David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophy Research Archives 8:1-19 (1982)
The objective of the article is twofold: to advance an interpretation of Descartes’ position on the problem of explaining how deduction from universal propositions to their particular instances can be both legitimate and useful for discovery of truth; and to argue that his position is a valuable contribution to the philosophy of logic. In Descartes’ view. the problem in question is that syllogistic deductions from universal propositions to their particular instances is circular and hence useless as a means for discovery of truth. Descartes’ solution to the problem is to claim that noncircular, useful deduction from the universal to the particular must first be based on deduction from particular truths to particular truths. I examine previous interpretations of Cartesian deduction given by E.M. Curley, Bernard Williams, and Andre Gombay. None of these interpretations fit with all of Descartes’ criticisms of syllogistic deduction and his characterization of useful and legitimate deduction (such as the cogito). I argue that the key to a correct interpretation is Descartes’ claim that implicit knowledge of universal propositions plays a crucial role in useful and legitimate deduction, and I explain how we may cash in his talk of implicit knowledge through Ryle’s notion of knowing how. Having set out a fuller explication of Descartes’ theory of deduction, I argue that it is consistent with the way people actually reason, that it helps us with problems in the philosophy of logic that have been raised by John Stuart Mill, Hilary Putnam, and Michael Dummett
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|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
Peter Slezak (1983). Descartes's Diagonal Deduction. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 34 (March):13-36.
Corey W. Dyck (2011). Kant's Transcendental Deduction and the Ghosts of Descartes and Hume. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 19 (3):473-496.
Husain Sarkar (2003). Descartes' Cogito: Saved From the Great Shipwreck. Cambridge University Press.
Michael Barker (2001). The Proof Structure of Kant's A-Deduction. Kant-Studien 92 (3):259-282.
A. B. Dickerson (2003). Kant on Representation and Objectivity. Cambridge University Press.
John Corcoran (2009). Aristotle's Demonstrative Logic. History and Philosophy of Logic 30 (1):1-20.
Dennis Schulting (2012). Kant's Deduction and Apperception. Palgrave Macmillan.
Stefanie Grüne (2011). Is There a Gap in Kant's B Deduction? International Journal of Philosophical Studies 19 (3):465 - 490.
Susan Haack (1976). The Justification of Deduction. Mind 85 (337):112-119.
Francis Jeffry Pelletier (1999). A Brief History of Natural Deduction. History and Philosophy of Logic 20 (1):1-31.
Janusz Czelakowski (1986). Local Deductions Theorems. Studia Logica 45 (4):377 - 391.
Anil Gomes (2010). Is Kant's Transcendental Deduction of the Categories Fit for Purpose? Kantian Review 15 (2):118-137.
Yannis Delmas-Rigoutsos (1997). A Double Deduction System for Quantum Logic Based on Natural Deduction. Journal of Philosophical Logic 26 (1):57-67.
Julie R. Klein (2002). Memory and the Extension of Thinking in Descartes's Regulae. International Philosophical Quarterly 42 (1):23-40.
Added to index2011-12-02
Total downloads11 ( #321,239 of 1,911,306 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #178,269 of 1,911,306 )
How can I increase my downloads?