Advertisement

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Where have all the Californian tense-logicians gone?

  • 189 Accesses

Abstract

Arthur N. Prior, in the Preface of Past, Present and Future, made clear his indebtedness to “the very lively tense-logicians of California for many discussions”. Strangely,with a notable exception of Copeland (Logic and reality: essays on the legacy of Arthur Prior, 1996), there is no extensive discussion of these scholars (as a group, if not a school) in the literature on the history of tense logic. In this paper, I propose to study how Nino B. Cocchiarella, as one of the Californian tense-logicians, interacted with Prior in the late 1960s. By gathering clues from their correspondence available at Virtual Lab for Prior Studies, I will highlight some of the differences between their views on tense-logic, which might still have far-reaching philosophical implications. I will conclude with a sketchof how to study in what ways Prior and Cocchiarella influenced some other Californian tense-logicians.

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

Notes

  1. 1.

    Thanks to an anonymous reviewer’s extremely meticulous comments, I was able to correct several mistakes and overstatements. By my historical conjecture, I by no means claim that Cocchiarella was superior to Lemmon or Scott from Prior’s point of view. After all, it is just a historical conjecture to be examined critically.

  2. 2.

    Please note that Prior was not always following the alphabetical order in naming the Californian tense-logicians.

  3. 3.

    Here again I am indebted to the reviewer mentioned above, who incisively pointed out the incorrectness and lousiness of my references to the relevant literature.

  4. 4.

    See also Vlach (1973, p. 9 and p. xi). The Chapter 3 of Vlach (1973) entitled “An Axiomatization” seems to be the most extensive study of Cocchiarella (1966a) to date.

  5. 5.

    In the Virtual Lab of Prior Studies, there are quite a lot of letters written by Prior to UCLA people. The earliest item is Prior’s telegram to Moody declining the invitation, dated February 8, 1963 (Prior 1963). But there was a second chance. In Prior (1964), we find Prior accepting UCLA’s invitation for the Fall semester (September 1965–January 1966).

  6. 6.

    Copeland’s view could be further strengthened by Clifford and Segerberg. Clifford mentions Scott’s talk on the modification of Priorian logic of the future before the Southern California Logic Colloquium, October, 1963 (Clifford 1966, p. 220). Segerberg presents Scott as the dominant figure at Stanford in the 1960s, who had been working with problems in tense and modal logic since the late “fifties” (Segerberg 1977, p. v).

  7. 7.

    While all letters from Prior to Cocchiarella are handwritten, all letters from Cocchiarella to Prior,x except for 1223 and 1224, are typed.

  8. 8.

    Still there are other letters such as 1224 (Cocchiarella 1968b) and 935 (Cocchiarella 1968d), which could be very important. 1224 is a ten page handwritten letter dealing with technical problems of logic. 935 contains a report of Cocchiarella’s work done in Summer of 1968, and complaints about Leblanc Case.

  9. 9.

    Cocchiarella never used the term “logical purity”, though he extensively discussed tense-logical truth in his dissertation and in his letters to Prior.

  10. 10.

    Nor do we find anyone else witnessing the alleged revolution.

References

  1. Burgess, J. P. (1979). Logic and time. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 44(4), 566–582.

  2. Burgess, J. P. ((1984), 2002), Basic tense logic. In Gabbay & Guenthner (Eds.), (2002), pp. 1–42

  3. Carnielli, W., & Pizzi, C. (2009). Modalities and multimodalities. Dordrecht: Springer.

  4. Clifford, J. E. (1966). Tense logic and the logic of change. Logique et Analyse, 34, 219–230.

  5. Clifford, J. E. (1975). Tense and tense logic. The Hague: Mouton.

  6. Cocchiarella, N. B. (1965a). 931. Cocchiarella to Prior 07.10.1965 (Box 1)

  7. Cocchiarella, N. B. (1965b). 932. Cocchiarella to prior 04.11.1965 (Box 1)

  8. Cocchiarella, N. B. (1965c). 933. Cocchiarella to Prior 12.11.1965 (Box 1)

  9. Cocchiarella, N. B. (1965d). 937. Cocchiarella to Lemmon 12.11.1965 (Box 1)

  10. Cocchiarella, N. B. (1965e). 938. Cocchiarella to Montague 18.10.1965 (Box 1)

  11. Cocchiarella, N. B. (1966a). Tense and modal logic: A study in the topology of temporal reference. Ph. D. dissertation, UCLA

  12. Cocchiarella, N. B. (1966b). (Abstract) A completeness theorem for tense logic. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 31, 689–690.

