Abstract:There have been recent arguments against the idea that substructural solutions are uniform. The claim is that even if the substructuralist solves the common semantic paradoxes uniformly by targeting Cut or Contraction, with additional machinery, we can construct higher-level paradoxes (e.g., a higher-level Liar, a higher-level Curry, and a meta-validity Curry). These higher-level paradoxes do not use metainferential Cut or Contraction, but rather, higher-level Cuts and higher-level Contractions. These kinds of paradoxes suggest that targeting Cut or Contraction is not enough for solving semantic paradoxes; the substructuralist must target Cut of every level or Contraction of every level to solve the paradoxes. Hence, the substructuralists do not provide as uniform of a solution as they hoped they did. In response, we argue that the substructuralists need not admit these additional machineries. In fact, they are redundant in light of the validity predicate (i.e., there is no gain in terms of expressive power). The validity predicate is powerful enough to creep these paradoxes in the object level. The substructuralist does not need to ascend to metainferences to construct higher-level paradoxes. Moreover, there is a reading available to the substructuralist such that all the higher-level structural rules would collapse to instances of the object-level structural rules (e.g., meta Cut and meta Contraction would become instances of Cut and Contraction). We then address Barrio et al.'s worry that the validity predicate has its shortcomings; the substructuralist cannot internalize some of its metarules. We claim that the validity of metarules can be internalized without the need to strengthen the validity predicate. However, a problem raised by Barrio et al. is still present—the problem of internalizing unwanted instances of Cut in Cut-free approaches. We argue that this internalization problem is not unique to the validity predicate; the same problem is present with other problematic predicates, such as the truth predicate and the provability predicate.

A note on Horwich’s notion of grounding

Minimalism, supervaluations and fixed points

Indeterministic grounding

Paradox regained: Life beyond Goedel's shadow

Reasoning Around Paradox with Grounded Deduction

Epistemic Horizons: This Sentence is $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|True\rangle + |False\rangle)$

A Note On Higher Order Grammar

Avoiding Contradictions in the Paradoxes, the Halting Problem, and Diagonalization

Second-Order Abstraction Before and After Russell’s Paradox

Resolving Bertrand's Probability Paradox

The GHSZ argument: a gedankenexperiment requiring more denken

Reopening the Hole Argument

Through the Looking Glass, and what Horn Clause Programs Found There

How Hegels’s Cognitive Semantics Undergirds Newton’s “Rule 4 of Experimental Philosophy” and thus Undermines van Fraassen’s “Constructive Empiricism”

Higher-Level Paradoxes and Substructural Solutions

KF, PKF, and Reinhardt's Program

A genuinely untyped solution to the knower paradoxes

Beware of the Gödel- Wette paradox

Consistent quantum counterfactuals

The Grounding Argument against Non-reductive Moral Realism

Some Philosophical Prehistory of the (Earman-Norton) Hole Argument