Advertisement

Dialogues with Play-Objects

  • Nicolas ClerboutEmail author
  • Shahid Rahman
Chapter
  • 434 Downloads
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Philosophy book series (BRIEFSPHILOSOPH)

Abstract

The dialogical approach to logic is not a specific logical system but rather a rule-based semantic framework in which different logics can be developed, combined and compared. An important point is that there are different kinds of rules fixing meaning. This feature of the underlying semantics of the dialogical approach has often caused it to be called a pragmatist semantics.

Keywords

Extensive Form Winning Strategy Structural Rule Equality Rule Elimination Rule 
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.

References

  1. Brandom, R. 1994. Making it Explicit. Cambridge: Harvard UP.Google Scholar
  2. Clerbout, N. 2014a. First-order dialogical games and tableaux. Journal of Philosophical Logic 43(4): 785–801. [Published first online 2013. doi: 10.1007/s10992-013-9289-z].
  3. Clerbout, N. 2014b. Finiteness of plays and the dialogical problem of decidability. IfCoLog Journal of Logics and Their Applications 1(1): 115–130.Google Scholar
  4. Clerbout, N. 2014c. La Sémantique Dialogique. Notions Fondamentales et Éléments de Metathéorie. London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  5. Clerbout, N., M.H. Gorisse, and S. Rahman. 2011. Context-sensitivity in Jain philosophy: A dialogical study of Siddharsigani’s commentary on the handbook of logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic 40(5): 633–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dummett, M. 1973. Frege: Philosophy of Language. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
  7. Dummett, M. 1993. Language and truth. In The Seas of Language, 117–165. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  8. Felscher, W. 1985. Dialogues as a foundation for intuitionistic logic. In Handbook of Philosophical Logic, vol. 3, ed. D. Gabbay and F. Guenthner, 341–372. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  9. Fiutek, V., H. Rückert, and S. Rahman. 2010. A dialogical semantics for Bonanno’s system of belief revision. In Constructions, ed. P. Bour et al., 315–334. London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  10. Fontaine, M. 2013. Argumentation et Engagement Ontologique. Être, c’est être choisi. London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  11. Gentzen, G. 1934–1935. Untersuchungen über das logische Schliessen. Mathematische Zeitschrift 39: 176–210, 405–431. Also in M. Szabo, ed. tr., 1969, The Collected Papers of Gehard Gentzen. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  12. Kamlah, W., and P. Lorenzen. 1972. Logische Propädeutik, 2nd ed. Stuttgart and Weimar: Metzler.Google Scholar
  13. Kamlah, W., and P. Lorenzen. 1984. Logical Propaedeutic. Lanham Md.: University Press of America. English translation of Kamlah and Lorenzen [1972] by H. Robinson.Google Scholar
  14. Keiff, L. 2004a. Heuristique formelle et logiques modales non-normales. Philosophia Scientiae 8(2): 39–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Keiff, L. 2004b. Introduction à la dialogique modale et hybride. Philosophia Scientiae 8(2): 89–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Keiff, L. 2007. Le Pluralisme Dialogique: Approches Dynamiques de l’Argumentation Formelle. PhD thesis, Lille 3.Google Scholar
  17. Keiff, L. 2009. Dialogical logic. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-dialogical/. Accessed 2013.
  18. Lorenz, K. 2001. Basic objectives of dialogue logic in historical perspective. In New Perspectives in Dialogical Logic, ed. S. Rahman, and H. Rückert, 255–263. Springer (Synthese 127(1–2): special volume).Google Scholar
  19. Lorenz, K. 2008. Dialogischer Konstruktivismus. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  20. Lorenz, K. 2010a. Logic, Language and Method: On Polarities in Human Experience. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  21. Lorenz, K. 2010b. Philosophische Variationen: Gesammelte Aufsätze unter Einschluss gemeinsam mit Jürgen Mittelstraß geschriebener Arbeiten zu Platon und Leibniz. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  22. Lorenzen, P., and K. Lorenz. 1978. Dialogische Logik. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
