Dirk Greimann

This paper pursues two goals. The first is to show that Horwich's anti-primitivist version of minimalism must be rejected because, already for formal reasons, the truth-schema does not achieve a positive explication of any property of propositions. The second goal is to develop a more moderate primitivist version of minimalism according to which the truth-schema is admittedly powerless to underpin truth with something more basic but it still succeeds in giving a complete account of the necessary and sufficient conditions for a proposition to be true.

It is commonly assumed that the conception of truth defended by Frege in his mature period is characterized by the view that truth is not the property denoted by the predicate 'is true', but the object named by true sentences. In the present paper, I wish to make plausible an alternative interpretation according to which Frege's conception is characterized by the view that truth is what is expressed in natural language by the "form of the assertoric sentence". So construed, truth is neither an object (like the True) nor a property (like the Bedeutung of the predicate 'is true') but something of a very special kind that belongs to the same logical category as the logical relations (like subsumption). The main argument justifying this interpretation is that Frege's explication of truth does not hold of the True, but only of truth, considered as what is expressed by the form of the assertoric sentence.

This paper aims to determine what kind of problem Frege's famous “Julius Caesar problem” is. whether it is to be understood as the metaphysical problem of determining what kind of things abstract objects like numbers or value‐courses are, or as the epistemological problem of providing a means of recognizing these objects as the same again, or as the logical problem of providing abstract sortal concepts with a sharp delimitation in order to fulfill the law of excluded middle, or as the semantic problem of fixing the referents of the corresponding abstract singular terms. It is argued that, for Frege, the Caesar problem is a bundle of related problems of which the semantic problem is the most basic one

The purpose of this paper is to reconstruct Frege’s argument against the relativity of truth contained in his posthumous writing Logic from 1897. Two points are made. The first is that the argument is a performative version of the common objection that truth relativism is incoherent: it is designed to show that the assertion of the relativity of truth involves a performative incoherence, because the absoluteness of truth is a success condition for making assertions. From a modern point of view, the central premise of the argument, that the successful making of assertions depends on the absoluteness of truth, is highly doubtful. The second point is that this premise can be made plausible within the framework of Frege’s conception of truth and assertion: it can be derived from his thesis that, in order to put something forward as true, we do not need the word ‘true’, but only the assertoric force.

The Ontological Dilemma of Normative Ethics. This paper pursues two goals. The first is to show that normative ethics is confronted with the following dilemma: to be coherent, this discipline is ontologically committed to acknowledge the existence of objective values, but, to be scientifically respectable, it is committed to repudiate such values. The second goal is to assess the possible solutions to this dilemma. To this end, the following strategies are discussed: Kant’s constructive objectivism, Jürgen Habermas’ “epistemic ersatzism”, Franz von Kutschera’s “confirmation pragmatism”, and David Brink’s “objectivist tour de force”. The paper’s conclusion is that the dilemma cannot be solved because it rests on a clash of intuitions none of which can be given up.

According to Peter Aczel, the inconsistency of Frege’s system in Grundgesetze is due, not to the introduction of sets, as is usually thought, but to the introduction of the Horizontal. His argument is that the principles governing sets are intuitively correct and therefore consistent, while the scheme introducing the Horizontal amounts to an internal definition of truth conflicting with Tarski’s classic result on the undefinability of truth in the object language. The aim of this paper is to show that the Horizontal is innocent: Aczel’s diagnosis is based on a mistaken view of the structure underlying Frege’s ideal language

Joan Weiner has recently claimed that Frege neither uses, nor has any need to use, a truth-predicate in his justification of the logical laws. She argues that because of the assimilation of sentences to proper names in his system, Frege does not need to make use of the Quinean device of semantic ascent in order to formulate the logical laws, and that the predicate ‘is the True’, which is used in Frege's justification, is not to be considered as a truth-predicate, because it does not apply to true sentences or true thoughts. The present paper aims to show that Frege needs to use, and does use, a truth-predicate in this context. It is argued, first, that Frege needs to use a truthpredicate in order to show that the truth of the logical laws is evident from the senses of the sentences by means of which they are formulated, and second, that the predicate that he actually uses, ‘is the True’, must be considered as a truth-predicate in the relevant sense, because it can be used and is actually used by Frege to explain the truth-conditions of thoughts. To defend this interpretation, it is discussed whether the explanatory use of ‘is the True’ in Frege's system is compatible with his deflationary analysis of ‘true’. The paper's conclusion is that there is indeed a conflict here; but, from Frege's point of view, this conflict is due merely to the logical imperfection of natural language and does not affect the proper system but only its propaedeutic.

