Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Philosophical Logic = Philosophy + Logic?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Logic in Question

Part of the book series: Studies in Universal Logic ((SUL))

  • 437 Accesses

Abstract

My purpose in this paper is to shed some light on two questions: In what sense is logic philosophical? And what is philosophical logic? I take these two questions as coextensive: An answer to one of them is also (or can easily be converted into) an answer to the other. I approach the problem from three perspectives: a conceptual, a descriptive, and a prescriptive perspective. In other words, I try to answer the following questions: (i) In what sense can logic be taken as philosophical? (ii) In what sense has logic been taken as philosophical? (iii) In what sense should logic be taken as philosophical? To this end, I analyze excerpts from five works in which meanings are attributed to the expression “philosophical logic.” The meanings are then object of critical analysis: I try to assess which of these semantical alternatives do not hold up as satisfactory answers to (iii). The result of this analysis is then used as a starting point for my own answer to question (iii).

This article is an extended and improved version of two lectures I delivered, the first at the seventh Logic in Question, held at the Université Paris-Sorbonne, Paris, in June 2017, and the second at the sixth World Congress on Universal Logic, held in Vichy, France, in June 2018.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Recall the widely known disagreement between Stoics and Peripatetics about the status of logic (while the former viewed logic as part of philosophy, the latter regarded it as a mere tool to be used in philosophical inquiry). One might also argue that much of the work developed in logic, even in philosophy departments, is extremely technical, sometimes not having much connection with what many people call philosophy. Finally, much of the genuinely philosophical discussions about logic have gained a life of their own outside of logic, forming a relatively independent discipline known as philosophy of logic.

  2. 2.

    By “classical logic,” Burgess means classical propositional logic and first-order predicate logic ([5], pp. 1–12).

  3. 3.

    This does not prevent Goble from stating that “Today, most of the flourishing research in philosophical logic is being done by computer scientists, working, for examples, on aspects of knowledge representation, system verification, or AI” ([18], p. 2). If, according to a relatively literal interpretation of his words, philosophical logic is philosophy, or a specific type of philosophizing, it seems paradoxical that computer science is the most fertile environment for the development of philosophical logic.

  4. 4.

    Apparently the first time that the expression “formal philosophy” was used was in 1974 in the book Formal Philosophy: Selected Papers of Richard Montague, edited by Richmond Thomason [44].

  5. 5.

    Explicit reference to the concepts of explication, explicandum and explicatum were first made 2 years earlier in an article entitled The Two Concepts of Probability [10].

  6. 6.

    In a pioneering work of conceptual explanation, Carnap distinguishes between at least two concepts of probability: statistical probability and logical probability [10].

  7. 7.

    See [4, 6], for example.

References

  1. ADAMS, R. The Logical Structure of Anselm’s Arguments. The Philosophical Review 80: 28-54, 1971.

    Google Scholar 

  2. ANDERSON, A.; BELNAP, N. Entailment: The Logic of Relevance and Necessity. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. BEANEY, M. Carnap's Conception of Explication: From Frege to Husserl? In: Carnap Brought Home: The View from Jena, (eds.) S. Awodey and C. Klein, Chicago: Open Court, 2004, pp. 117-50.

    Google Scholar 

  4. BRUN, G. Explication as a Method of Conceptual Re-engineering. Erkenntnis 81: 1211-1241, 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  5. BURGES, J. Philosophical Logic. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  6. CAPPELEN, H. Fixing Language: An Essay on Conceptual Engineering. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  7. CARNAP, R. Logical Foundations of Probability. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1950.

    Google Scholar 

  8. CARNAP, R. Intellectual Autobiography. In The Philosophy of Rudolf Carnap, (ed.) P. Schilpp, La Salle: Open Court, pp. 1-84, 1963.

    Google Scholar 

  9. CARNAP, R. Meaning and Necessity: A Study in Semantics and Modal Logic. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1947.

    Google Scholar 

  10. CARNAP, R. The Two Concepts of Probability. Philosophical and Phenomenological Research 5: 513-532, 1945.

    Google Scholar 

  11. CIUNI, R.; WANSING, H.; WILLKOMMEN, C. (eds.). New Trends in Philosophical Logic (New Trends in Logic). New York: Springer, 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  12. COOK, R. A Dictionary of Philosophical Logic. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  13. EDER, G.; RAMHARTE, E. Formal Reconstructions of St. Anselm’s Ontological Argument. Synthese 192: 2791-2825. 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  14. ENGEL, P. “Formal Methods in Philosophy”. In: Proceedings of the 6th European Congress of Analytic Philosophy, (eds.) T. Czarnecki et al, London: College Publications, 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  15. ENGLEBRETSEN, G; SAYWARD, C. Philosophical Logic: An Introduction to Advanced Topics. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  16. GABBAY, D.; GUENTHNER, F. (eds.). Handbook of Philosophical Logic (four volumes). New York: Springer, 1983-1989.

    Google Scholar 

  17. GENSLER, H. Formal Ethics. New York: Routledge, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  18. GOBLE, L. (ed.). The Blackwell Guide to Philosophical Logic. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  19. GRAYLING, A. An Introduction to Philosophical Logic. Totowa: Barnes & Noble Boks, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  20. HAACK, S. Philosophy of Logics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  21. HANSSON, S. Formalization in Philosophy. The Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 6: 162-175, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  22. HANSSON, S.; HENDRICKS, V. (eds.) Introduction to Formal Philosophy. New York: Springer, 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  23. HARTSHORNE, C. The Logic of Perfection. LaSalle, IL: Open Court, 1962.

