I will use work from contemporary linguistics to argue that ‘good’ is ambiguous, and that it has a moral disambiguation that attributes a fixed degree of goodness. This implies that things can count as ‘good’ simpliciter, independent of context. Not only does this result provide support for the traditional view, but it also vindicates some aspects of the more recent view.
In attempting to explain category mistakes, existing accounts in the philosophical literature commonly claim that occurrences of such sentences are associated with a defect or phenomenology unique to the class of category mistakes. I review relevant experimental results on category mistakes, before arguing that they present advocates of accounts of category mistakes with a dilemma: either the uniqueness claims should be rejected, or the experimental technique in question cannot be used to test existing accounts of category mistakes in the manner that philosophers might hope.
We offer a series of formal results in support of the thesis that disquotational truth is a device to simulate higher-order resources in a first-order setting. More specifically, we show that any theory formulated in a higher-order language can be naturally and conservatively interpreted in a first-order theory with a disquotational truth or truth-of predicate.
Hofstadter [1979, 2007] offered a novel Gödelian proposal which purported to reconcile the apparently contradictory theses that (1) we can talk, in a non-trivial way, of mental causation being a real phenomenon and that (2) mental activity is ultimately grounded in low-level rule-governed neural processes. In this paper, we critically investigate Hofstadter’s analogical appeals to Gödel’s  First Incompleteness Theorem, whose “diagonal” proof supposedly contains the key ideas required for understanding both consciousness and mental causation.
Is it possible to provide a semantic theory for first-order languages in which the quantifiers are absolutely unrestricted? It has been argued that such a semantics can and indeed must be given in a plural or higher-order metalanguage. I argue that it is possible to provide such a semantic theory in a first-order metalanguage as well.
I raise a problem for Hofweber’s nominalist theory of properties. In its stead, I formulate a theory of properties in analogy to Horwich’s minimalist theory of truth. Although this theory relies on the existence of abstract objects, I argue that nevertheless it is appropriate to call the theory deflationary.
Minimalism about truth is one of the main contenders for our best theory of truth, but minimalists face the charge of being unable to properly state their theory. This paper shows how to properly state the theory by appealing to propositional functions that are given by definite descriptions
I try to develop a minimalist view of (natural) numbers in strong analogy to the minimalist view of truth. The idea is that number terms serve a mere quasi-logical function, comparable to the role of the truth predicate. This allows us to explain the applicability and objectivity of arithmetic.
There has been recent interest in the idea that speakers who appear to be having a verbal dispute may in fact be engaged in a metalinguistic negotiation: they are communicating information about how they believe an expression should be used. I propose an independently motivated account where individuals reconstruct metalinguistic propositions by means of a pragmatic, Gricean reasoning process.