Reply to Beall and Priest

  • Eklund M
N/ACitations
Citations of this article
8Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

In my “Deep Inconsistency” (Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 2002), I compared my meaning-inconsistency view on the liar with Graham Priest’s dialetheist view, using my view to help cast doubt on Priest’s arguments for his view. Jc Beall and Priest have recently published a reply to my article (Australasian Journal of Logic, 2007). I here respond to their criticisms. In addition, I compare the meaning–inconsistency view with Anil Gupta and Nuel Belnap’s revision theory of truth, and discuss how best to deal with the strengthened liar.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Eklund, M. (2008). Reply to Beall and Priest. The Australasian Journal of Logic, 6. https://doi.org/10.26686/ajl.v6i0.1797

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free