It is true that Venus Williams was the Wimbledon Womens Singles Champion in 2000

must have the same truth-value: if one of them is true, then so is the other. This necessary equivalence is the fundamental fact about the ordinary meaning of the word 'true'. Suppose, then, that Julie says that Venus Williams was the Wimbledon Women's Singles Champion in 2000. To say that Julie's claim is true, at bottom, is just to say that Venus Williams did win the Women's Singles at Wimbledon in 2000. Thus, although truth is a feature of claims that people make (of some claims, of course, not of all of them), whether or not a claim is true has nothing at all to do with the person who makes it; nor with that person's beliefs, culture or language (except when the proposition is explicitly about those things). Whether or not Julie's claim about Venus Williams is true depends only on whether or not Venus Williams won the Women's Singles at Wimbledon in 2000, and does not depend in any way on anything about Julie. In particular, the mere fact that Julie believes, and has claimed, that Venus Williams won Wimbledon, has nothing to do with whether or not her belief or claim is true.

Notice also the following consequence of the equivalence noted above. If John responds to Julie's claim by saying 'That's true', then what he does, in effect, is to assert the very same thing that Julie did. He agrees with her. Her claim is true if Venus Williams won Wimbledon and false otherwise; likewise with John's.

These points are quite straightforward, but they can be easy to lose sight of in other contexts, and these contexts can create confusion about truth generally. In order to dispel the myth that truth is relative, we first explain the concept of implicit speaker-relativity. We do so by considering some different types of disagreement. Consider the following claims:

0 0

Post a comment