  13. Cocchiarella, N. B. (1967). 934. Cocchiarella to Prior, 02.01. 1967 (Box 1)

  14. Cocchiarella, N. B. (1968a). Some remarks on second order logic with existence attributes. Nous, 2(2), 165–175.

  15. Cocchiarella, N. B. (1968b). 1224. Cocchiarella to Prior. 11.03.1968 (Box 4)

  16. Cocchiarella, N. B. (1968c). 1223. Cocchiarella to Prior. 05.04. 1968 (Box 4)

  17. Cocchiarella, N. B. (1968d). 935. Cocchiarella to Prior. 07.10.1968 (Box 1)

  18. Cocchiarella, N. B. (1969a). Existence entailing attributes, modes of copulation and modes of being in second order logic. Nous, 3.1, 33–48.

  19. Cocchiarella, N. B. (1969b). A second order logic of existence. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 34(1), 57–69.

  20. Cocchiarella, N. B. (1981). Richard Montague and the mogical analysis of language. In G. Fløistad (Ed.), Contemporary philosophy: A new survey. Philosophy of language/philosophical logic (Vol. 2, pp. 113–154). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.

  21. Cocchiarella, N. B. ((1984) 2002). Philosophical perspectives on quantification in tense and modal logic. In Gabbay & Guenthner (Eds.) (2002), Handbook of philosophical logic (Vol. 7, pp. 235–275)

  22. Cocchiarella, N. B. (1991). Quantification, time, and necessity. In K. Lambert (Ed.), Philosophical applications of free logic (pp. 242–256). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  23. Cocchiarella, N. B. (1993). Letter to Copeland: A. Prior’s influence on Cocchiarella (Personal communication)

  24. Cocchiarella, N. B. (1997). Formally oriented work in the philosophy of language. In Philosophy of meaning, knowledge and value in the twentieth century. Routledge history of philosophy (Vol. X), London

  25. Cocchiarella, N. B. (2007). Formal ontology and conceptual realism. Dordrecht: Springer.

  26. Cocchiarella, N. B. (2013a). Comments on Park’s extended abstract ‘Where Have All the Californian Tense-logicians Gone?’, (Personal Communication, 11.08.2013).

  27. Cocchiarella, N. B. (2013b). More notes on Park, (Personal Communication, 18.08.2013)

  28. Cocchiarella, N. B. (2013c). Re: More notes on Park, (Personal Communication, 19.08.2013)

  29. Cocchiarella, N. B. (2013d). Still more notes on Park, (Personal Communication, 17.12.2013)

  30. Cocchiarella, N. B. (2014). Comments on Park’s paper, (Personal Communication, 23.04.2014)

  31. Copeland, J. (1996). Prior’s life and legacy. In J. Copeland (Ed.), Logic and reality: Essays on the legacy of Arthur Prior. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  32. Gabbay, D. M. (1976). Investigations in modal and tense logics with applications to problems in philosophy and linguistics. Dordrecht: Reidel.

  33. Gabbay, D. M., & Woods, J. (Eds.). (2009). The international directory of logicians. Who’s who in logic. London: College Publications.

