This analysis uncovers the implications of truth and meaning deflationism, suggesting overlaps with counterfactual interpretations.
Both proponents and critics of Truth Deflationism have argued that, according to Truth Deflationism, truth is a use-independent feature of sentences. And this seems to entail a form of Meaning Deflationism, according to which deflationists can completely avoid metasemantic questions. Here I show that the only arguments for Use-Independence from Truth Deflationism require what I call Counterfactual Blindness: they are blind to the counterconventional reading of standard counterfactuals. I close by suggesting that Counterfactual Blindness also leads to gridlock in some other philosophical debates, including debates over quasi-realism in metaethics and two-dimensionalism in the philosophy of language and mind.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jared Warren (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: