Are all Generalizations False?

In this paper, I develop a new semantic criterion for evaluating universal quantifi cations based on problems of self-reference, and use it to evaluate theories in Metaphysics, Philosophy of Logic, Philosophy of Language, Cultural Criticism, Philosophy of Mind, Epistemology, Action Theory, Ethics, and Philosophy of Science, arriving at significant results in each case. The criterion is that universally quantified sentences cannot convey any substantive information about the nature of meanings qua meanings, as that would involve them in circularities or something akin to selfcontradictions. I illustrate this point by showing how examples of such sentences are circular or self-undermining. I close with some general considerations of the appeal of such claims