Topics in Philosophical Logic

DSpace/Manakin Repository

Topics in Philosophical Logic

Citable link to this page

 

 
Title: Topics in Philosophical Logic
Author: Litland, Jon
Citation: Litland, Jon. 2012. Topics in Philosophical Logic. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University.
Full Text & Related Files:
Abstract: In “Proof-Theoretic Justification of Logic”, building on work by Dummett and Prawitz, I show how to construct use-based meaning-theories for the logical constants. The assertability-conditional meaning-theory takes the meaning of the logical constants to be given by their introduction rules; the consequence-conditional meaning-theory takes the meaning of the logical constants to be given by their elimination rules. I then consider the question: given a set of introduction (elimination) rules \(\mathcal{R}\), what are the strongest elimination (introduction) rules that are validated by an assertability (consequence) conditional meaning-theory based on \(\mathcal{R}\)? I prove that the intuitionistic introduction (elimination) rules are the strongest rules that are validated by the intuitionistic elimination (introduction) rules. I then prove that intuitionistic logic is the strongest logic that can be given either an assertability-conditional or consequence-conditional meaning-theory. In “Grounding Grounding” I discuss the notion of grounding. My discussion revolves around the problem of iterated grounding-claims. Suppose that \(\Delta\) grounds \(\phi\); what grounds that \(\Delta\) grounds that \(\phi\)? I argue that unless we can get a satisfactory answer to this question the notion of grounding will be useless. I discuss and reject some proposed accounts of iterated grounding claims. I then develop a new way of expressing grounding, propose an account of iterated grounding-claims and show how we can develop logics for grounding. In “Is the Vagueness Argument Valid?” I argue that the Vagueness Argument in favor of unrestricted composition isn’t valid. However, if the premisses of the argument are true and the conclusion false, mereological facts fail to supervene on non-mereological facts. I argue that this failure of supervenience is an artifact of the interplay between the necessity and determinacy operators and that it does not mean that mereological facts fail to depend on non-mereological facts. I sketch a deflationary view of ontology to establish this.
Terms of Use: This article is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of-use#LAA
Citable link to this page: http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:9527318
Downloads of this work:

Show full Dublin Core record

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

 
 

Search DASH


Advanced Search
 
 

Submitters