David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
In Edward Craig (ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Routledge (1998)
Consider the following argument: All men are mortal; Socrates is a man; therefore, Socrates is mortal. Intuitively, what makes this a valid argument has nothing to do with Socrates, men, or mortality. Rather, each sentence in the argument exhibits a certain logical form, which, together with the forms of the other two, constitute a pattern that, of itself, guarantees the truth of the conclusion given the truth of the premises. More generally, then, the logical form of a sentence of natural language is what determines both its logical properties and its logical relations to other sentences. The logical form of a sentence of natural language is typically represented in a theory of logical form by a well-formed formula in a ‘logically pure’ language whose only meaningful symbols are expressions with fixed, distinctly logical meanings (e.g., quantifiers). Thus, the logical forms of the sentences in the above argument would be represented in a theory based on pure predicate logic by the formulas ‘∀x(Fx ⊃ Gx)’, ‘Fy’, and ‘Gy’, respectively, where ‘F’, ‘G’, and ‘y’ are all free variables. The argument’s intuitive validity is then explained in virtue of the fact that the logical forms of the premises formally entail the logical form of the conclusion. The primary goal of a theory of logical form is to explain as broad a range of such intuitive logical phenomena as possible in terms of the logical forms that it assigns to sentences of natural language.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
George Lakoff (1970). Linguistics and Natural Logic. Synthese 22 (1-2):151 - 271.
M. Dusche (1995). Interpreted Logical Forms as Objects of the Attitudes. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 4 (4):301-315.
Nick Chater (2002). Is LF Really a Linguistic Level? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (6):680-680.
Reinaldo Elugardo & Robert J. Stainton (2001). Logical Form Andthe Vernacular. Mind and Language 16 (4):393–424.
Reinaldo Elugardo & Robert J. Stainton (2001). Logical Form Andthe Vernacular. Mind and Language 16 (4):393-424.
John MacFarlane, Logical Constants. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Agustín Rayo & Timothy Williamson (2003). A Completeness Theorem for Unrestricted First-Order Languages. In Jc Beall (ed.), Liars and Heaps. Oxford University Press.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads68 ( #17,512 of 1,088,428 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #24,197 of 1,088,428 )
How can I increase my downloads?