    Google Scholar 

  24. HINTIKKA, J. Knowledge and Belief: An Introduction to the Logic of the Two Notions. Cornell: Cornell University Press, 1962.

    Google Scholar 

  25. HORSTEN, L.; DOUVEN, I. Formal Methods in the Philosophy of Science. Studia Logica 89: 151-162, 2008.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. HORSTEN, L.; PETTIGREW, F. (eds.). The Continuum Companion to Philosophical Logic. New York: Continuum Publishing, 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  27. HORSTEN, L.; PETTIGREW, R. Mathematical Methods in Philosophy. In: The Continuum Companion to Philosophical Logic, (eds.) Leon Horsten and Richard Pettigrew, London: Continuum Publishing, 2011, pp. 14-26.

    Google Scholar 

  28. JACQUETTE, D. (ed.). A Companion to Philosophical Logic. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  29. KLIMA, G. Saint Anselm’s Proof: A Problem of Reference, Intentional Identity and Mutual Understanding. In: Medieval Philosophy and Modern Times, (ed.) Ghita Holmström-Hintikka, Dordrecht: Kluwer, 2000, pp. 69-87.

    Google Scholar 

  30. KRIPKE, S. Is There a Problem About Substitutional Quantification? In: Truth and Meaning: Essays in Semantics, (eds.) Gareth Evans and John McDowell, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976, pp. 324-419.

    Google Scholar 

  31. MAYDOLE, R. The Ontological Argument. In: The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, (eds.) W. L. Craig and J. P. Moreland, Oxford: Blackwell, 2009, pp. 553-592.

    Google Scholar 

  32. MONTAGUE, R. “Universal Grammar”. Theoria 36: 373-398, 1970.

    Google Scholar 

  33. OPPENHEIMER, P.; ZALTA, E. “On the Logic of the Ontological Argument”. In: Philosophical Perspectives 5: The Philosophy of Religion, (ed.) James Tomblin, Atascadero: Ridgview Press, 1991, pp. 509-530.

    Google Scholar 

  34. PRIOR, A. Past, Present and Future. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967.

    Google Scholar 

  35. PRIOR, A. Time and Modality. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1957.

    Google Scholar 

  36. RAMSEY, F. The Foundations of Mathematics and Other Logical Essays. London: Kegan Paul, 1931.

    Google Scholar 

  37. RESCHER, N. (ed.). Topics in Philosophical Logic. New York: Springer, 1968.

    Google Scholar 

  38. RESTALL, G.; RUSSELL, G. (eds.). New Waves in Philosophical Logic (New Waves in Philosophy). New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  39. RUSSELL, B. “On Denoting”. Mind 14: 479-493, 1905.

    Google Scholar 

  40. SOBEL, J. Logic and Theism. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  41. STRAWSON, P. (ed.). Philosophical Logic (Oxford Readings in Philosophy). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  42. TARSKI, A. “The concept of truth in the languages of the deductive sciences” (Polish). Prace Towarzystwa Naukowego Warszawskiego, Wydzial III Nauk Matematyczno-Fizycznych 34, 1933.

    Google Scholar 

  43. TARSKI, A. “The Semantic Conception of Truth”. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 4: 341–376, 1944.

    Google Scholar 

  44. THOMASON, R. (ed.) Formal Philosophy: Selected Papers of Richard Montague. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974.

    Google Scholar 

  45. THOMASON, R. (ed.). Philosophical Logic and Artificial intelligence. New York: Springer, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  46. VAN BENTHEM, J. Logic in Philosophy. In: Philosophy of Logic, (ed.) Dale Jacquette, Amsterdam: North-Holland, 2006, pp. 65-100.

    Google Scholar 

  47. WANG, H. On Formalization. Mind 64: 226-238, 1955

    Google Scholar 

  48. WILLIAMSON, T. Modal Logic as Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  49. WILLIAMSON, T. Model-Building in Philosophy. In: Philosophy’s Future: The Problem of Philosophical Progress, (eds.) Russell Blackford and Damien Broderick, Hoboken: Wiley, 2017, pp. 159-172.

    Google Scholar 

  50. WILLIAMSON, T. The Philosophy of Philosophy. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  51. WITTGENSTEIN, L. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Truber & Co., 1922.

    Google Scholar 

  52. WOLFRAM, S. Philosophical Logic: An Introduction. New Yorke: Routledge, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Federal University of Campina Grande, Grande, Brazil

    Ricardo Sousa Silvestre

Authors
  1. Ricardo Sousa Silvestre
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ricardo Sousa Silvestre .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Philosophy, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

    Jean-Yves Béziau

  2. Mathematics, Sorbonne University, Paris, France

    Jean-Pierre Desclés

  3. Ragnar Nurkse Department of Innovation and Governance, Tallinn University of Technology, Tallinn, Estonia

    Amirouche Moktefi

  4. Laboratory of Sciences and Techniques of Information, Communication and Knowledge, University of Western Brittany, Brest, France

    Anca Christine Pascu

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Silvestre, R.S. (2022). Philosophical Logic = Philosophy + Logic?. In: Béziau, JY., Desclés, JP., Moktefi, A., Pascu, A.C. (eds) Logic in Question. Studies in Universal Logic. Birkhäuser, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94452-0_15

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation