Intuitionism and Logical Tolerance

Abstract

Tradition is classical. Surely, nothing could be more pleonastic than that? The logical tradition, certainly, was squarely classical from Bolzano to Carnap, with, say, Frege, Moore, Russell and the Wittgenstein of the Tractatus as intermediaries. Propositions are construed as being in themselves true-or-false. Indeed, in this tradition, a declarative sentence S expresses a proposition (or is a proposition, depending on what version of the theory that is adopted) by being true-or-false. So the meaningfulness of a sentence consists in its being true-or-false. But S is true-orfalse, or so they say, only when S is true, or when S is false. On the classical account the presumption of bivalence is built into the very notion of meaningfulness: there is no difference between asserting that A is a proposition and asserting that A is true-or-false. The matter came to the fore in the foundations of set theory. In his first attempt at giving an application criterion for sets Cantor noted:

Eine Mannigfaltigkeit (ein Inbegriff, eine Menge) von Elementen, die irgendwelcher Begriffssphäre angehören, nenne ich wohldefiniert, wenn auf Grund ihrer Definition und infolge des logischen Prinzips vom ausgeschlossenen Dritten es als intern bestimmt angesehen werden muss, sowohl ob irgendein derselben Begriffssphäre angehöriges Objekt zu der gedachten Mannigfaltigkeit gehört oder nicht, wie auch, ob zwei zur Mannigfaltigkeit gehörige Objekte trotz formaler Unterschiede in der Art des Gegebenseins einander gleich sind oder nicht.¹