关于逻辑真理的注释

IF 0.3 3区 哲学 Q1 Arts and Humanities Logique et Analyse Pub Date : 2014-01-01 DOI:10.2143/LEA.227.0.3053508
Corine Besson
{"title":"关于逻辑真理的注释","authors":"Corine Besson","doi":"10.2143/LEA.227.0.3053508","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Classical logic counts sentences such as ‘Alice is identical with Alice’ as logically true. A standard objection to classical logic is that Alice’s self-identity, for instance, is not a matter of logic because the identity of particular objects is not a matter of logic. For this reason, many philosophers argue that classical logic is not the right logic, and that it should be abandoned in favour of free logic — logic free of existential commitments with respect to singular terms. In most standard free logics, sentences such as ‘Alice is identical with Alice’ are not logically true. This paper argues that this objection from existential commitments is somewhat superficial and that there is a deeper reason why ‘Alice is identical with Alice’ should not be considered a logical truth. Indeed, a key fundamental thought about the nature of logic is that a logical truth is true in virtue of its logical form. The fundamental problem I raise is that a sentence such as ‘Alice is identical with Alice’ appears to not even be true in virtue of its logical form. Thus this paper argues that given that such a sentence is not true in virtue of its logical form, it should not be counted as logically true. It moreover argues, on the same grounds, that even the sentences which free logicians regard as logically true shouldn’t be regarded as logically true. So in this sense free logic is no repair to classical logic. I. Introduction The paper is organised as follows. In sections II and III, I outline the standard problem of existential commitments for classical logic, as well as its standard solution in terms of free logic. Doing this will be useful to set up the key issue of the paper. Section IV then moves to considerations about logical form and outlines a new problem for sentences such as ‘Alice is identical with Alice’ being considered logical truths. Sections IV-XI put forward considerations meant to cast doubt on the idea that sentences such as ‘Alice is identical with Alice’ are logical truths in the formal sense. Section XII elaborates on these considerations and offers a way of thinking of the relationship of sentences such as ‘Alice is identical with Alice’ to logical truths proper.","PeriodicalId":46471,"journal":{"name":"Logique et Analyse","volume":"108 1","pages":"309-331"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2014-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A NOTE ON LOGICAL TRUTH\",\"authors\":\"Corine Besson\",\"doi\":\"10.2143/LEA.227.0.3053508\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Classical logic counts sentences such as ‘Alice is identical with Alice’ as logically true. A standard objection to classical logic is that Alice’s self-identity, for instance, is not a matter of logic because the identity of particular objects is not a matter of logic. For this reason, many philosophers argue that classical logic is not the right logic, and that it should be abandoned in favour of free logic — logic free of existential commitments with respect to singular terms. In most standard free logics, sentences such as ‘Alice is identical with Alice’ are not logically true. This paper argues that this objection from existential commitments is somewhat superficial and that there is a deeper reason why ‘Alice is identical with Alice’ should not be considered a logical truth. Indeed, a key fundamental thought about the nature of logic is that a logical truth is true in virtue of its logical form. The fundamental problem I raise is that a sentence such as ‘Alice is identical with Alice’ appears to not even be true in virtue of its logical form. Thus this paper argues that given that such a sentence is not true in virtue of its logical form, it should not be counted as logically true. It moreover argues, on the same grounds, that even the sentences which free logicians regard as logically true shouldn’t be regarded as logically true. So in this sense free logic is no repair to classical logic. I. Introduction The paper is organised as follows. In sections II and III, I outline the standard problem of existential commitments for classical logic, as well as its standard solution in terms of free logic. Doing this will be useful to set up the key issue of the paper. Section IV then moves to considerations about logical form and outlines a new problem for sentences such as ‘Alice is identical with Alice’ being considered logical truths. Sections IV-XI put forward considerations meant to cast doubt on the idea that sentences such as ‘Alice is identical with Alice’ are logical truths in the formal sense. Section XII elaborates on these considerations and offers a way of thinking of the relationship of sentences such as ‘Alice is identical with Alice’ to logical truths proper.