RESUMO Gareth Evans (1985) e Sven Rosenkranz (2008) formularam, respectivamente, duas objeções ao relativismo da verdade que mostrariam que esta visão não é coerente com nossa prática de afirmar. Defendo que o relativista deve responder a tais objeções apelando à noção de sensibilidade da avaliação. Tendo em mente que o relativista considera essa noção por meio de um predicado de verdade técnica, a tarefa deixada para ele calha de ser dar sentido à sensibilidade da avaliação mediante dar sentido a esse predicado (quer dizer, mostrar que ele expressa uma noção de verdade).

ABSTRACT Gareth Evans (1985) and Sven Rosenkranz (2008) have respectively formulated two objections to truth relativism that would show that this view does not cohere with our practice of asserting. I argue that the relativist should answer such objections by appealing to the notion of assessment sensitivity. Since the relativist accounts for this notion by means of a technical truth predicate relating propositions to contexts of assessment, the task left to her turns out to be to make sense of assessment sensitivity by making sense of this predicate (i.e. by showing that it expresses a truth notion).

ABSTRACT John MacFarlane’s truth relativism (2005, 2007, 2011, 2014) makes use of two notions of propositional truth: a monadic assessment sensitive one taken to be our ordinary truth notion, and a non-monadic one that is meant to account for the assessment sensitivity of the former notion. Some authors (Cappelen and Hawthorne, 2009, 2011; Montminy, 2009; Soames, 2011) contend that any theory introducing a technical non-monadic truth notion has to make sense of it (i.e. show that it is a truth notion) by defining or characterizing it in terms of ordinary monadic truth. First, I give some reasons why the relativist should not discard this approach to make sense of the notion of truth relative to a context of assessment. Second, I argue that an illuminating characterization of this notion must provide an answer to a dilemma Paul Boghossian (2011) poses to the relativist. Third, I single out the characterization that can answer this dilemma. Finally, I contend that the relativist still needs to show that this solution works for each case subject to a relativist treatment.

El minimalismo propone una semántica que no da cuenta de las intuiciones de los hablantes acerca de las condiciones de verdad de una gama de proposiciones o enunciados. Por lo tanto, uno de los retos que enfrenta dicha posición es el de brindar una explicación de cómo su atribución de contenidos semánticos a estas proposiciones se fundamenta en el uso. Dicha explicación fue ofrecida principalmente por Soames pero también sugerida por Cappelen y Lepore. El artículo desarrolla una crítica de esta explicación mediante cuatro tipos de contraejemplos y llega a la conclusión de que el minimalismo no logra responder exitosamente al reto que se le plantea.

Minimalism proposes a semantics that does not account for speakers' intuitions about the truth conditions of a range of sentences or utterances. Thus, a challenge for this view is to offer an explanation of how its assignment of semantic contents to these sentences is grounded in their use. Such an account was mainly offered by Soames, but also suggested by Cappelen and Lepore. The article criticizes this explanation by presenting four kinds of counterexamples to it, and arrives at the conclusion that minimalism has not successfully answered the above-mentioned challenge.

John Etchemendy claims that, given the failure of the Tarskian intuitive notion of logical consequence, there is no reason to consider formality as a necessary condition for this relationship. This paper critiques this argument. First, it seeks to show that Etchemendy’s critique to Tarskian analysis assumes two requisites of elucidatory success that cannot be held together reasonably. Secondly, it shows that, once the previous assumption is rejected, two arguments in favour of the extensional adequacy of the former argument actually support formalism. Finally, this paper reviews some well known pragmatic considerations in favour of formalism.

John Etchemendy argumenta que, dado el fracaso del análisis tarskiano de la noción intuitiva de consecuencia lógica, no hay razones para considerar a la formalidad una condición necesaria para dicha relación. En el presente trabajo critico este argumento. Primeramente, busco mostrar que la crítica de Etchemendy al análisis tarskiano asume dos requisitos de éxito elucidatorio que no es razonable adoptar conjuntamente. En segundo lugar muestro que, rechazada la anterior asunción, dos argumentos a favor de la adecuación extensional de dicho análisis confieren apoyo al formalismo. Finalmente, menciono algunas conocidas consideraciones de índole pragmática en favor del formalismo.