I 33f
Tarski/Field: According to Tarski the following two sentences are a contradiction because he needs quantities for his definition of implication: a) "Snow is white" does not imply logically "grass is green".
b) There are no mathematical entities like quantities.
((s) Therefore, Field must be independent of Tarski.)
Solution Field: Implication as a basic concept.
>
Mathematical entities, >
Ontology/Field, >
Tarski-scheme.
---
II 124
Tarski/Truth: Tarski's truth theory is unlike disquotational truth: only for a fragment.
>
Disquotationalism/Field.
Unrestricted quantifiers and semantic concepts must be excluded.
>
Quantifiers.
Problem: we cannot create infinite conjunctions and disjunctions with that. (Tarski-Truth is not suitable for generalization).
>
Generalization.
DeflationsimVsTarski/QuineVsTarski.
>
Deflationism.
Otherwise, we must give up an explicit definition.
Deflationism: uses a generalized version of the truth-schema. TarskiVsDeflationism: pro compositionality. (Also Davidson)
>
Compositionality.
Tarski: needs recursion to characterize e.g."or".
>
Logical constants.
II 125
Composition principle/Field: E.g. A sentence consisting of a one-digit predicate and a referencing name is true, iff the predicate is true of what the name denotes.
This goes beyond logical rules because it introduces reference and denotation.
>
Reference, >
Denotation.
Tarski: needs this for a satisfying Truth-concept.
Deflationism: Reference and danotation is not important for it.
>
Compositionality).
II 141
Truth-Theory/Tarski: Thesis: we do not get an adequate Truth-theory if we take only all instances of the schema as axioms. - This does not give us the generalizations we need, e.g. that the modus ponens receives the truth.
II 142
Deflationism/Tarski/Field. Actually, Tarski's approach is also deflationistic.
---
Soames I 477
FieldVsTarski/Soames: Tarski hides speech behavior.
Field: Tarski introduces primitive reference, and so on.
>
language independence.
SoamesVsField: his physicalist must reduce every single one of the semantic concepts. - For example, he cannot characterize negation as a symbol by truth, because that would be circular. E.g. he cannot take negation as the basic concept, because then there would be no facts about speakers (no semantic facts about use) that explain the semantic properties.
FieldVsTarski: one would have to be able to replace the semantic terms by physical terms.
>
Semantics.
