Absolute Contradiction, Dialetheism, and Revenge

Review of Symbolic Logic 7 (2):193-207 (2014)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
Is there a notion of contradiction—let us call it, for dramatic effect, “absolute”—making all contradictions, so understood, unacceptable also for dialetheists? It is argued in this paper that there is, and that spelling it out brings some theoretical benefits. First it gives us a foothold on undisputed ground in the methodologically difficult debate on dialetheism. Second, we can use it to express, without begging questions, the disagreement between dialetheists and their rivals on the nature of truth. Third, dialetheism has an operator allowing it, against the opinion of many critics, to rule things out and manifest disagreement: for unlike other proposed exclusion-expressing-devices (for instance, the entailment of triviality), the operator used to formulate the notion of absolute contradiction appears to be immune both from crippling expressive limitations and from revenge paradoxes—pending a rigorous nontriviality proof for a formal dialetheic theory including it.
Reprint years
2014
PhilPapers/Archive ID
BERACD-4
Revision history
First archival date: 2014-03-08
Latest version: 2 (2014-05-05)
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
Two Flavors of Curry’s Paradox.Beall, Jc & Murzi, Julien
Impossible Worlds.Berto, Francesco

View all 24 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Negation on the Australian Plan.Berto, Franz & Restall, Greg

View all 11 citations / Add more citations

Added to PP index
2014-03-08

Total views
543 ( #5,118 of 42,137 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
122 ( #3,599 of 42,137 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.