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46471,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Logique et Analyse\",\"volume\":\"108 1\",\"pages\":\"309-331\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Logique et Analyse\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2143/LEA.227.0.3053508\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Logique et Analyse","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2143/LEA.227.0.3053508","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

经典逻辑认为诸如“爱丽丝与爱丽丝是相同的”这样的句子在逻辑上为真。经典逻辑的一个标准反对意见是,举例来说,爱丽丝的自我同一性不是逻辑问题,因为特定对象的同一性不是逻辑问题。出于这个原因,许多哲学家认为经典逻辑不是正确的逻辑,应该放弃它,转而支持自由逻辑——即不涉及单项存在性承诺的逻辑。在大多数标准的自由逻辑中,像“Alice和Alice是相同的”这样的句子在逻辑上是不正确的。本文认为,存在性承诺的这种反对意见有些肤浅,“爱丽丝与爱丽丝是同一的”不应被视为逻辑真理有更深层次的原因。事实上,关于逻辑本质的一个关键的基本思想是,逻辑真理因其逻辑形式而为真。我提出的基本问题是,像"爱丽丝与爱丽丝是同一的"这样的句子,从其逻辑形式来看,似乎甚至都不是真的。因此,本文认为,鉴于这样一个句子在其逻辑形式上不为真,它不应被视为逻辑真。而且,基于同样的理由,它还认为,即使是自由逻辑学家认为逻辑为真的句子也不应该被认为是逻辑为真。所以在这个意义上,自由逻辑不是对经典逻辑的修复。本文的组织结构如下:在第二节和第三节中,我概述了经典逻辑中存在行为的标准问题,以及它在自由逻辑中的标准解。这样做将有助于建立论文的关键问题。然后,第四节转向对逻辑形式的考虑,并概述了一个新问题,即“爱丽丝与爱丽丝相同”这样的句子被认为是逻辑真理。第四节至第十一节提出了一些思考,旨在对诸如"爱丽丝与爱丽丝是同一的"这样的句子是形式意义上的逻辑真理这一观念提出质疑。第十二节详细阐述了这些考虑,并提供了一种思考诸如“爱丽丝与爱丽丝是同一的”这样的句子与逻辑真理固有关系的方法。
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
A NOTE ON LOGICAL TRUTH
Classical logic counts sentences such as ‘Alice is identical with Alice’ as logically true. A standard objection to classical logic is that Alice’s self-identity, for instance, is not a matter of logic because the identity of particular objects is not a matter of logic. For this reason, many philosophers argue that classical logic is not the right logic, and that it should be abandoned in favour of free logic — logic free of existential commitments with respect to singular terms. In most standard free logics, sentences such as ‘Alice is identical with Alice’ are not logically true. This paper argues that this objection from existential commitments is somewhat superficial and that there is a deeper reason why ‘Alice is identical with Alice’ should not be considered a logical truth. Indeed, a key fundamental thought about the nature of logic is that a logical truth is true in virtue of its logical form. The fundamental problem I raise is that a sentence such as ‘Alice is identical with Alice’ appears to not even be true in virtue of its logical form. Thus this paper argues that given that such a sentence is not true in virtue of its logical form, it should not be counted as logically true. It moreover argues, on the same grounds, that even the sentences which free logicians regard as logically true shouldn’t be regarded as logically true. So in this sense free logic is no repair to classical logic. I. Introduction The paper is organised as follows. In sections II and III, I outline the standard problem of existential commitments for classical logic, as well as its standard solution in terms of free logic. Doing this will be useful to set up the key issue of the paper. Section IV then moves to considerations about logical form and outlines a new problem for sentences such as ‘Alice is identical with Alice’ being considered logical truths. Sections IV-XI put forward considerations meant to cast doubt on the idea that sentences such as ‘Alice is identical with Alice’ are logical truths in the formal sense. Section XII elaborates on these considerations and offers a way of thinking of the relationship of sentences such as ‘Alice is identical with Alice’ to logical truths proper.
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
Logique et Analyse
Logique et Analyse PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Logique et Analyse is the continuation of Bulletin Intérieur, which was published from 1954 on by the Belgian National Centre for Logical Investigation, and intended originally only as an internal publication of results for its members and collaborators. Since the start of the new series, in 1958, however, the journal has been open to external submissions (and subscriptions). Logique et Analyse itself subscribes to no particular logical or philosophical doctrine, and so is open to articles from all points of view, provided only that they concern the designated subject matter of the journal.
期刊最新文献
Some Logical Notations for Pragmatic Assertions On Linear Existential Graphs Regions of Force: Peirce, Frege, Carroll, and Bilateral Proof Trees What do we mean when we talk of object-language and metalanguage in the theory of natural languages? A Graphical Deep Inference System for Intuitionistic Logic
×
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