Making Quantified Truths True

  • Axel Arturo Barceló AspeitiaEmail author
Part of the Synthese Library book series (SYLI, volume 373)


In this paper, I present a novel way of meeting the challenge of grounding the truth of contingent quantified truths in positive, actual aspects of reality. My solution recovers the commonsensical intuition that what makes < all As are B > true (in a circumstance of evaluation w) is just the As (in w) being B (in w). The proposal is based on recognizing that the metaphysical relation that binds truths to their truth-makers is defeasible. Consequently, it is possible for a truth-maker to make a truth-bearer true in some circumstances of evaluation, but fail to do so in others, in those others where appropriate defeaters exist.


Truth Condition Actual World Complete Explanation External Circumstance Epistemic Relation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This project was supported by PAPIIT grants IA400414 Anti-realismo modal and IA400412-2: Epistemología y metafísica de la modalidad.


  1. 1.
    Armstrong D. 1983. What is a law of nature? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Armstrong D. 1997. A world of states of affairs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Armstrong D. 2004. Truth and truthmakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beall, J.C. 2000. On truthmakers for negative truths. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 78: 264–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bigelow, J. 1988. The reality of numbers: A physicalist’s philosophy of mathematics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Briggs, R. 2012. Truthmaking without necessitation. Synthese 189: 11–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cameron, R.P. 2005. Truth-Maker necessitarianism and maximalism. Logique et Analyse 48: 43–46.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cheyne C., and C. Pigden. 2006. Negative truths from positive facts. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 84(2): 249–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chisholm, R. 1957. Perceiving: A philosophical study. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chisholm, R. 1966. Theory of knowledge. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    David, M. 2009. The correspondence theory of truth. In The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta. (Fall 2009 ed), Stanford: Stanford University.
  12. 12.
    David, M. 2009. Truth-making and correspondence. In Truth and Truth-Making, ed. E.J. Lowe and A. Rami, 137–157. Stocksfield: Acumen Press/Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Demos, R. 1917. A discussion of certain types of negative proposition. Mind 26: 188–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    deRosset, L. “Grounding Explanations”, Philosophers’ Imprint 13: 1–26.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fine, K. 1994. Essence and modality. Philosophical Perspectives 8: 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fine, K. 1995. The logic of essence. Journal of Philosophical Logic 24: 241–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hage, J. 2004. Law and defeasibility. Artificial Intelligence and Law 11: 221–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hanks, P. 2009. Recent work on propositions. Philosophy Compass 4(3): 469–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hart, H.L.A. 1949. The ascription of responsibility and rights. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 49: 171–194.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Iacona, A. 2002. The expressing relation. Dialectica 56: 235–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Keller, P. 2007. A world of truthmakers. In Metaphysics and truth-makers, ed. J.-M. Monnoyer, 105–156. Frankfurt: Ontos.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    King, J.C. 2007. The nature and structure of content. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    King, J.C. 2009. Questions of unity. The Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 109: 257–277.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Koons, R. 2013. Defeasible reasoning. In The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta (Spring 2013 ed.) Stanford: Stanford University.
  25. 25.
    Lewis, D. 1973. Causation. Journal of Philosophy 70: 556–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    MacFarlane, J. 2003. Future contingents and relative truth. The Philosophical Quarterly 53: 321–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    MacFarlane, J. 2008. Truth in the garden of forking paths. In Relative truth, ed. M. Garcia-Carpintero and M. Kölbel, 81–102. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mellor, D.H. 2003. Real metaphysics: Replies. In Real metaphysics: Essays in honour of D. H. Mellor, ed. H. Lillehammer and G. Rodriguez-Pereyra. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Merricks, T. 2007. Truth and ontology. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Merricks, T. 2008. Replies to Cameron, Schaffer, and Soames. Philosophical Books 49: 328–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mulligan, K., P. Simons, and B. Smith. 1984. Truthmakers. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 44: 287–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Pagès, J. 2005. Truthmaking and supervenience. Theoria 20: 191–197.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Pagès, J. 2009. Truthmakers for negatives. Theoria 24: 49–61.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Parsons, J. 1999. There is no “Truth-Maker” argument against nominalism. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 77(3): 325–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Pendlebury, M. 1986. Facts as truth-makers. Monist 69, 177–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Pendlebury, M. 2010. Facts and truth-making. Topoi 29, 137–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Prakken, H., and G. Vreeswijk. 2002. Logics for defeasible argumentation. Handbook of Philosophical Logic 4: 219–318.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Richard, M. 2008. When truth gives out. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Rodríguez-Pereyra, G. 2006. Truth-making, entailment, and the conjunction thesis. Mind 115: 957–982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Rosen, G. 2009. Metaphysical dependence: Grounding and reduction. In Metaphysical grounding: Understanding the structure of reality, ed. F. Correia and B. Schnieder, 109–136. Cambridge University Press. CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Schiffer, S. 2012. Truth-bearers: What are they good for? In Current issues in theoretical philosophy: Prospects for meaning, vol. 3, ed. R. Schantz, 531–552. Walter de Gruyter. BerlinGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Schnieder, B. 2006. Truth-making without truth-makers. Synthese 152: 21–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Schulte, P. 2010. Truth-makers: a tale of two explanatory projects. Synthese 181(3): 413–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Soames, S. 2010. What is meaning? Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Tałasiewicz, M., J. Odrowaz-Sypniewska, W. Wciorka, and P. Wilkin. 2012. Do we need a new theory of truthmaking? Some comments on Disjunction Thesis, Conjunction Thesis, Entailment Principle and explanation. Philosophical Studies, doi: 10.1007/s11098-012-9964-x.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Van Fraassen, B. 1977. The pragmatics of explanation. American Philosophical Quarterly 14(2): 143–150.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Instituto de Investigaciones Filosóficas, UNAMCircuito Mario de la Cueva, Ciudad UniversitariaMéxico D.F.Mexico

Personalised recommendations