Absolute contradiction, dialetheism, and revenge

Francesco Berto

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

10 Citations (Scopus)

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 foot- hold 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 entail- ment of triviality), the operator used to formulate the notion of absolute contradiction appears to be immune both from crippling expressive limi- tations and from revenge paradoxes – pending a rigorous non-triviality proof for a formal dialetheic theory including it.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)193-207
Number of pages15
JournalReview of Symbolic Logic
Volume7
Issue number2
Early online date25 Feb 2014
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jun 2014

Fingerprint

Paradox
Operator
Thing
Express
Revenge
Dialetheism
Dialetheist
Truth
Expressive
Begging the Question
Spelling
Rivals
Entailment
Exclusion

Cite this

Absolute contradiction, dialetheism, and revenge. / Berto, Francesco.

In: Review of Symbolic Logic, Vol. 7, No. 2, 06.2014, p. 193-207.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Berto, Francesco. / Absolute contradiction, dialetheism, and revenge. In: Review of Symbolic Logic. 2014 ; Vol. 7, No. 2. pp. 193-207.
@article{e5d05ee78ca641598a3d959ae78cc048,
title = "Absolute contradiction, dialetheism, and revenge",
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 foot- hold 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 entail- ment of triviality), the operator used to formulate the notion of absolute contradiction appears to be immune both from crippling expressive limi- tations and from revenge paradoxes – pending a rigorous non-triviality proof for a formal dialetheic theory including it.",
author = "Francesco Berto",
note = "This paper was prepared within the 2013-15 AHRC project The Metaphysical basis of Logic: the Law of Non-Contradiction as Basic Knowledge (grant ref. AH/K001698/1), based at the Northern Institute of Philosophy, University of Aberdeen UK. Its main idea, though, first came up in 2011 during a one-year research fellowship at the Institute for Advanced Study, University of Notre Dame: thanks to Vittorio H{\"o}sle, Don Stelluto, Carolyn Sherman, and Jo Ann Norris, for making my stay in the US enjoyable and to the other fellows of the Institute, for many conversations on dialetheism and contradictions.",
year = "2014",
month = "6",
doi = "10.1017/S175502031400001X",
language = "English",
volume = "7",
pages = "193--207",
journal = "Review of Symbolic Logic",
issn = "1755-0203",
publisher = "Cambridge University Press",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Absolute contradiction, dialetheism, and revenge

AU - Berto, Francesco

N1 - This paper was prepared within the 2013-15 AHRC project The Metaphysical basis of Logic: the Law of Non-Contradiction as Basic Knowledge (grant ref. AH/K001698/1), based at the Northern Institute of Philosophy, University of Aberdeen UK. Its main idea, though, first came up in 2011 during a one-year research fellowship at the Institute for Advanced Study, University of Notre Dame: thanks to Vittorio Hösle, Don Stelluto, Carolyn Sherman, and Jo Ann Norris, for making my stay in the US enjoyable and to the other fellows of the Institute, for many conversations on dialetheism and contradictions.

PY - 2014/6

Y1 - 2014/6

N2 - 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 foot- hold 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 entail- ment of triviality), the operator used to formulate the notion of absolute contradiction appears to be immune both from crippling expressive limi- tations and from revenge paradoxes – pending a rigorous non-triviality proof for a formal dialetheic theory including it.

AB - 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 foot- hold 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 entail- ment of triviality), the operator used to formulate the notion of absolute contradiction appears to be immune both from crippling expressive limi- tations and from revenge paradoxes – pending a rigorous non-triviality proof for a formal dialetheic theory including it.

U2 - 10.1017/S175502031400001X

DO - 10.1017/S175502031400001X

M3 - Article

VL - 7

SP - 193

EP - 207

JO - Review of Symbolic Logic

JF - Review of Symbolic Logic

SN - 1755-0203

IS - 2

ER -