David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Logic Journal of the Igpl 13 (2):231-260 (2005)
This is an examination of the dialectical structure of deep disagreements about matters not open to empirical check. A dramatic case in point is the Law of Non-Contradiction . Dialetheists are notoriously of the view that, in some few cases, LNC has a true negation. The traditional position on LNC is that it is non-negotiable. The standard reason for thinking it non-negotiable is, being a first principle, there is nothing to negotiate. One of my purposes is to show that the first-principle defence of LNC is inadequate. A second purpose is to argue that it flows from this inadequacy that LNC stands or falls on economic considerations, much in the spirit of Quine's pragmatism about logic generally. This is a tactical victory for dialetheists. It gives them room to make the case against LNC on cost-benefit grounds. As things presently stand, no such case can be considered decisive. But, given that costs and benefits shift with changing circumstances, it is possible that a winning case for the dialetheist may present itself in the future. Notwithstanding the rivalry between consistentists and dialetheists, they share a common opponent. This is trivialism, the doctrine that everything whatever is true. It is an ironic alliance, in as much as the dialetheist's case against the consistentist can be adapted to a defence of trivialism. How damaging this turns out to be depends on the adequacy of the reasons for the dialetheist's rejection of trivialism. My further purpose is to show that the damage is slighter than dialetheists commonly believe
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(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
John Woods (2012). Semantic Penumbra: Concept Similarity in Logic. [REVIEW] Topoi 31 (1):121-134.
Similar books and articles
Zhao Zongguan (1980). Discussion of the Problem of Logical Contradiction and Dialectical Contradiction. Contemporary Chinese Thought 11 (3):36-57.
Graham Priest (1982). To Be and Not to Be: Dialectical Tense Logic. Studia Logica 41 (2-3):249 - 268.
Garry Potter (2010). Power and Knowledge: A Dialectical Contradiction. Journal of Critical Realism 9 (2):133-154.
Burkhard Tuschling (1988). Consistency and Contradiction. Philosophy and Theology 2 (4):327-361.
Wang Fang-Hsiang (1970). Dialectical Logic has Broken the Narrow Confines of Formal Logic (A Discussion with Comrade Chu-Ko Yin-T'ung on "Can the Law of Contradiction Be Contravened?"). Contemporary Chinese Thought 1 (2):203-212.
I. S. Narskii (1968). On The Problem of Contradiction in Dialectical Logic. Russian Studies in Philosophy 6 (4):3-10.
Greg Restall (2006). Laws of Non-Contradiction, Laws of the Excluded Middle, and Logics. In Graham Priest, J. C. Beall & Bradley Armour-Garb (eds.), The Law of Non-Contradiction: New Philosophical Essays. Clarendon Press
Venanzio Raspa (1999). Łukasiewicz on the Principle of Contradiction. Journal of Philosophical Research 24:57-112.
Louise Cummings (2001). Self-Refutations and Much More: The Dialectical Thinking of Hilary Putnam. Theoria 16 (2):237-268.
Achille C. Varzi (2004). Conjunction and Contradiction. In Graham Priest, J. C. Beall & Bradley Armour-Garb (eds.), The Law of Non-Contradiction: New Philosophical Essays. Clarendon Press 93–110.
Timothy Williamson (2006). Stalnaker on the Interaction of Modality with Quantification and Identity. In Judith Jarvis Thomson & Alex Byrne (eds.), Content and Modality: Themes From the Philosophy of Robert Stalnaker. Oxford University Press
Tuomas E. Tahko (2009). The Law of Non-Contradiction as a Metaphysical Principle. Australasian Journal of Logic 7:32-47.
Zedong Mao (1953). On Contradiction. New York, International Publishers.
Rujdui (1982). A Dialectical Contradiction is Not "A and Not-A". Contemporary Chinese Thought 13 (4):3-8.
Added to index2010-12-22
Total downloads30 ( #103,865 of 1,725,404 )
Recent downloads (6 months)6 ( #110,403 of 1,725,404 )
How can I increase my downloads?