逻辑的构成作用和可修订性

IF 0.5 0 PHILOSOPHY Analisis Filosofico Pub Date : 2020-12-15 DOI:10.36446/AF.2020.433
Omar Hildebrando Vásquez Dávila
{"title":"逻辑的构成作用和可修订性","authors":"Omar Hildebrando Vásquez Dávila","doi":"10.36446/AF.2020.433","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this work, I consider Moretti’s (2016) proposal according to which logical truths consist of two aspects. On the one hand, logical truths are constitutive of the link between language and world, so it is always necessary some logical system. On the other hand, the truths of a specific logical theory are as revisable as the truths of any other scientific theory, either formal or empirical. I propose that this approach is inevitably related to two questions whose possible answers challenge the possibility of changing or revising a logic. The first question is about the feature which different notions of consequence have in common, and in which sense this feature allows them to display their constitutive role in the language-world relationship. The second question points out to the necessity of precising the criteria which led us to substitute a logic.","PeriodicalId":40940,"journal":{"name":"Analisis Filosofico","volume":"40 1","pages":"197-205"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Rol constitutivo y revisabilidad de la lógica\",\"authors\":\"Omar Hildebrando Vásquez Dávila\",\"doi\":\"10.36446/AF.2020.433\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this work, I consider Moretti’s (2016) proposal according to which logical truths consist of two aspects. On the one hand, logical truths are constitutive of the link between language and world, so it is always necessary some logical system. On the other hand, the truths of a specific logical theory are as revisable as the truths of any other scientific theory, either formal or empirical. I propose that this approach is inevitably related to two questions whose possible answers challenge the possibility of changing or revising a logic. The first question is about the feature which different notions of consequence have in common, and in which sense this feature allows them to display their constitutive role in the language-world relationship. The second question points out to the necessity of precising the criteria which led us to substitute a logic.\",\"PeriodicalId\":40940,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Analisis Filosofico\",\"volume\":\"40 1\",\"pages\":\"197-205\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-15\",\"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.2020.433\",\"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.2020.433","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

在这项工作中,我考虑了Moretti(2016)的建议,根据该建议,逻辑真理由两个方面组成。一方面,逻辑真理是语言和世界联系的组成部分,因此总是需要一些逻辑系统。另一方面,一个特定逻辑理论的真理与任何其他科学理论的真理一样可以修正,无论是形式的还是经验的。我认为,这种方法不可避免地与两个问题有关,这两个问题的可能答案挑战了改变或修正逻辑的可能性。第一个问题是关于不同后果概念的共同特征,以及在什么意义上,这种特征使它们能够在语言世界关系中发挥其组成作用。第二个问题指出了精确标准的必要性,这导致我们用逻辑来代替。
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
Rol constitutivo y revisabilidad de la lógica
In this work, I consider Moretti’s (2016) proposal according to which logical truths consist of two aspects. On the one hand, logical truths are constitutive of the link between language and world, so it is always necessary some logical system. On the other hand, the truths of a specific logical theory are as revisable as the truths of any other scientific theory, either formal or empirical. I propose that this approach is inevitably related to two questions whose possible answers challenge the possibility of changing or revising a logic. The first question is about the feature which different notions of consequence have in common, and in which sense this feature allows them to display their constitutive role in the language-world relationship. The second question points out to the necessity of precising the criteria which led us to substitute a logic.
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