MICHAEL DUMMETT. TRUTH AND OTHER ENIGMASCapris © 1938 by Mihm Allegis erred Pager 4596 const am exesion of he copyright page Libary of Congress Catagiag in Puilicaton Data Dummett, Misha AE "Trth and ote enigma, Incodes inde. Phish Address, esas ears 2 LagiewAddrese, esa lesa. 5 Frege ‘Gon, ehb-tga”-Addreme, ety ema. 4 Tine—Addromes, mys eure. Te Bais igo em ISBN egpe gion (paper) Printed inthe United States of AmerieContents Acknowledgments Preface Nate ‘Teath Presuppsion "The Structure of Appesrince ‘Nomina Consrctoalis George Hole rege on Funetions Frege's Philosophy rege’ Distntion between Sense and Reference Realism Wingensti's Philosophy of Mathematics ‘The Philosophical Sifcance of Gade’ Theorem Phtnism ‘The Philosophical Basis of Towns Lagi Wang's Paradox Is Logic Empirical? ‘The Jotfition of Dedocon Can an Effet Preede its Case? ringing Abou the Pest [Defence of MeTaggar’s Prof of the Uneaity of Time The Realy ofthe Past ‘The Significance of Quine'sIndetrminacy Thesis The Socal Chiriter of Mesing Oxford Philosophy Gan Anaya Philosophy be Systematic, and Ought it o Be? Del of Publition Index i 5 3 ° 6 4s 186 25 39 33 3st 58 as an ar +Acknowledgments ‘My thanks are due to the Sage Sehol of Philosophy, Cornell Univesity, clitors of The Plilsophical Recies, fr permission to reprint ‘Frege on Funezion: 2 Reply’, ‘Note: Prege on Functions) ‘Nominal’ Construc- tionalsn’, “Witgensteins Philosphy of Mathematic’, ‘A Defense of MeTggat's Prot of the Unreality of Time’ and “Bringing Abou the Pst; to the Aristotelian Sociesy for permission to reprint “Can an EMfetPrecde ite Cause? “Truth and “The Realy ofthe Past’ to Profesor J. Hina, tditor of Spat, for permission to reprint "The Signieancs of Quins Tndeterminacy Thess "Rep, ‘Postscript’ and ‘Wangs Parador’; to the itary of The Journal of Syabai Lge fer permission to reprint reviews of two ates on presupesition and of George Bone, Sis in age amd Probar, co Profesor D. W. Hamlyn, editor of Mind, for permission to reprint a review of Neuon Gooiman, The irate of Appearance; to Pro- fessor S. Korner, elitorof Rati, for permission to reprint "The Philosophical Significance of Gels Theorem’; to Fr Herbert McCabe, O.P, editor of [New Blacfisr, for permission to seprint ‘Oxford Philosophy; and to Profesor M. Garo, edtor of Teoma, for permission to publish an English version of'Frge’-They are even ore warmly dv othe following clitors of volumes of proceodings and of collected esp: to the British ‘Academy, for permission eo reprint “The Jusifation of Deduction’; 10 Profesor J. Moravacik, for permission w reprint ‘Posse (1972) 10 “Truth” from Logic and Phibopy for Lingus; to De H. . Rose and Professor J.C. Shepherds, for permission to reprint “The Plosophial ‘Basis of ltutonite Logi’ rom Lagi Callao 79; to Profesor H.D. Lewis for permison to eepit's Logie Empisial? from Contemporary ‘Brish Phiopy, a series; and, above al, Professor D. Henrich, for ‘ermision to reprint Can Analytical Pilesophy be Systematic, and Ought [ie be? fom the proceedings of the Cangress an the Philsophy of Hegel Fk at Stout in 1975, and wo DePaul Edwards for persion to reprint ry article on Gottlob Frege fom The Eucelpseia of Philp. Preface 1 ms vous Ihave colt all but two of thse of my purely plo tophical eays and article, including a few reviews, published before ‘August 1976, that I hak remain of tre OF the say eintd here, only ‘vo, Reais’ (No, 12) and ‘Paton’ (No, 13), have nat previously been published. The frmer i paper read tothe Philosophical Soy at Oxford {in 1g. The later ithe text, exscly as delivered, ofan invited adds to the Thied International Congres for Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Sciene Held in Amsterdam in 196. Together with ix ocr invest adress, it as not ncded in the volume ofthe Provedggs edited by B. van Rootilae and J. F. Stal (Amsterdam, 1968, becuse, presumably in company wih the ober sx delinquents, T mised the severely appliod eae set by the editors for the submission of the tex. With fow ceptions, all the other esays are reprinted just a they were orginally bled, save fr trivial eorction of misprints, rors of spelling, ete ‘The main exception is Freq’s Distinction between Sense and Reference (No.9), xginally published in Spaish as Frege’ in Teoma vol. ¥ 975 par fom the change of langage have in onepassige ight alered the text. This is because, having submited the acl o che editors, Iter sent ‘them an emended version, but unfortunately to ate fort tobe subtated forthe earlier one: the version here printed is compromise between the ‘tv, incorporating the one change ad made in the substance ofthe atic, but not the compressions I had eared out of various other passages eis not because Iam whully said with evrything contained i these ‘sip that Ihave adopted this poli of not attempting to improve them: itis, conver, because, once the proces of emenditio had ben inated, ‘would have been hard wo bring it tan end. An ey i oto should not bey soqunoe of detachable propositions, but