Paraconsistency in Non-Fregean Framework

Studia Logica:1-39 (forthcoming)
  Copy   BIBTEX


A non-Fregean framework aims to provide a formal tool for reasoning about semantic denotations of sentences and their interactions. Extending a logic to its non-Fregean version involves introducing a new connective $$\equiv $$ ≡ that allows to separate denotations of sentences from their logical values. Intuitively, $$\equiv $$ ≡ combines two sentences $$\varphi $$ φ and $$\psi $$ ψ into a true one whenever $$\varphi $$ φ and $$\psi $$ ψ have the same semantic correlates, describe the same situations, or have the same content or meaning. The paper aims to compare non-Fregean paraconsistent Grzegorczyk’s logics (Logic of Descriptions $$\textsf{LD}$$ LD, Logic of Descriptions with Suszko’s Axioms $$\textsf{LDS}$$ LDS, Logic of Equimeaning $$\textsf{LDE}$$ LDE ) with non-Fregean versions of certain well-known paraconsistent logics (Jaśkowski’s Discussive Logic $$\textsf{D}_2$$ D 2, Logic of Paradox $$\textsf{LP}$$ LP, Logics of Formal Inconsistency $$\textsf{LFI}{1}$$ LFI 1 and $$\textsf{LFI}{2}$$ LFI 2 ). We prove that Grzegorczyk’s logics are either weaker than or incomparable to non-Fregean extensions of $$\textsf{LP}$$ LP, $$\textsf{LFI}{1}$$ LFI 1, $$\textsf{LFI}{2}$$ LFI 2. Furthermore, we show that non-Fregean extensions of $$\textsf{LP}$$ LP, $$\textsf{LFI}{1}$$ LFI 1, $$\textsf{LFI}{2}$$ LFI 2, and $$\textsf{D}_2$$ D 2 are more expressive than their original counterparts. Our results highlight that the non-Fregean connective $$\equiv $$ ≡ can serve as a tool for expressing various properties of the ontology underlying the logics under consideration.



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,953

External links

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

Through your library

Similar books and articles

From Formal Theory of Knowledge to Non-Fregean Logic.Mieczysław Omyła - 2018 - In Urszula Wybraniec-Skardowska & Ángel Garrido (eds.), The Lvov-Warsaw School. Past and Present. Cham, Switzerland: Springer- Birkhauser,. pp. 753-762.
Rasiowa-Sikorski proof system for the non-Fregean sentential logic SCI.Joanna Golinska-Pilarek - 2007 - Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 17 (4):509–517.
Number of Extensions of Non-Fregean Logics.Joanna Golińska-Pilarek & Taneli Huuskonen - 2005 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 34 (2):193-206.
Non-Fregean Propositional Logic with Quantifiers.Joanna Golińska-Pilarek & Taneli Huuskonen - 2016 - Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 57 (2):249-279.
Perspectival Understanding.Herman Parret - 1981 - In Herman Parret & Jacques Bouveresse (eds.), Meaning and understanding. New York: W. de Gruyter. pp. 249-279.
Fregean logics.J. Czelakowski & D. Pigozzi - 2004 - Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 127 (1-3):17-76.
Quantifying In from a Fregean Perspective.Seth Yalcin - 2015 - Philosophical Review 124 (2):207-253.
What Motivates Fregean Anti-Individualism?Johan Peter Gersel - 2017 - Grazer Philosophische Studien 94 (1-2):153-172.


Added to PP

1 (#1,911,568)

6 months
1 (#1,514,069)

Historical graph of downloads

Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Joanna Golinska-Pilarek
University of Warsaw

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

The logic of paradox.Graham Priest - 1979 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 8 (1):219 - 241.
A Calculus for Antinomies.F. G. Asenjo - 1966 - Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 16 (1):103-105.
Investigations into the sentential calculus with identity.Roman Suszko & Stephen L. Bloom - 1972 - Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 13 (3):289-308.
Identity connective and modality.Roman Suszko - 1971 - Studia Logica 27 (1):7-39.

View all 24 references / Add more references