Advertisement

Instability and Contraction

Méditations hégéliennes I
  • Elia ZardiniEmail author
Article
  • 22 Downloads

Abstract

In other works, I’ve proposed a solution to the semantic paradoxes which, at the technical level, basically relies on failure of contraction. I’ve also suggested that, at the philosophical level, contraction fails because of the instability of certain states of affairs. In this paper, I try to make good on that suggestion.

Keywords

Causation Contraction Implication Instability Logical consequence Revision theory Semantic paradoxes States of affairs 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgments

Earlier versions of the material in this paper have been presented in 2014 at the SILFS Workshop Current Trends in the Philosophy of Logic (University of Rome Three) and at the PERSP Metaphysics Seminar (University of Barcelona); in 2015, at the LanCog Seminar (University of Lisbon) and at the Veritas Pluralism, Language and Logic Workshop (Yonsei University); in 2016, at the BA Logic Group WIP Seminar (University of Buenos Aires). I’d like to thank all these audiences for very stimulating comments and discussions. Special thanks go to Eduardo Barrio, Aurélien Darbellay, John Horden, Hannes Leitgeb, Dan López de Sa, José Martínez, Julien Murzi, Francesco Paoli, Nikolaj Pedersen, Lucas Rosenblatt, Sven Rosenkranz, Ricardo Santos, Célia Teixeira, Pilar Terrés, Zach Weber, Jeremy Wyatt, David Yates and two anonymous referees. Special special thanks go to David Ripley, whose open-minded and perceptive feedback throughout the years and the continents has helped me in developing the view I present in the paper. I’m also grateful to the guest editors Riccardo Bruni and Shawn Standefer for inviting me to contribute to this special issue and for their extraordinary support and patience throughout the process, which very fittingly involved a few revisions on my part (I’m also indebted to them for this pun). Thanks guys. At different stages, this study has been funded by the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Intraeuropean Research Fellowship 301493 A Noncontractive Theory of Naive Semantic Properties: Logical Developments and Metaphysical Foundations and by the FCT Research Fellowship IF/01202/2013 Tolerance and Instability: The Substructure of Cognitions, Transitions and Collections. Additionally, the study has been funded by the Russian Academic Excellence Project 5-100. I’ve also benefited from support from the Project CONSOLIDER-INGENIO 2010 CSD2009-00056 of the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation Philosophy of Perspectival Thoughts and Facts, from the Project FFI2012-35026 of the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competition The Makings of Truth: Nature, Extent, and Applications of Truthmaking, from the Project FFI2015-70707-P of the Spanish Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness Localism and Globalism in Logic and Semantics and from the FCT Project PTDC/FER-FIL/28442/2017 Companion to Analytic Philosophy 2.