should have is own unity Wii one is wring, one may hack itabou, deleting one passige, rewritingx Preface soother, tansfrring third wo deren place; but the whole process an Sttempt to give expression to view ofthe topic held athe ine of wring ‘Any atempt by the writer, years ter, toconvert it by snr mens into an ‘expreson of his preseat way of looking atthe topic wil produce ony a ttisted obj, representing neither hi former nor his present view: he tm ether leave it ait wands, or wite a completly new say on the sub- jct. On most of the topics discussed inthis volume T shal probably, in fone ple or another, write agin et nat my pupoa,in publishing this ‘volume ost oa my pestle alone my fal, views on these opis, but imply to calles eoeher some seatered weings which avea cei unity, derived frm fly constant genera oulaok on philosophical problems, and which ean 6 Think and hope, some interes and vale. Ths, while Tesrtainly do ot want tobe reardd as endorsing eveything that wil be found in these esas, ll les to be accused of inconsistency because 3 remark in one contradict one in another, o somthing Ihave write else where, [have included ony those articles hich ill eem tome to be at Teast pry onthe right ine and to ontain something of gene valu for the discussion ofthe topics of which they tet ‘robubly people die «great deal inthis rpard. I now chat ¥ repeat amyl aloe Sometimes, when T find in 2 drawer something that T wrote yeas age, Iam suprised to discover in it some pin hat I remember 0 fe made quite recently ina lecture and which Tad no ides had Gest ‘occured ro me ao long befor. And yet always xy to avoid ving the sme Ieeare twice erent diferent audiences. Even i one's opinions on a opi Ibe not changed—and perhaps mine change too lede—a lecture, like an ‘cay, isnot just the enunciation, in sequencs, of «numberof propesons, ‘with attached argument in fevour of them: itis an anempt to ge topic in perspective by posing the questonsin a particular manne andine particular ‘ede, by distbuting the emphasis in one way rather than another. Ifyou hhave bee thinking about 2 subject betwen one occasion of discussing it ‘publicly and the nex, then, even if what you belie to be the tath ofthe mater has not altered your view of how it fs with other things, of wha is imporane and what secondary, in short, of how it isto be approached, ‘wl have shied. And that is bow, in rezeading these essy they have mos struck me: U have not offen thought, “That is just wrong’; bat T have frequent fle that, iT had to write about the topic now, T should pose the question difeady, or start from a diferent pont or put the emphasis ina different place. So Ihave treated each esay a a completed ‘objec, to be either exloded or ele included just ait stood. 1 id not ‘demand, for an essay to be included, that T should, for the time being, fet Paice a completly sid with it iL had done so, there would be only evo tsps her, "The Phibsphil Basi of Tinie Lag’ (No) “Bening About the Past (No.1) inthe inter of which ha eared to hone of hat ws vital yet publican, Ca an Eft Peale i Cae? (No. 18). 1 regi fr the nelson af an ay, hat, om sown, neces bse tandprin, it appeared oe stl worth reading sr alvancing dscsion of he ubjet sd aig pis that needed to be Considered. Though T hop, ads nd bees tat in some ess hey ome csr tthe wrth thin ht Td nat by the mere a of ating the, chi any ore fo then. Te wold ded ave eo pose eto wits, szompany ach cess re comuneat sect wt Taw hin ph and what 0m ik rong stot ie To ne cy ht Bat seul Raper appended to Tra (No.3) + posure ich T wre in 19p, atthe eget Profesor ulus Mores, 0 show how Tl abou the ey teen ear aris rial puBtin, and wich acopannd + rept of In vo eed y hi, Lai nd Pll for Lng T have ot Ane thisin theses, ease I hough it would ok seen and be tel. T is somes profile wo exanine incre del pes of ling by scone ee, when this appear bth power a men but T dob i many pele can do this sucrfaly o itrexingly th the own wk T hat brid Mardy any new ott so al he feo othe esse fom the oil esas. Thee ae however afew inapesble retraction and pases tobe made have prefered to Ince thee nthe emsinder of this rete, ate than new Foro “One sign wich Tmt withdrew scar in Oxford Phy? (No.2) which was published in latin, joel dtl by the Engich Dominicans (hence the remark aboot what i posible for» Cai philosopher o think), and de withthe then recently policed nk by Ernot Geloe, Woah ond Thing. This bok isan ata on Kngunic op, ad ad easel ret roe ad had been wary soporte by reviewer inthe Sunday newpaper and sia representatives of the i neligets. A can be sen rm the Sal ouy, Can Anaad Pislaspy be Sytem, aad Ou i to Be? (No. 29), the pernperve fiom which T then viewed contemporary piosphy is no hat which T shoud ade way; bu Thal esto erty read Gls bok, fd fond ht ile amy eer opinion o auch me ss misaes, Ont femarh, homer, be vette. Gale erred my gestion (Gag) da he only tigi common betwen thse be tacked wa he Shpahy ochom of Rosel (who ad contrite s commends foreword