Work

Orthodox truthmaker theory cannot be defended by cost/benefit analysis

Year: 2009
Type: article
Abstract: Orthodox truthmaker theory (OTT) is the view that: In the person of Ross Cameron, OTT has bitten off more than it can chew. Previously, the view was defended by appeals to brute intuition: ‘My hope is that philosophers of realist inclinations will be immediately attracted to the idea that a truth, any truth, should depend for its truth [on] something “outside” it, in virtue of which it is true’ (Armstrong 1997: 123). Cameron (2008), a defender of OTT, has recently offered more accountability for his party, by suggesting that OTT ought to be subject to the cost/benefits test of philosophical worth. If we are to believe OTT, then it must, like any other metaphysical doctrine, show itself to be theoretically worthy. OTT has an immediate disadvantage in such contests: as soon as you commit to it, you have to believe in loads of stuff. OTT comes with baggage. If you are not an orthodox truthmaker theorist, you can think that there are no hobbits because … well, there are no hobbits. There used to be dinosaurs because … well, there used to be dinosaurs. Gordon Brown is dour because … ahem, he is dour. As soon as you commit to OTT, you have got to do more work, which means investing in more things. It seems that the mere existence of all the entities that presently exist does not necessitate that there are no hobbits (because there is a possible world where there is everything that actually exists and there are hobbits as well), or that there were dinosaurs (there is a possible world which contains everything that actually presently exists, but in which there were never dinosaurs), or that Gordon Brown is dour (there is a distant possible world in which Gordon Brown has a cheery disposition). So we need more stuff.
Source: Analysis
Author: P. Goff
Language: English
Subfield: Philosophy
Open Access status: green
OpenAlex ID: W2334575614
FWCI:
Cites: 2
Cited by: 26
Related to: 10