Incompatibility Semantics from Agreement

Philosophia 40 (1):99-119 (2012)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In this paper, I discuss the analysis of logic in the pragmatic approach recently proposed by Brandom. I consider different consequence relations, formalized by classical, intuitionistic and linear logic, and I will argue that the formal theory developed by Brandom, even if provides powerful foundational insights on the relationship between logic and discursive practices, cannot account for important reasoning patterns represented by non-monotonic or resource-sensitive inferences. Then, I will present an incompatibility semantics in the framework of linear logic which allow to refine Brandom’s concept of defeasible inference and to account for those non-monotonic and relevant inferences that are expressible in linear logic. Moreover, I will suggest an interpretation of discursive practices based on an abstract notion of agreement on what counts as a reason which is deeply connected with linear logic semantics

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-07-03

Downloads
360 (#52,920)

6 months
77 (#54,118)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Daniele Porello
Università degli Studi di Genova

Citations of this work

Why Must Incompatibility Be Symmetric?Ryan Simonelli - 2024 - Philosophical Quarterly 74 (2):658-682.
On the elusive notion of meta-agreement.Valeria Ottonelli & Daniele Porello - 2013 - Politics, Philosophy and Economics 12 (1):68-92.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Philosophical Investigations.Ludwig Wittgenstein - 1953 - New York, NY, USA: Wiley-Blackwell. Edited by G. E. M. Anscombe.
The logical basis of metaphysics.Michael Dummett - 1991 - Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
The Logical Basis of Metaphysics.Michael Dummett, Hilary Putnam & James Conant - 1994 - Philosophical Quarterly 44 (177):519-527.

View all 12 references / Add more references