Nach Auffassung von Quine ist der Realitätsbereich der Semantik auf den Bereich des beobachtbaren Sprachverhaltens beschränkt. Fragen der sprachlichen Bedeutung und sprachlichen Bezugs, die über das hinausgehen, was sich durch die Erforschung des öffentlich beobachtbaren Sprachverhalten herausbekommen lässt, sind dieser Auffassung nach keine "Tatsachenfragen", d.h. sie haben kein Fundament in der Realität. Die Arbeit verfolgt das Ziel, anhand des Aufbaus einer Theorie der "semantischen Verpflichtung" zu zeigen, dass Quines Beschränkung der semantischen Tatsachen nicht akzeptabel ist. Den Kern der Theorie bildet das folgende "Prinzip der semantischen Verpflichtung": Eine Gesamttheorie der Wirklichkeit ist aus Gründen der Kohärenz verpflichtet, diejenigen semantischen Strukturen ontologisch anzuerkennen, die vorausgesetzt werden müssen, um die Theorie formulieren zu können

Der erste Teil des Aufsatzes untersucht den Inhalt der These. Im Zentrum steht dabei die Frage, was Frege unter,,Wahrheit" versteht. Das Ergebnis der Untersuchung ist, daß Freges Undefinierbarkeitsthese (entgegen der üblichen Auffassung) sich nicht auf den „Inhalt des Wortes,wahr'" (bzw. auf das Wahrheitsprädikat) bezieht, sondern auf „die Wahrheit, deren Anerkennung in der Form des Behauptungssatzes liegt" (bzw. auf den Urteilsstrich. Das Kernstück des zweiten Teils der Arbeit ist eine Rekonstruktion der Argumente Freges für die These in drei Versionen. Für die Rekonstruktion wird nicht (wie sonst üblich) Freges Redundanztheorie der Wahrheit herangezogen, sondern seine Urteilstheorie. Im dritten Teil schließlich wird die Frage behandelt, ob Freges These durch Tarskis Wahrheitsdefinitionen widerlegt ist.

Frege hat in seinen Schriften zu den philosophischen Grundlagen der Logik eine eigenwillige Konzeption der Wahrheit skizziert, der zufolge das Wahre und das Falsche keine Eigenschaften von Sätzen oder Gedanken sind, sondern Gegenstände, die von Sätzen bezeichnet werden. In dem vorliegenden Sammelband werden zentrale Komponenten dieser Konzeption näher beleuchtet: die Thesen der Undefinierbarkeit der Wahrheit und der Redundanz des Wortes „wahr“, die Auffassung der Wahrheitswerte als Gegenstände, das so genannte slingshot-Argument, die Konzeption der Tatsachen als wahre Gedanken und die Bestimmung der logischen Gesetze als Gesetze des Wahrseins. Mit Beiträgen von Joachim Bromand, Gottfried Gabriel, Martin Grajner, Dirk Greimann, Andreas Kemmerling, Ulrike Kleemeier, Michael Kober, Verena Mayer, Uwe Meixner, Marco Ruffino, Richard Schantz, Hans Sluga und Christian Thiel.

In almost all of his writings on ontology, Quine celebrated the discovery of contextual definition as a milestone of the history of philosophy. The philosophical appeal of this tool resides in the hope that it allows us to reduce the ontological commitments of theories in substantial ways. The goal of this paper is to show that contextual definition does not really come up to this hope. It is argued that the material adequacy of such definitions presupposes a very strong context-principle, one implying that theories do not have any ontological commitments at all

