Skip to main content
Log in

ONE TRUE LOGIC?

  • Published:
Journal of Philosophical Logic Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This is a paper about the constituents of arguments. It argues that several different kinds of truth-bearer may be taken to compose arguments, but that none of the obvious candidates—sentences, propositions, sentence/truth-value pairs etc.—make sense of logic as it is actually practiced. The paper goes on to argue that by answering the question in different ways, we can generate different logics, thus ensuring a kind of logical pluralism that is different from that of J. C. Beall and Greg Restall.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Beall, J. and Restall, G.: 2000, Logical pluralism, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 78, 475–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beall, J. and Restall, G.: 2006, Logical Pluralism, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blanchette, P.: The Frege–Hilbert Controversy, in E.N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Winter, 2007.

  • Cartwright, R.: 1962: Propositions, in R. Butler (ed.), Analytical Philosophy, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 81–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitting, M. and Mendelsohn, R.: 2001, Modal Predicate Logic. Springer.

  • Frege, G.: 1956, The Thought, Mind 65(259), 289–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldfarb, W.: 2003, Deductive Logic, Hackett, Indianapolis, IN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, D.: 1985/1978, Dthat, in A. P. Martinich (ed.), The Philosophy of Language, 4th edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 288–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, D.: 1989a, Afterthoughts, in J. Almog, J. Perry, and H. Wettstein (eds.), Themes from Kaplan, Oxford University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, D.: 1989b, Demonstratives: An essay on the semantics, logic, metaphysics, and epistemology of demonstratives, in J. Almog, J. Perry, and H. Wettstein (eds.), Themes from Kaplan, Oxford University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, J. C.: Summer 2005, Structured propositions, in E. N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quine, W.: 1950, Methods of Logic, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quine, W. V. O.: 1953, Reference and Modality, chapter 8, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quine, W. V. O.: 1953/1966, Three Grades of Modal Involvement, chapter 15, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soames, S.: 1999, Understanding Truth, Oxford University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tarski, A.: 1983, Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics, Hackett, Indianapolis.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gillian Russell.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Russell, G. ONE TRUE LOGIC?. J Philos Logic 37, 593–611 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-008-9082-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-008-9082-6

Key words

Navigation