Talk:Redundancy theory of truth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Linguistics  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Philosophy of language task force.
 

Ordinary Language Philosophy[edit]

Two questions. First, in ordinary language philosphy are "Snow is white" and "Snow is white is true" the same? I think that in linguistic pragmatics, which I recognize is not the subject of this article, the two statements are different. The first simply states a fact, the second implies re-assertion or assertion in the face of a perceived doubter. They also differ in the temporal focus of a likely listenter. The first states an obvious fact, and the listener focuses on what comes next after this statement; she expects this to be a building block in a developing conversation. The second states an obvious fact, but the listener focuses on what must have happened earlier in the conversation to lead the speaker to make an emphatic (re-)statement of an obvious fact; he expects that for some reason, this apparently obvious, indubitable fact has become doubted.

Second, would it make sense to make some reference to the way ordinary language philosophy differs (might differ?) from other branches on this issue of disquotationality/redundancy? I certainly am not up to the task, but my thoughts on this might encourage someone who's qualified to do so. Interlingua 15:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

What is a "redundant theorist"?[edit]

Opening paragraph uses this without explanation. 212.159.103.66 21:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)