  34. Kamp, H. (1967). 919, Kamp to Prior. 28.08. 1967, (Box 2)

  35. Kamp, H. (1968). On tense logic and the theory of order. Ph. D. dissertation, UCLA

  36. Kamp, H. (1969). 921, Kamp to Prior. 09.06. 1969, (Box 2)

  37. Kamp, H. (1971). Formal properties of ‘Now’. Theoria, 37, 227–273.

  38. Lemmon, E. J. (1964). 1099, Lemmon to Prior. 1964, (Box 2)

  39. Lemmon, E. J. (1965). 1103, Lemmon to Cocchiarella.1965, (Box2)

  40. Lemmon, E. J., & Scott, D. (1977). In K. Segerberg (Ed.), Introduction to modal logic. Oxford: American Philosophical Quarterly

  41. Massey, G. J. (1969). Tense logic! Why bother? Noûs, 3(1), 17–32.

  42. McCall, S. (1967). 1310, McCall to Prior 19,10, 1967, (Box 2)

  43. McCall, S. (1968). Review of past, present and future by Arthur Prior. Dialogue, 6(4), 618–621.

  44. Montague, R. (1968). Pragmatics. In R. Kilbansky (Ed.), Contemporary philosophy: A survey I, Florence. (Reprinted in Montague (1974), Chapter 3, pp. 95–118). [Citations are from the latter]

  45. Montague, R. (1970). Pragmatics and intensional logic. Synthese, 22, 68–94. (Reprinted in Montague (1974), Chapter 4, pp. 119-147). [Citations are from the latter]

  46. Montague, R. (1974). Formal philosophy: Selected papers of Richard Montague, Edited and with an introduction by Thomason, R. H., New Haven: Yale University Press

  47. Øhrstrøm, P., & Hasle, P. F. V. (1995). Temporal logic: From ancient ideas to artificial intelligence. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

  48. Partee, B. H. (2004). Compositionality in formal semantics: Selected papers of Barbara partee. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

  49. Pizzi, C. (Ed.). (1974). La Logica Del Tempo. Torino: Borinhiere.

  50. Prior, A. N. (1957). Time and modality. London: Oxford University Press.

  51. Prior, A. N. (1963). 620, Prior to Moody. 08.02. 1963, (Box 4)

  52. Prior, A. N. (1964). 619, Prior to Moody. 13.06.1964, (Box 4)

  53. Prior, A. N. (1967a). Past, present and future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  54. Prior, A. N. (1967b). 597, Prior to McCall 23.10.1967, (Box 4)

  55. Prior, A. N. (1967c). 924, Prior to Cocchiarella. 20.12. 1967, (Box 1)

  56. Prior, A. N. (1967d). 925, Prior to Cocchiarella. 27.12. 1967, (Box 1)

  57. Prior, A. N. (1967e). 1370, Prior to Kamp. 17.03.1967 (from Hans Kamp’s archive)

  58. Prior, A. N. (1967f). 1372, Prior to Kamp.24.03.1967 (from Kamp’s archive)

  59. Prior, A. N. (1968a). 927, Prior to Cocchiarella 01.02. 1968, (Box 1)

  60. Prior, A. N. (1968b). 928, Prior to Cocchiarella 05.02. 1968, (Box 1)

  61. Prior, A. N. (1968c). 929, Prior to Cocchiarella 19.03. 1968, (Box 1)

  62. Prior, A. N. (1968e). Now. Nous, 2.2, 101–119.

  63. Prior, A. N. (1977). In K. Fine (Ed.), Worlds, times and selves. London: Duckworth

  64. Rescher, N., & Urquart, A. (1971). Temporal logic. Dordrecht: Springer.

  65. Segerberg, K. (1977). Editor’s preface. In E. J. Lemmon & D. Scott (Eds.) (1977), pp. v–x

  66. Vlach, F. (1973). ‘Now’ and ‘Then’: A formal study in the logic of Tense Anaphora. Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study would not have been possible without the Virtual Lab for Prior Studies and Professor Nino B. Cocchiarella’s help through personal communication, including Cocchiarella (2013a). I am also indebted a lot to the anonymous reviewers and the editors of this special issue. Needless to say, however, every remaining error is entirely my own responsibility.

Author information

Correspondence to Woosuk Park.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Park, W. Where have all the Californian tense-logicians gone?. Synthese 193, 3701–3712 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-015-0896-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Arthur N. Prior
  • Californian tense-logicians
  • Montague grammar
  • Nino B. Cocchiarella
  • Tense logic