, Volume 78, Issue 5, pp 1197–1204 | Cite as

Tarski’s Theorem and the Extensionality of Truth

Critical Discussion



Thanks to Kevin Scharp for encouraging me to develop the main point in this note, and to Carrie Jenkins for valuable discussion of the issues. I appreciate the spirit of collegiality. Thanks also to two anonymous referees for this journal, who made helpful suggestions for clarification.


  1. Beall, J. C. (2009). Spandrels of truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Field, H. (2008a). Saving truth from paradox. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Field, H. (2008b). Solving the paradoxes, escaping revenge. In J. C. Beall (Ed.), Revenge of the liar: Essays on the paradox (pp. 78–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Jenkins, C. S. (2010). Critical notice of Spandrels of truth, by J. C. Beall, Philosophical Books 51, (pp. 245–254).Google Scholar
  5. Jenkins, C. S., & Nolan, D. (2008). Liar-like paradox and object language features. American Philosophical Quarterly, 45, 67–73.Google Scholar
  6. Kripke, S. (1975). Outline of a theory of truth. Journal of Philosophy, 72, 690–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Tarski, A. (1933). Der Wahrheitsbegriff in den Formalisierten Sprachen, Studia philosophica 1, 261–405, translated as “The concept of truth in formalized languages”, in Logic, semantics and metamathematics, by Alfred Tarski, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1956; second edition, edited by John Corcoran, Indianapolis, Hackett Publishing Company, 1983, 152–278.Google Scholar
  8. Tarski, A. (1944). The semantic conception of truth and the foundations of semantics. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 4, 341–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyThe Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA
  2. 2.Arché Research CentreUniversity of St AndrewsSt AndrewsUK

Personalised recommendations