ABSTRACT Section 1 discusses properties and propositions, and some of the motivation for an account in which property instantiation and propositional truth behave ‘naively’. Section 2 generalizes a standard Kripke construction for naive properties and propositions, in a language with modal operators but no conditionals. Whereas Kripke uses a 3-valued value space, the generalized account allows for a broad array of value spaces, including the unit interval [0,1]. This is put to use in Section 3, where I add to the language a conditional suitable for restricting quantification. The shift from a value space based on the ‘mini-space’ {0, , 1} to one based on the ‘mini-space’ [0,1] leads to more satisfactory results than I was able to achieve in previous work: a vast variety of paradoxical sentences can now be treated very simply. In Section 4 I make a further addition to the language, a conditional modeled on the ordinary English conditional, paying particular attention to how it interacts with the restricted quantifier conditional. This is all done in the [0,1] framework, and two alternatives are considered for how the ordinary conditional is to be handled; one of them results from adding a tweak to a construction by Ross Brady. Section 5 discusses a further alternative, a standard relevance conditional (for the ordinary conditional, perhaps for use with a different quantifier-restricting conditional), but argues that it is not promising. Section 6 discusses the identity conditions of properties and propositions (again in the setting of a value space based on [0,1]); the issue of achieving naivety for coarse-grained properties is seen to be more complicated than some brief remarks in Field [2010] suggested, but a way to get a fair degree of coarse-grainedness is shown.
[1]
Classical and Nonclassical Logics
,
2020
.
[2]
Tore Fjetland Øgaard,et al.
Prospects for a Naive Theory of Classes
,
2017,
Notre Dame J. Formal Log..
[3]
Hartry Field,et al.
INDICATIVE CONDITIONALS, RESTRICTED QUANTIFICATION, AND NAIVE TRUTH
,
2015,
The Review of Symbolic Logic.
[4]
Shawn Standefer.
On Artifacts and Truth-Preservation
,
2015
.
[5]
Greg Restall.
What are we to accept, and what are we to reject, while saving truth from paradox?
,
2010
.
[6]
Hartry Field.
Saving Truth From Paradox
,
2008
.
[7]
S. Yablo.
New Grounds for Naive Truth Theory
,
2004
.
[8]
Petr Hájek,et al.
The liar paradox and fuzzy logic
,
2000,
Journal of Symbolic Logic.
[9]
N. Belnap,et al.
The Revision Theory of Truth
,
1993
.
[10]
Greg Restall.
Arithmetic and truth in L/ukasiewicz''s infinitely valued logic
,
1992
.
[11]
Albert Visser,et al.
Four valued semantics and the Liar
,
1984,
J. Philos. Log..
[12]
Ross T. Brady.
The simple consistency of a set theory based on the logic CSQ
,
1983,
Notre Dame J. Formal Log..
[13]
David Lewis,et al.
Ordering semantics and premise semantics for counterfactuals
,
1981,
J. Philos. Log..
[14]
John P. Burgess,et al.
Quick completeness proofs for some logics of conditionals
,
1981,
Notre Dame J. Formal Log..
[15]
François George,et al.
On Contradiction
,
1978,
Telos.
[16]
Saul A. Kripke,et al.
Outline of a Theory of Truth
,
1975
.
[17]
Robert Stalnaker.
A Theory of Conditionals
,
2019,
Knowledge and Conditionals.