Abstract
This paper compares two ‘relativist’ theories about deliciousness: truth-relativism, and Kit Fine’s non-factualism about a subject-matter. Contemporary truth-relativism is presented as a linguistic thesis; its metaphysical underpinning is often neglected. I distinguish three views about the obtaining of worldly states of affairs concerning deliciousness, and argue that none yields a satisfactory version of truth-relativism. Finean non-factualism about deliciousness is not subject to the problems with truth-relativism. I conclude that Finean non- factualism is the better relativist theory. As I explain, non-facualism about deliciousness is happily combined with an invariantist semantics for the word “delicious”. On this approach, relativism is a matter for a metaphysical theory, not a linguistic one.
| Original language | American English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 971-989 |
| Number of pages | 19 |
| Journal | Synthese |
| Volume | 193 |
| Issue number | 3 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - 1 Mar 2016 |
Keywords
- Kit Fine
- matters of taste
- non-factualism
- relative truth
EGS Disciplines
- Philosophy