Why FDE might be too strong for Beall

Asian Journal of Philosophy 3 (1):1-16 (2024)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In his “The simple argument for subclassical logic,” Jc Beall advances an argument that led him to take FDE as the one true logic (the latter point is explicitly made clear in his “FDE as the One True Logic”). The aim of this article is to point out that if we follow Beall’s line of reasoning for endorsing FDE, there are at least two additional reasons to consider that FDE is too strong for Beall’s purposes. In fact, we claim that Beall should consider another weaker subclassical logic as the logic adequate for his project. To this end, we first briefly present Beall’s argument for FDE. Then, we discuss two specific topics that seem to motivate us to weaken FDE. We then introduce a subsystem that will enjoy all the benefits of Beall’s suggestion.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 99,322

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2024-01-27

Downloads
20 (#919,299)

6 months
5 (#923,890)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author Profiles

Jonas R. B. Arenhart
Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Angellic Content.Kit Fine - 2016 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 45 (2):199-226.
Negation on the Australian Plan.Francesco Berto & Greg Restall - 2019 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 48 (6):1119-1144.
Doubt Truth to Be a Liar.Graham Priest - 2007 - Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 13 (4):541-544.
A Modality Called ‘Negation’.Francesco Berto - 2015 - Mind 124 (495):761-793.

View all 23 references / Add more references