“克雷赛尔型反思”与真理的合理分层

Kreiselian Reflection and the Reasonable Hierarchy of Truth

在面向自然语言的语义悖论研究中,反对真理分层理论的“反层级论”长期居于主流地位,但也一直受到“强化说谎者悖论”的挑战。格兰兹伯格通过构建“增强型说谎者悖论”表明,反层级论者对强化说谎者悖论的回应是无力的,对于一个真理论本身的反思结果总要由更高层级给出。他据此提出一种基于“克雷塞尔型反思”的真理分层理论。通过与塔斯基经典层级论比较分析可得,这种新层级论既可回应塔斯基经典层级论面临的困难,又可与经典逻辑相协调,其主要特色是使语境因素体现于量词辖域的转变,这可为语义悖论研究提供新的思路。

In the study of semantic paradoxes in natural language,the anti-hierarchy view,which objects to dividing truth into hierarchies,has been occupying the mainstream for a long period.However,it has always been challenged by Strengthened Liar Paradox.By establishing Fortified Liar Paradox,Micheal Glanzberg shows that the response of the anti-hierarchy view to Strengthened Liar Paradox fails.The results of reflection on a truth theory itself must be given at a higher hierarchy.On this basis,he puts forward a theory of truth hierarchy based on Kreiselian Reflection.Via a comparison with Tarski’s classical hierarchy,we can conclude this new theory of hierarchy can not only respond to the difficulties faced by Tarski’s classical hierarchy,but also cohere with classical logic.Its main feature is to embody context-dependent elements in transformations of quantifiers’domains,which provides a new way of thinking for the study of semantic paradoxes.