摘要
戴维森的“弹弓论证”试图证明,并没有什么不同的事实供不同的真命题去与之相符合,所有真命题都符合同一个事实——那个唯一的“大事实”,这个结论无疑违背了符合论的重要原则——关涉性原则,因此“弹弓论证”被视为反符合论的论证。戴维森的论证主要依赖于对LP规则和SP规则的使用,而本文通过对论证中二者的使用情况分析发现,LP规则需要加上许多限定条件才能与符合论相匹配,“弹弓论证”对LP规则的使用不符合其使用条件,且论证中两个摹状词的构造也达不到SP规则的共指要求,因此,无论是SP规则还是LP规则,在“弹弓论证”中的使用是都错用或无效的,“弹弓论证”不能达到反符合论的目的。
Davidson's slingshot argument attempts to prove that there are no different facts for different true propositions to correspond to.All true propositions correspond to the same fact--the only"Great fact".This conclusion undoubtedly violates the Aboutness principle of correspondence theory of truth,so the slingshot argument is regarded as the argument against the correspondence theory of truth.Davidson's argument mainly relies on the use of LP principle and SP principle.Through the analysis of the use of the two in the argument,we found that more qualifications need to be added if we want LP principle coherence with the correspondence theory,but the LP principle used in the slingshot argument can't meet such conditions.Also the structure of the two descriptions in the argument does not meet the requirement of the SP principle of co-reference.Therefore,whether the SP principle or the LP principle is misused or invalid in the slingshot argument.The slingshot argument is not a valid argument to against the correspondence theory of truth.
出处
《逻辑学研究》
CSSCI
2021年第4期1-15,共15页
Studies in Logic
基金
国家社会科学基金重大项目“逻辑真理论的历史源流、理论前沿与应用研究”(17ZDA025)。