  23. Lorenzen, P., and O. Schwemmer. 1975. Konstruktive Logik, Ethik und Wissenschaftstheorie, 2nd edn. Mannheim: Bibliographisches Institut.Google Scholar
  24. Magnier, S. 2013. Approche Dialogique de la Dynamique Épistémique et de la Condition Juridique. London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  25. Martin-Löf, P. 1984. Intuitionistic Type Theory. Naples: Bibliopolis. Notes by Giovanni Sambin of a series of lectures given in Padua, June 1980.Google Scholar
  26. Popek, A. 2012. Logical dialogues from middle ages. In Logic of Knowledge. Theory and Applications, ed. C. Barés, 223–244. London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  27. Primiero, G. 2008. Information and Knowledge. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  28. Prior, A. 1961. The runabout inference ticket. Analysis 21(2): 38–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rahman, S. 1993. Über Dialoge, Protologische Kategorien und andere Seltenheiten. Frankfurt: P. Lang.Google Scholar
  30. Rahman, S. 2009. A non normal logic for a wonderful world and more. In The Age of Alternative Logics: Assessing Philosophy of Logic and Mathematics Today, 2nd edn., ed. J. van Benthem et al., 311–334. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  31. Rahman, S. 2012. Negation in the logic of first degree entailment and tonk: A dialogical study. In The Realism-Antirealism Debate in the Age of Alternative Logics, ed. S. Rahman, G. Primiero, and M. Marion, 213–250. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  32. Rahman, S., and N. Clerbout. 2014. Constructive type theory and the dialogical turn. A new start for Erlangen constructivism. In Dialogische Logik, ed. J. Mittlestrass, and C. von Bülow, 127–184. Münster: Mentis.Google Scholar
  33. Rahman, S., and L. Keiff. 2005. On how to be a dialogician. In Logic, Thought, and Action, ed. D. Vanderveken, 359–408. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  34. Rahman, S., and L. Keiff. 2010. La Dialectique entre logique et rhétorique. Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale 66(2): 149–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rahman, S., and T. Tulenheimo. 2009. From games to dialogues and back: Towards a general frame for validity. In Games: Unifying Logic, Language and Philosophy, ed. O. Majer, 153–208. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  36. Rahman, S., N. Clerbout, and L. Keiff. 2009. On dialogues and natural deduction. In Acts of Knowledge: History, Philosophy and Logic: Essays Dedicated to Göran Sundholm, ed. G. Primiero, and S. Rahman, 301–336. London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  37. Rahman, S., N. Clerbout, and Z. McConaughey. 2014. On play-objects in dialogical games. Towards a dialogical approach to constructive type theory. In Modestly Radical or Radically Modest. Festschrift for Jean-Paul van Bendegem on the Occasion of his 60th Birthday, ed. P. Allo, and B. van Kerkhove, 127–154. College Publications.Google Scholar
  38. Ranta, A. 1994. Type-Theoretical Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  39. Redmond, J. 2010. Logique Dynamique de la Fiction: Pour une Approche Dialogique. London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  40. Redmond, J., and M. Fontaine. 2011. How to Play Dialogues: An Introduction to Dialogical Logic. London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  41. Rückert, H. 2011a. Dialogues as a Dynamic Framework for Logic. London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  42. Rückert, H. 2011b. The conception of validity in dialogical logic. Talk at the workshop Proofs and Dialogues, Tübingen.Google Scholar
  43. Sundholm, G. 1986. Proof-theory and meaning. In Handbook of Philosophical Logic, vol. 3, ed. D. Gabbay, and F. Guenthner, 471–506. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  44. Sundholm, G. 1997. Implicit epistemic aspects of constructive logic. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 6(2): 191–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Thompson, S. 1991. Type Theory and Functional Programming. Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  46. van Ditmarsch, H., W. van der Hoek, and B. Kooi. 2007. Dynamic Epistemic Logic. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Instituto de Filosofía; CDHACSUniversidad de ValparaísoValparaísoChile
  2. 2.UMR-CNRS 8163: STLUniversity of Lille IIIVilleneuve d’AscqFrance

Personalised recommendations