David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
In Colin Caret & Ole Hjortland (eds.), Foundations of Logical Consequence. Oxford University Press 289-309 (2015)
Suppose Alice asserts p, and the Caterpillar wants to disagree. If the Caterpillar accepts classical logic, he has an easy way to indicate this disagreement: he can simply assert ¬p. Sometimes, though, things are not so easy. For example, suppose the Cheshire Cat is a paracompletist who thinks that p ∨ ¬p fails (in familiar (if possibly misleading) language, the Cheshire Cat thinks p is a gap). Then he surely disagrees with Alice's assertion of p, but should himself be unwilling to assert ¬p. So he cannot simply use the classical solution. Dually, suppose the Mad Hatter is a dialetheist who thinks that p ∧ ¬p holds (that is, he thinks p is a glut). Then he may assert ¬p, but it should not be taken to indicate that he disagrees with Alice; he doesn't. So he too can't use the classical solution. The Cheshire Cat and the Mad Hatter, then, have a common problem, and philosophers with opinions like theirs have adopted a common solution to this problem: appeal to denial. Denial, these philosophers suppose, is a speech act like assertion, but it is not to be understood as in any way reducing to assertion. Importantly, denial is something different from the assertion of a negation; this is what allows it to work even in cases where assertion of negation does not. Just as importantly, denial must express disagreement, since this is the job it's being enlisted to do.
|Keywords||negation denial dialetheism disagreement paraconsistent paracomplete paracoherent|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
David Ripley (2011). Negation, Denial, and Rejection. Philosophy Compass 6 (9):622-629.
Greg Restall (2015). Assertion, Denial, Acceptance, Rejection, Symmetry, and Paradox. In Colin R. Caret & Ole T. Hjortland (eds.), Foundations of Logical Consequence. Oxford University Press 310-321.
John Turri (2011). The Express Knowledge Account of Assertion. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 89 (1):37-45.
Adam Morton (1973). Denying the Doctrine and Changing the Subject. Journal of Philosophy 70 (15):503-510.
Terence Parsons (1984). Assertion, Denial, and the Liar Paradox. Journal of Philosophical Logic 13 (2):137 - 152.
J. S. Mackenzie (1895). Self-Assertion and Self-Denial. International Journal of Ethics 5 (3):273-295.
Huw Price (1983). Sense, Assertion, Dummett and Denial. Mind 92 (366):161-173.
John T. Kearns (2006). Conditional Assertion, Denial, and Supposition as Illocutionary Acts. Linguistics and Philosophy 29 (4):455 - 485.
Timothy Williamson (1988). Assertion, Denial and Some Cancellation Rules in Modal Logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic 17 (3):299--318.
Herman Cappelen (2011). Against Assertion. In Jessica Brown & Herman Cappelen (eds.), Assertion: New Philosophical Essays. Oxford University Press
John MacFarlane (2011). What Is Assertion? In Jessica Brown & Herman Cappelen (eds.), Assertion. OUP Oxford
P. Baumann (2006). Information, Closure, and Knowledge: On Jäger's Objection to Dretske. Erkenntnis 64 (3):403 - 408.
Added to index2011-04-24
Total downloads108 ( #21,770 of 1,725,310 )
Recent downloads (6 months)12 ( #56,064 of 1,725,310 )
How can I increase my downloads?