{"title":"逻辑常量的语义简约","authors":"F. Paoli","doi":"10.2143/LEA.227.0.3053513","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In [31], I defended a minimalist account of meaning for logical constants as a way to ward off Quine’s meaning variance charge against deviant logics. Its key idea was that some deviant propositional logics share with classical logic the operational meanings of all their connectives, as encoded in their sequent calculus operational rules, yet validate different sequents than classical logic — therefore, we can have genuine rivalry between logics without meaning variance. In his [19], Ole Hjortland levelled several objections at this view. The aim of this paper is to address these criticisms, highlighting at the same time the role played by logical consequence in this version of semantic minimalism.","PeriodicalId":46471,"journal":{"name":"Logique et Analyse","volume":"5 1","pages":"439-461"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2014-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"14","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Semantic minimalism for logical constants\",\"authors\":\"F. Paoli\",\"doi\":\"10.2143/LEA.227.0.3053513\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In [31], I defended a minimalist account of meaning for logical constants as a way to ward off Quine’s meaning variance charge against deviant logics. Its key idea was that some deviant propositional logics share with classical logic the operational meanings of all their connectives, as encoded in their sequent calculus operational rules, yet validate different sequents than classical logic — therefore, we can have genuine rivalry between logics without meaning variance. In his [19], Ole Hjortland levelled several objections at this view. The aim of this paper is to address these criticisms, highlighting at the same time the role played by logical consequence in this version of semantic minimalism.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46471,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Logique et Analyse\",\"volume\":\"5 1\",\"pages\":\"439-461\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"14\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Logique et Analyse\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2143/LEA.227.0.3053513\",\"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.227.0.3053513","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
In [31], I defended a minimalist account of meaning for logical constants as a way to ward off Quine’s meaning variance charge against deviant logics. Its key idea was that some deviant propositional logics share with classical logic the operational meanings of all their connectives, as encoded in their sequent calculus operational rules, yet validate different sequents than classical logic — therefore, we can have genuine rivalry between logics without meaning variance. In his [19], Ole Hjortland levelled several objections at this view. The aim of this paper is to address these criticisms, highlighting at the same time the role played by logical consequence in this version of semantic minimalism.
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.