论收养问题与元逻辑一元论

IF 0.5 0 PHILOSOPHY Analisis Filosofico Pub Date : 2022-05-01 DOI:10.36446/af.2022.407
Mauro Santelli, Joaquín Toranzo Calderón, Jonathan Erenfryd
{"title":"论收养问题与元逻辑一元论","authors":"Mauro Santelli, Joaquín Toranzo Calderón, Jonathan Erenfryd","doi":"10.36446/af.2022.407","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"According to the Adoption Problem (AP) certain basic logical principles cannot be adopted. Drawing on the AP, Suki Finn presents an argument against logical pluralism: Modus Ponens (MP) and Universal Instantiation (UI) both govern a general structure shared by every logical rule. As such, analogues of these two rules must be present in every meta-logic for any logical system L, effectively imposing a restriction to logical pluralism at the meta-level through their presence constituting a “meta-logical monism”. We find a tension in the dual role that the “unadoptable rules” must play in Finn’s “meta-logical monism” rendering it ineffective to restrict logical theories and systems. Consequently, we argue they cannot be both analogues of MP and UI and inferentially productive. We conclude with a series of suggestions regarding where a more satisfying and robust interpretation of the AP could lie.","PeriodicalId":40940,"journal":{"name":"Analisis Filosofico","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"On the Adoption Problem and Meta-Logical Monism\",\"authors\":\"Mauro Santelli, Joaquín Toranzo Calderón, Jonathan Erenfryd\",\"doi\":\"10.36446/af.2022.407\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"According to the Adoption Problem (AP) certain basic logical principles cannot be adopted. Drawing on the AP, Suki Finn presents an argument against logical pluralism: Modus Ponens (MP) and Universal Instantiation (UI) both govern a general structure shared by every logical rule. As such, analogues of these two rules must be present in every meta-logic for any logical system L, effectively imposing a restriction to logical pluralism at the meta-level through their presence constituting a “meta-logical monism”. We find a tension in the dual role that the “unadoptable rules” must play in Finn’s “meta-logical monism” rendering it ineffective to restrict logical theories and systems. Consequently, we argue they cannot be both analogues of MP and UI and inferentially productive. We conclude with a series of suggestions regarding where a more satisfying and robust interpretation of the AP could lie.\",\"PeriodicalId\":40940,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Analisis Filosofico\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Analisis Filosofico\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.36446/af.2022.407\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Analisis Filosofico","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36446/af.2022.407","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

根据采用问题(AP),某些基本逻辑原则不能被采用。苏基·芬恩在美联社的基础上提出了一个反对逻辑多元主义的论点:方法推理(MP)和普遍实例化(UI)都支配着每个逻辑规则共享的一般结构。因此,这两个规则的类似物必须存在于任何逻辑系统L的每个元逻辑中,通过它们的存在构成“元逻辑一元论”,有效地在元层面上限制了逻辑多元主义。在芬恩的“元逻辑一元论”中,“不可接受的规则”必须扮演双重角色,这使得芬恩的“元逻辑一元论”无法对逻辑理论和系统进行限制。因此,我们认为它们不可能同时是MP和UI的类似物,也不可能同时具有内在的生产力。最后,我们提出了一系列关于如何对AP进行更令人满意和更有力的解释的建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
On the Adoption Problem and Meta-Logical Monism
According to the Adoption Problem (AP) certain basic logical principles cannot be adopted. Drawing on the AP, Suki Finn presents an argument against logical pluralism: Modus Ponens (MP) and Universal Instantiation (UI) both govern a general structure shared by every logical rule. As such, analogues of these two rules must be present in every meta-logic for any logical system L, effectively imposing a restriction to logical pluralism at the meta-level through their presence constituting a “meta-logical monism”. We find a tension in the dual role that the “unadoptable rules” must play in Finn’s “meta-logical monism” rendering it ineffective to restrict logical theories and systems. Consequently, we argue they cannot be both analogues of MP and UI and inferentially productive. We conclude with a series of suggestions regarding where a more satisfying and robust interpretation of the AP could lie.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Analisis Filosofico
Analisis Filosofico PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊介绍: Análisis Filosófico is an open access scientific journal issued by the Argentine Society of Philosophical Analysis (SADAF). Since 1981, it offers original and unpublished papers on theoretical and practical philosophy, discussions, critical studies and reviews –in Spanish, English and Portuguese– that contribute to the development of philosophical analysis. Essential conditions for publication are conceptual accuracy, precision and novelty. Its refereeing policy is based on double-blind reviews and external assessment. It is launched twice a year on May and November.
期刊最新文献
Pureza del método y práctica matemática: Desafíos y perspectivas Frege y sus circunstancias: Una interpretación de la teoría fregeana del significado Bromear como acto de habla y la relatividad lingüística del humor Fuerza, contenido y la metafísica del juicio La significancia de los casos idealizados de desacuerdo
×
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