Logica Dominans vs. Logica Serviens

IF 0.6 Q2 LOGIC Logic and Logical Philosophy Pub Date : 2022-02-04 DOI:10.12775/llp.2022.004
Jaroslav Peregrin, V. Svoboda
{"title":"Logica Dominans vs. Logica Serviens","authors":"Jaroslav Peregrin, V. Svoboda","doi":"10.12775/llp.2022.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Logic is usually presented as a tool of rational inquiry; however, many logicians in fact treat logic so that it does not serve us, but rather governs us – as rational beings we are subordinated to the logical laws we aspire to disclose. We denote the view that logic primarily serves us as logica serviens, while denoting the thesis that it primarily governs our reasoning as logica dominans. We argue that treating logic as logica dominans is misguided, for it leads to the idea of a “genuine” logic within a “genuine” language. Instead of this, we offer a naturalistic picture, according to which the only languages that exist are the natural languages and the artificial languages logicians have built. There is, we argue, no language beyond these, especially none that would be a wholesome vehicle of reasoning like the natural languages and yet be transparently rigorous like the artificial ones. Logic is a matter of using the artificial languages as idealized models of the natural ones, whereby we pinpoint the laws of logic by means of zooming in on a reflective equilibrium.","PeriodicalId":43501,"journal":{"name":"Logic and Logical Philosophy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Logic and Logical Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12775/llp.2022.004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LOGIC","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Logic is usually presented as a tool of rational inquiry; however, many logicians in fact treat logic so that it does not serve us, but rather governs us – as rational beings we are subordinated to the logical laws we aspire to disclose. We denote the view that logic primarily serves us as logica serviens, while denoting the thesis that it primarily governs our reasoning as logica dominans. We argue that treating logic as logica dominans is misguided, for it leads to the idea of a “genuine” logic within a “genuine” language. Instead of this, we offer a naturalistic picture, according to which the only languages that exist are the natural languages and the artificial languages logicians have built. There is, we argue, no language beyond these, especially none that would be a wholesome vehicle of reasoning like the natural languages and yet be transparently rigorous like the artificial ones. Logic is a matter of using the artificial languages as idealized models of the natural ones, whereby we pinpoint the laws of logic by means of zooming in on a reflective equilibrium.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
逻辑通常被认为是理性探究的工具;然而,事实上,许多逻辑学家对待逻辑并不是为了服务我们,而是为了支配我们&作为理性的存在,我们服从于我们渴望揭示的逻辑法则。我们表示逻辑主要作为逻辑学家服务于我们的观点,而表示逻辑主要以逻辑学家支配我们的推理的论点。我们认为,将逻辑视为逻辑学家是被误导的,因为它导致了“真正”语言中的“真正”逻辑的概念。相反,我们提供了一个自然主义的画面,根据这个画面,唯一存在的语言是逻辑学家建立的自然语言和人工语言。我们认为,除此之外,没有任何语言,尤其是没有一种语言能像自然语言那样成为有益健康的推理工具,但又像人工语言那样透明严格。逻辑是一个使用人工语言作为自然语言的理想化模型的问题,通过放大反射平衡,我们可以精确定位逻辑定律。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
40.00%
发文量
29
期刊最新文献
Paradoxes versus Contradictions in Logic of Sentential Operators Constructive Logic is Connexive and Contradictory KD45 with Propositional Quantifiers Logical Forms, Substitutions and Information Types Logical Forms: Validity and Variety of Formalizations
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1