Tarski, Peirce, and Truth-Correspondences in Law. Can Semiotics Describe Truth in Legal Discourse? Paul R. Van Fleet. Western Meaning is MADE Abrahamic Religions The World is a Sum of Parts Logical Analysis Are you eating the menu?. Eastern Meaning ARISES Hinduism, Buddhism
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
Tarski, Peirce, and Truth-Correspondences in Law
Can Semiotics Describe Truth in Legal Discourse?
Paul R. Van Fleet
Western
Meaning is MADE
Abrahamic Religions
The World is a Sum of Parts
Logical Analysis
Are you eating the menu?
Eastern
Meaning ARISES
Hinduism, Buddhism
The World is an Inseparable Whole
Direct Experience
What are you eating?
The statement within a rectangle on this slide is false.
Let c be an abbreviation for “the statement within a rectangle on this slide.”
Then, consider c, then only view this slide (the only available set of information).
“c” becomes identical with the statement “c is false.”
BUT, “c is false” if and only if c is false.
Therefore, c is true if and only if c is false.
If propositions are considered on the same level of analysis, i.e. primary analysis, then this contradiction occurs and the system fails.
For some x: T(x) if and only if φ (x).
Let x = the statement in propositional language, T = the proposition-language truth function of that statement, and φ = the meta-language truth function
For some x, x is true in the propositional language if and only if x is true in the meta-language that evaluates the propositional language.
∀x: (U(x) v E(x)) ^ I(x) → T(x).
Each of the functions must be evaluated for truth in order to find a theft!
What tools do we have to evaluate truth?
In short, no – not because of any fault in the semiotic process, but because the institutional structure of legal discourse will not allow interpretations that it does not finitely determine.