Published 2021-11-01
Keywords
- Lógicas no reflexivas,
- Lógicas no transitivas,
- Consecuencia de lÃmites
- Nonreflexive Logics,
- Nontransitive Logics,
- Bounds Consequence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Abstract
The present note investigates the connection between nonreflexive and nontransitive logics from a bounds-theoretic perspective. What will emerge is one way in which, if we focus on the ways in which strict and tolerant acts constrain one another, nonreflexive and nontransitive notions of consequence can be seen as simply reflecting different aspects of the same underlying reality.
References
- Brandom, R. (2000). Articulating reasons: An introduction to inferentialism. Harvard University Press.
- French, R. (2016). Structural reflexivity and the paradoxes of self-reference. Ergo, 3(5), 113-131.
- Restall, G. (2005). Multiple conclusions. In P. Hájek, L. Valdes-Villanueva & D. Westerståhl (Eds.), Logic, methodology and philosophy of science: Proceedings of the Twelfth International Congress (pp. 189-205). College Publications.
- Ripley, D. (2012). Conservatively extending classical logic with transparent truth. Review of Symbolic Logic, 5(2), 354-378.
- Ripley, D. (2013a). Paradoxes and failures of cut. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 91(1), 139-164.
- Ripley, D. (2013b). Revising up: Strengthening classical logic in the face of paradox. Philosophers Imprint, 13(5), 1-13.
- Ripley, D. (2015). Anything goes. Topoi, 34, 25-36.
- Ripley, D. (2017). Bilateralism, coherence, warrant. In F. Moltmann & M. Textor (Eds.), Act-based conceptions of propositional content (pp. 307-324). Oxford University Press.
- Ripley, D. (2018). Uncut. Manuscript.