One argument against the characterisation of a semantically closed language in the framework of dialetheism aims at establishing the triviality of such a language by means of a so-called strengthened liar sentence. In this paper, I discuss a critique that adopts this strategy. A set of constraints is developped that the conditional has to meet if the language is to (i) meet the basic semantic assumptions of dialetheism, (ii) be non-trivial, and (iii) be semantically closed. The main result is that Graham Priest's LP, the paradigm dialetheic logic, is not threatened by the critique discussed.
To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.