v. 41 n. 2 (2021)
Seção temática

Tolerance and the Bounds

PDF (English)
  • Rohan French
Rohan French
Department of Philosophy, University of California, Davis, Davis, California, United States
DOI: https://doi.org/10.36446/af.2021.460

Publicado 2021-11-01

Creative Commons License

Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Resumo

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.

PDF (English)

Referências

  1. Brandom, R. (2000). Articulating reasons: An introduction to inferentialism. Harvard University Press.
  2. French, R. (2016). Structural reflexivity and the paradoxes of self-reference. Ergo, 3(5), 113-131.
  3. 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.
  4. Ripley, D. (2012). Conservatively extending classical logic with transparent truth. Review of Symbolic Logic, 5(2), 354-378.
  5. Ripley, D. (2013a). Paradoxes and failures of cut. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 91(1), 139-164.
  6. Ripley, D. (2013b). Revising up: Strengthening classical logic in the face of paradox. Philosophers Imprint, 13(5), 1-13.
  7. Ripley, D. (2015). Anything goes. Topoi, 34, 25-36.
  8. Ripley, D. (2017). Bilateralism, coherence, warrant. In F. Moltmann & M. Textor (Eds.), Act-based conceptions of propositional content (pp. 307-324). Oxford University Press.
  9. Ripley, D. (2018). Uncut. Manuscript.