Advertisement

Journal of Philosophical Logic

, Volume 37, Issue 6, pp 593–611 | Cite as

ONE TRUE LOGIC?

  • Gillian RussellEmail author
Article

Abstract

This is a paper about the constituents of arguments. It argues that several different kinds of truth-bearer may be taken to compose arguments, but that none of the obvious candidates—sentences, propositions, sentence/truth-value pairs etc.—make sense of logic as it is actually practiced. The paper goes on to argue that by answering the question in different ways, we can generate different logics, thus ensuring a kind of logical pluralism that is different from that of J. C. Beall and Greg Restall.

Key words

logic logical pluralism validity 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Beall, J. and Restall, G.: 2000, Logical pluralism, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 78, 475–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beall, J. and Restall, G.: 2006, Logical Pluralism, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  3. Blanchette, P.: The Frege–Hilbert Controversy, in E.N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Winter, 2007.Google Scholar
  4. Cartwright, R.: 1962: Propositions, in R. Butler (ed.), Analytical Philosophy, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 81–103.Google Scholar
  5. Fitting, M. and Mendelsohn, R.: 2001, Modal Predicate Logic. Springer.Google Scholar
  6. Frege, G.: 1956, The Thought, Mind 65(259), 289–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Goldfarb, W.: 2003, Deductive Logic, Hackett, Indianapolis, IN.Google Scholar
  8. Kaplan, D.: 1985/1978, Dthat, in A. P. Martinich (ed.), The Philosophy of Language, 4th edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 288–295.Google Scholar
  9. Kaplan, D.: 1989a, Afterthoughts, in J. Almog, J. Perry, and H. Wettstein (eds.), Themes from Kaplan, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  10. Kaplan, D.: 1989b, Demonstratives: An essay on the semantics, logic, metaphysics, and epistemology of demonstratives, in J. Almog, J. Perry, and H. Wettstein (eds.), Themes from Kaplan, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  11. King, J. C.: Summer 2005, Structured propositions, in E. N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  12. Quine, W.: 1950, Methods of Logic, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.Google Scholar
  13. Quine, W. V. O.: 1953, Reference and Modality, chapter 8, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  14. Quine, W. V. O.: 1953/1966, Three Grades of Modal Involvement, chapter 15, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  15. Soames, S.: 1999, Understanding Truth, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  16. Tarski, A.: 1983, Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics, Hackett, Indianapolis.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyWashington University in St LouisSt LouisUSA

Personalised recommendations