Obwohl das Explizieren von Begriffen wesentlicher Bestandteil der philosophischen Theoriebildung ist, finden sich nur wenige Arbeiten, die der Frage nachgehen, nach welchen methodischen Regeln diese Kunst auszuüben ist. Die vorliegende Arbeit will zur Schließung dieser Lücke beitragen. Es wird eine allgemeine Theorie der Begriffsexplikation skizziert, die an Vorarbeiten anknüpft, die von Geo Siegwart in neueren Schriften geleistet wurden. Die hauptsächlichen Ziele der Theorie sind: die adäquate Explikation von „Explikation“; die Bestimmung der Faktoren, von denen die Adäquatheit einer Explikation abhängt, wie z.B. die materiale Adäquatheit der Explikation und die Adäquatheit der Normen wissenschaftlicher Respektabilität, denen das Explikandum angepasst werden soll; und der Aufbau eines entsprechenden Systems von Regeln, deren Befolgung die Adäquatheit von Explikationen sicherstellen soll. Diese Regeln normieren das Explizieren in ähnlicher Weise wie die logischen Regeln das Schlussfolgern

In a posthumous text written in 1915, Frege makes some puzzling remarks about the essence of logic, arguing that the essence of logic is indicated, properly speaking, not by the word ‘true’, but by the assertoric force. William Taschek has recently shown that these remarks, which have received only little attention, are very important for understanding Frege's conception of logic. On Taschek's reconstruction, Frege characterizes logic in terms of assertoric force in order to stress the normative role that the logical laws play vis-à-vis judgement, assertion and inference. My aim in this paper is to develop and defend an alternative reconstruction according to which Frege stresses that logic is not only concerned with ‘how thoughts follow from other thoughts’, but also with the ‘step from thought to truth-value’. Frege considers logic as a branch of the theory of justification. To justify a conclusion by means of a logical inference, the ‘step from thought to truth-value’ must be taken, that is, the premis..

The Idea behind Tarski's Definition of Truth. In Tarski's presentations of his truth-definition, the steps of the construction are not sufficiently explained. It is not clear, on what general strategy the construction is based, what the fundamental ideas are, how some crucial steps work, and especially how the transition from the definition of satisfaction to the definition of truth should be understood. The paper shows that the account given in the model-theoretic literature, which is supported by Tarski's lemmata A and B, is unsatisfactory, because Tarski's notion of truth can't be interpreted as ‘truth independent of the assignment of values to the variables’. Moreover, a satisfactory account of all the crucial steps is given.

According to the standard characterization of logic in Frege’s writings, the word “true” indicates the essence of logic, as the word “good” indicates the essence of ethics and the word “beautiful” the essence of aesthetics. In a posthumous writing from 1915, however, Frege says that it is the assertoric force, and not the word “true”, which indicates the essence of logic properly. Prima facie, this correction is in conflict with Frege’s criticism of the psychologist conception of logic. For according to this criticism, logic is not the science of the laws of “being taken as true”, but the science of the laws of “being true”, while the assertoric force expresses being taken as true. In previous writings, I tried to resolve this conflict by a reconstruction of Frege’s conception of truth that is based on his thesis that truth is expressed in natural language by the “form of the assertoric sentence”. The goal of this paper is to defend this interpretation against the objections recently made by Marco Ruffino.

Es wird ein neuer Ansatz zur Analyse des Wahrheitsbegriffs vorgestellt und verteidigt, der sich von Freges Einsicht leiten lässt, dass die "Form" des Behauptungssatzes das eigentliche Mittel der Sprache ist, um das Wahrsein von etwas auszudrücken. Die Kernthesen sind: 1. die Anwendung des Wahrheitsbegriffs ist eine wesentliche Konstituente des Behauptens und anderer elementarer Sprechakte; 2. dieser illokutionäre Gebrauch des Wahrheitsbegriffs ist primär gegenüber dem prädikativen Gebrauch ; 3. Wahrheit ist das, was in der natürlichen Sprache durch die Form des Behauptungssatzes ausgedrückt wird; 4. dieser Wahrheitsbegriff ist nicht redundant, sondern er ist im Gegenteil ein Hauptbegriff der Philosophie sowie der Wissenschaften überhaupt; 5. die Wahrheitsbegriffe der Korrespondenztheorie, der Identitätstheorie, der Tarski-Semantik und des Minimalismus sind ihm gegenüber derivativ; 6. dem Vorgehen der alternativen Ansätze, den Wahrheitsbegriff am Leitfaden einer Analyse des Wortes ‚wahr‘ zu explizieren, liegt eine Irreführung durch die natürliche Sprache zugrunde