor, Stephen Schiffer, of the completion of my thesis. I also thank Gary Seay at Medgar Evers College of the City University of New York. Teaching at Medgar Evers College has opened my eyes to American society. I also thank Matthew Moore (at Brooklyn College), Enrique Chavez-Arvizo, Jonathan Jacobs, and John Pitman (at John Jay College) for their exceptionally warm support while I was struggling with teaching and working on my thesis. I am deeply appreciative of the help and understanding offered by Mr. Douglas Ewing at the Graduate Center. My dear friends Carrie Figdor and Jared Blank spared their time to read and comment on parts of my thesis. My friend Karen Ramkissoon has always been there when I needed someone to talk to. Lastly, I want to thank my family for their love and support. I thank my father for being a Socratic gadfly to me. I am appreciative of the valuable advices my Mom gave me when I was lost in the dark. I thank my sister and my brother-in-law’s warm support. Above all, I thank my nephew, Louis, for having been my best friend during past four years. x Table of Contents Abstract . iv Acknowledgements . vi Table of Contents .