In general metaphysics, his most important work is Truth and Objectivity (Harvard University Press, 1992). He argues in this book that there need be no single, discourse-invariant thing in which truth consists, making an analogy with identity. There need only be some principles regarding how the truth predicate can be applied to a sentence, some 'platitudes' about true sentences. Wright also argues that in some contexts, probably including moral contexts, superassertibility will effectively function as a truth predicate. He defines a predicate as superassertible if and only if it is "assertible" in some state of information and then remains so no matter how that state of information is enlarged upon or improved. Assertiveness is warrant by whatever standards inform the discourse in question.[12] Many of his most important papers in philosophy of language, epistemology, philosophical logic, meta-ethics, and the interpretation of Wittgenstein have been collected in the two volumes published by Harvard University Press in 2001 and 2003.
In epistemology, Wright has argued that G. E. Moore's proof of an external world ("Here is one hand") is logically valid but cannot transmit warrant from its premise to the conclusion, as it instantiates a form of epistemic circularity called by him "warrant transmission failure".[13] Wright has also developed a variant of Ludwig Wittgenstein's hinge epistemology, introduced in Wittgenstein's On Certainty as a response to radical skepticism. According to hinge epistemology, there are assumptions or presuppositions of any enquiry – called "hinge propositions" – that cannot themselves be rationally doubted, challenged, established or defended. Examples of hinges are the propositions that there are universal regularities in nature, that our sense organs are normally reliable, and that we do not live in a skeptical scenario (such as that in which we are globally hallucinated by a Cartesian evil demon or the more recent simulation hypothesis). Wright instead contends that certain hinge propositions can actually be rationally held because there exists a type of non-evidential, a priori warrant – which Wright calls "epistemic entitlement" – for accepting them as true.[14] In collaboration with epistemologist Luca Moretti, Wright has further developed this theory to the effect that we are entitled to ignore the possibility that we live in a skeptical scenario.[15]
^C. Wright (1989), "Wittgenstein's Rule-following Considerations and the Central Project of Theoretical Linguistics", in Reflections on Chomsky, ed. A. George, Oxford and New York: Basil Blackwell; reprinted in C. Wright (2001), Rails to Infinity, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard.
^G. Currie (1985). "Crispin Wright [1983]: Frege's Conception of Number as Objects. Scots Philosophical Monographs, no. 2, Aberdeen University Press. xxi+193 pp. Hardback £12.50. Paperback £8.50". The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 36:4, 475-479.
^M. R. Sainsbury (1996). "Crispin Wright: Truth and Objectivity". Philosophy and Phenomenological Research Vol. 56, No. 4, pp. 899-904 .
^C. Wright (2002). "(Anti-)Sceptics Simple and Subtle: G. E. Moore and John McDowell," Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 65: 330–348.
^C. Wright (2004). "Warrant for Nothing (and Foundations for Free?)," Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volume, 78: 167–212.
^Moretti, Luca and Crispin Wright (2023). "Epistemic Entitlement, Epistemic Risk and Leaching," Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 106(3): 566-580.