This article examines Kevin Scharp’s formal solution to the alethic paradoxes, ADT, which stands for ascending and descending truth. One of the main supposed benefits of ADT over its competitors is that it alone can validate the uses of truth concepts in theoretical contexts, such as truth-theoretic semantics. The appendixes contain a new consistency proof for ADT, and additionally show that it is conservative. As a result of its conservativity, the article argues that ADT faces a problem in accounting for certain mathematical uses of truth. Thus, Scharp’s theory needs to be amended in order to fulfill its aim of replicating all substantive uses of truth.

This dissertation explores the justification of strong theories of sets extending ZFC supplemented with large cardinal axioms. In particular, there are two noted program providing axioms extending this theory: the inner model program and the forcing axiom program. While these programs historically developed to serve different mathematical goals and ends, proponents of each have attempted to justify their preferred axiom candidate on the basis of its supposed maximization potential. Since the maxim of ‘maximize’ proves central to the justification of ZFC+LCs itself, and shows up centrally in the current debate over how to best extend this theory, any attempt to resolve this debate will need to investigate the relationship between maximization notions and the candidates for a strong theory of sets. This dissertation takes up just this project.