, Volume 12, Issue 1–2, pp 117–150 | Cite as

Logic and Ontology

  • Nino B. Cocchiarella


A brief review of the historicalrelation between logic and ontologyand of the opposition between the viewsof logic as language and logic as calculusis given. We argue that predication is morefundamental than membership and that differenttheories of predication are based on differenttheories of universals, the three most importantbeing nominalism, conceptualism, and realism.These theories can be formulated as formalontologies, each with its own logic, andcompared with one another in terms of theirrespective explanatory powers. After a briefsurvey of such a comparison, we argue that anextended form of conceptual realism provides themost coherent formal ontology and, as such, canbe used to defend the view of logic as language.


Cognitive Psychology Explanatory Power Formal Ontology Conceptual Realism 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Addison, J.W., L. Henkin andA. Tarski: 1965, The Theory of Models, Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  2. Bochenski, I. M.: 1961, A History of Formal Logic, Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bochenski, I. M.: 1974, ‘Logic and Ontology’, Philosophy East and West 24, 275–292.Google Scholar
  4. Carnap, R.: 1937, The Logical Syntax of Language, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, reprinted in 1951.Google Scholar
  5. Chierchia, G.: 1984, Topics in the Syntax and Semantics of Infinitives and Gerunds, Ph.D. dissertation, Amherst: University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  6. Chierchia, G.: 1985, ‘Formal Semantics and the Grammar of Predication’, Linguistic Inquiry 16, 417–443.Google Scholar
  7. Cocchiarella, N. B.: 1987, Logical Studies in Early Analytic Philosophy, Columbus: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Cocchiarella, N. B.: 1988, ‘Predication Versus Membership in the Distinction between Logic as Language and Logic as Calculus’, Synthese 77, 37–72.Google Scholar
  9. Cocchiarella, N. B.: 1989a, ‘Philosophical Perspectives of Formal Theories of Predication’, in D. Gabbay andF. Guenthner (eds.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Vol. IV, Dordrecht: D. Reidel, pp. 253–326.Google Scholar
  10. Cocchiarella, N. B.: 1989b, ‘Conceptualism, Realism, and Intensional Logic’, Topoi 8, 15–34.Google Scholar
  11. Cocchiarella, N. B.: 1992, ‘Conceptual RealismVersus Quine on Classes and Higher-Order Logic’, Synthese 90, 379–436.Google Scholar
  12. Cocchiarella, N. B.: 1995, ‘Knowledge Representation in Conceptual Realism’, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 43, 697–721.Google Scholar
  13. Cocchiarella, N. B.: 1996, ‘Conceptual Realism as a Formal Ontology’, in R. Poli andP. Sirnor (eds.), Formal Ontology, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.Google Scholar
  14. Cocchiarella, N. B.: 1997, ‘Reference in Conceptual Realism’, Synthese 114, 169–202.Google Scholar
  15. Cohen, J. 1954, ‘On the Project of a Universal Character’, Mind 63, 49–63.Google Scholar
  16. Frege, G.: 1893, Die Grundgesetze der Arithmetik, Vol. 1, Jena: Verlag Hermann Pohle, Vols. 1 and 2 reprinted, (Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1962).Google Scholar
  17. Frege, G.: 1879, ‘Begriffsschrift, A Formula Language, Modeled upon that of Arithmetic, for Pure Thought’, in J. van Heijenoort (ed.), From Frege to Gödel, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1967.Google Scholar
  18. Frege, G.: 1972, in T. W. Bynum (ed., and trans.), Conceptual Notation and Related Articles, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Frege, G.: 1979, Posthumous Writings, in H. Hermes,F. KambartelF. Kaulbach (eds.), Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Geach, P.: 1980, Reference and Generality, 3rd edn, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Geach, P. and M. Black (eds.): 1952, Translations From the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege, Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  22. Goodman, N.: 1956, ‘A World of Individuals’, in I. M. Bochenski,N. Goodman andA. Church (eds.), The Problem of Universals, Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, pp. 15–31.Google Scholar
  23. Goodman, N.: 1951, The Structure of Appcarance, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Goodman, N. and W. V. O. Quine: 1947, ‘Steps Toward a Constructive Nominalism’, Journal of Symbolic Logic 12, 105–122.Google Scholar
  25. Hintikka, J.: 1988, ‘On the Development of the Model-Theoretic Tradition in Logical Theory’, Synthese 77, 1–36.Google Scholar
  26. Kung, G.: 1967, Ontology and the Logistic Analysis of Language, Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
  27. Lorenz, K.: 1962, ‘Kant's Doctrine of the A Priori in the Light of Contemporary Biology’, in L. von Bertalanffy andA. Rappaport (eds.), General Systems, Yearbook of the Society for General Systems Research, Vol. VII, pp. 23–35.Google Scholar
  28. Montague, R. M.: 1974, in R. Thomason (ed.), Formal Philosophy, New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Piaget, J. P.: 1972, The Principles of Genetic Epistemology, New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  30. Quine, W. V. O.: 1963, Set Theory and its Logic, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Russell, B.P 1938, The Principles of Mathematics, 2nd edn., with a new intro. New York: Norto & Co.Google Scholar
  32. van Heijenoort, J.: 1967, ‘Logic as Language aud Logic as Calculus’, Synthese 17, 324–330.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nino B. Cocchiarella

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations