Aletik Bağıntılar Işığında Mantık Eklemlerinin Anlamları

Arman Besler
{"title":"Aletik Bağıntılar Işığında Mantık Eklemlerinin Anlamları","authors":"Arman Besler","doi":"10.55256/temasa.1374489","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"One of the central questions in 20th-century discussions within logic and philosophy of language is where logical constants, specifically propositional connectives, get their meaning from. What kind of determination/justification bond is found between the inference rules peculiar to a given connective and the meaning of that connective? Are these rules justified by it, or rather do they contribute to its construction? An observation made by G. Gentzen, who founded in the 1930s the proof-theoretical approach at large, triggered a view (called by some logical inferentialism) that gives a remarkable answer to the above question: the meaning of a logical constant in a logical language is provided, not by some sort of representational content, but by the inferential norms that govern its overall use. In 1960 A. N. Prior fictionalized as a counter-instance the connective tonk solely using a couple of inference rules, a connective capable of overthrowing the system of deduction; N. Belnap’s 1962 reply in the form of an analysis of the tonk problem opens the way to discussions in logic-cum-philosophy of language with important outcomes. The present little study can be read as some further deflation of the tonk problem with a relatively unconstrained inferentialistic view of the matter. The two main theses of the study are (i) that the problem posed by tonk-like connectives can be captured, more simply than in Belnap’s (otherwise correct) analysis, through inferential relations of a certain type which will be dubbed alethic relations; and (ii) that Prior’s challenge, brought to completion in whichever way, cannot give any result against the inferentialist conception.","PeriodicalId":143382,"journal":{"name":"Temaşa Erciyes Üniversitesi Felsefe Bölümü Dergisi","volume":"31 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Temaşa Erciyes Üniversitesi Felsefe Bölümü Dergisi","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.55256/temasa.1374489","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

One of the central questions in 20th-century discussions within logic and philosophy of language is where logical constants, specifically propositional connectives, get their meaning from. What kind of determination/justification bond is found between the inference rules peculiar to a given connective and the meaning of that connective? Are these rules justified by it, or rather do they contribute to its construction? An observation made by G. Gentzen, who founded in the 1930s the proof-theoretical approach at large, triggered a view (called by some logical inferentialism) that gives a remarkable answer to the above question: the meaning of a logical constant in a logical language is provided, not by some sort of representational content, but by the inferential norms that govern its overall use. In 1960 A. N. Prior fictionalized as a counter-instance the connective tonk solely using a couple of inference rules, a connective capable of overthrowing the system of deduction; N. Belnap’s 1962 reply in the form of an analysis of the tonk problem opens the way to discussions in logic-cum-philosophy of language with important outcomes. The present little study can be read as some further deflation of the tonk problem with a relatively unconstrained inferentialistic view of the matter. The two main theses of the study are (i) that the problem posed by tonk-like connectives can be captured, more simply than in Belnap’s (otherwise correct) analysis, through inferential relations of a certain type which will be dubbed alethic relations; and (ii) that Prior’s challenge, brought to completion in whichever way, cannot give any result against the inferentialist conception.
从 Aletic 关系看逻辑关节的含义
20 世纪逻辑学和语言哲学讨论的核心问题之一,是逻辑常量(特别是命题连接词)的意义从何而来。在特定连接词所特有的推理规则与该连接词的意义之间,存在着怎样的决定/证明联系?这些规则是由它来证明的,还是有助于它的建构?20 世纪 30 年代创立了证明理论方法的根岑(G. Gentzen)的一个观察结果引发了一种观点(有些人称之为逻辑推论主义),对上述问题给出了一个显著的答案:逻辑语言中逻辑常量的意义不是由某种表征内容提供的,而是由支配其整体使用的推论规范提供的。1960 年,A. N. Prior 仅用几条推理规则就虚构了连接词 tonk,作为一个反例,这个连接词能够推翻演绎法体系;1962 年,N. Belnap 以分析 tonk 问题的形式做出了回答,为逻辑哲学和语言哲学的讨论开辟了道路,并取得了重要成果。本项小研究可以被解读为以相对不受约束的推论主义观点对顿克问题的进一步消解。本研究的两个主要论点是:(i) 与贝尔纳普(在其他方面也是正确的)的分析相比,通过某种类型的推论关系(将被称为 "公理关系"),可以更简单地捕捉到类似顿号的连接词所提出的问题;(ii) 普赖尔的挑战,无论以何种方式完成,都无法给出任何反对推论主义概念的结果。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信