References

  1. 1.
    Beall, J.C. (2009). Spandrels of Truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Belnap, N. (1982). Gupta’s rule of revision theory of truth. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 11, 103–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berra, Y. (1998). The Yogi Book. New York: Workman Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bolzano, B. (1837). Wissenschaftslehre. Vol. II. Sulzbach: Seidel.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bolzano, B. (1851). Paradoxien des Unendlichen. Leipzig: Reclam.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brady, R. (2006). Universal Logic. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Correia, F., & Schnieder, B. (Eds.). (2012). Metaphysical Grounding: Understanding the Structure of Reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dedekind, R. (1872). Stetigkeit und irrationale Zahlen. Braunschweig: Vieweg.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dedekind, R. (1888). Was sind und was sollen die Zahlen? Braunschweig: Vieweg.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Field, H. (1994). Deflationist views of meaning and content. Mind, 103, 249–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Field, H. (2008). Saving Truth from Paradox. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    French, R. (2016). Structural reflexivity and the paradoxes of self-reference. Ergo, 3, 113–131.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gentzen, G. (1934). Untersuchungen über das logische Schließen I. Mathematische Zeitschrift, 39, 176–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Girard, J.-Y. (1995). Linear logic: Its syntax and semantics. In Girard, J.-Y., Lafont, Y., Regnier, L. (Eds.) Advances in Linear Logic (pp. 1–42). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gupta, A. (1982). Truth and paradox. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 11, 1–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gupta, A., & Belnap, N. (1993). The Revision Theory of Truth. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Heck, R. (2012). A liar paradox. Thought, 1, 36–40.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hegel, G. (1813). Wissenschaft der Logik. Vol. I, Book 2. Nuremberg: Schrag.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Herzberger, H. (1970). Paradoxes of grounding in semantics. The Journal of Philosophy, 67, 145–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Herzberger, H. (1982). Naive semantics and the liar paradox. The Journal of Philosophy, 79, 479–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Herzberger, H. (1982). Notes on naive semantics. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 11, 61–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Horwich, P. (1998). Truth. 2nd edn. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kripke, S. (1975). Outline of a theory of truth. The Journal of Philosophy, 72, 690–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    López de Sa, D., & Zardini, E. (2007). Truthmakers, knowledge and paradox. Analysis, 67, 242–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    López de Sa, D., & Zardini, E. (2011). No-no. Paradox and consistency. Analysis, 71, 472–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Łukasiewicz, J. (1906). Analiza i konstrukcja pojȩcia przyczyny. Przegla̧d filozoficzny, 9, 105–179.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mares, E., & Paoli, F. (2014). Logical consequence and the paradoxes. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 43, 439–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    McGee, V. (1991). Truth, Vagueness, and Paradox. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Paoli, F. (2002). Substructural Logics: A Primer. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Priest, G. (2006). In Contradiction. 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Reinach, A. (1911). Zur Theorie des negativen Urteils. In Pfänder, A. (Ed.) Münchener Philosophische Abhandlungen. Theodor Lipps zu seinem sechzigsten Geburtstag gewidmet von früheren Schülern (pp. 196–254). Leipzig: Barth.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Schmaltz, T. (Ed.). (2014). Efficient Causation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Shapiro, L. (2015). Naive structure, contraction and paradox. Topoi, 34, 75–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Smith, B. (1989). Logic and the Sachverhalt. The Monist, 72, 52–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Standefer, S. (2016). Contraction and revision. The Australasian Journal of Logic, 13, 58–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    von Neumann, J. (1929). Über eine Widerspruchfreiheitsfrage in der axiomatischen Mengenlehre. Journal für die reine und angewandte Mathematik, 160, 227–241.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Weber, Z. (2014). Naive validity. The Philosophical Quarterly, 64, 99–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wittgenstein, L. (1921). Logisch-philosophische Abhandlung. Annalen der Naturphilosophie, 14, 185–262.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Yablo, S. (1982). Grounding, dependence, and paradox. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 11, 117–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Yaqūb, A. (1993). The Liar Speaks the Truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Zardini, E. (2008). Truth and what is said. Philosophical Perspectives, 22, 545–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Zardini, E. (2011). Truth without contra(di)ction. The Review of Symbolic Logic, 4, 498–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Zardini, E. (2012). Truth preservation in context and in its place. In Dutilh-Novaes, C., & Hjortland, O. (Eds.) Insolubles and Consequences (pp. 249–271). London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Zardini, E. (2013). It is not the case that [P and ‘It is not the case that P’ is true] nor is it the case that [P and ‘P’ is not true]. Thought, 1, 309–319.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Zardini, E. (2013). Naive modus ponens. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 42, 575–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Zardini, E. (2014). Naive truth and naive logical properties. The Review of Symbolic Logic, 7, 351–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Zardini, E. (2014). És la veritat una mentida? Perspectives sobre les paradoxes semàntiques. Anuari de la Societat Catalana de Filosofia, 25, 181–202.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Zardini, E. (2015). Getting one for two, or the contractors’ bad deal. Towards a unified solution to the semantic paradoxes. In Achourioti, T., Fujimoto, K., Galinon, H., Martínez, J. (Eds.) Unifying the Philosophy of Truth (pp. 461–493). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Zardini, E. (2015). The opacity of truth. Topoi, 34, 37–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Zardini, E. (2015). ∀ and ω. In Torza, A. (Ed.) Quantifiers, Quantifiers, and Quantifiers: Themes in Logic, Metaphysics, and Language (pp. 489–526). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Zardini, E. (2017). Further reflections on sentences saying of themselves strange things. Logic and Logical Philosophy, 26, 563–581.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Zardini, E. (2018). Closed without boundaries. Synthese. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Zardini, E. (2018). Generalised Tarski’s thesis hits substructure. In Kellen, N., Pedersen, N., Wyatt, J. (Eds.) Pluralisms in Truth and Logic. Forthcoming. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.LanCog, Language, Mind and Cognition Research Group, Philosophy CentreUniversity of LisbonLisbonPortugal
  2. 2.International Laboratory for Logic, Linguistics and Formal Philosophy, School of PhilosophyNational Research University Higher School of EconomicsMoscowRussian Federation

Personalised recommendations