Concluding Remarks: A Plaidoyer for the Play Level

  • Shahid Rahman
  • Zoe McConaughey
  • Ansten Klev
  • Nicolas Clerbout
Part of the Logic, Argumentation & Reasoning book series (LARI, volume 18)


To some extent, the criticisms the dialogical approach to logic has been subject to have provided an opportunity for clarifying its basic tenets. Moreover, our responses to the objections have highlighted crucial distinctions constituting the originality and flexibility of this logical framework. We will therefore in this concluding chapter consider some recent objections raised against the dialogical framework in order to pinpoint some of its fundamental features, whose importance may not have appeared clearly enough through the main body of the book; namely, dialogue-definiteness, player-independence, and the dialogical conception of propositions. Showing how and why these features have been developed, and specifying their point and the level they operate on, will enable us to vindicate the play level and thus disarm the objections that have been raised against the dialogical framework for having neglected this crucial level.


  1. Clerbout, N. (2014a). First-order dialogical games and tableaux. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 43(4), 785–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Clerbout, N. (2014b). Étude sur quelques sémantiques dialogiques: Concepts fondamentaux et éléments de métathéorie. London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  3. Duthil Novaes, C. (2015). A dialogical, multiagent account of the normativity of logic. Dialectica, 69(4), 587–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dybjer, P. (1994, July). Inductive families. Formal Aspects of Computing, 6, 440–465.Google Scholar
  5. Herder, J. G. (1960 [1772]). Abhandulung über der Ursprung der Sprache. In E. Heintel (Ed.), Johann Gottfried Herder. Spachphilosophische Schriften (pp. 3–87). Hamburg, Germany: Felix Meiner.Google Scholar
  6. Hintikka, J. (1969). Models for modalities. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel.Google Scholar
  7. Hintikka, J. (1973). Logic, language-games and information: Kantian themes in the philosophy of logic. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  8. Hintikka, J. (1996). Ludwig Wittgenstein: Half truths and one-and-a-half truths. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hodges, W. (2001). Dialogue foundations: A sceptical look. Aristotelian Society Supplementary, 75(1), 17-32.Google Scholar
  10. Hodges, W. (2008). Logic and games. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.Google Scholar
  11. Ilievski, V. (2013). Language and knowledge in Plato’s cratylus and beyond it. Филозофија / Filozofija – A Journal of Philosophical Inquiry, 2(35).Google Scholar
  12. Kamlah, W., & Lorenzen, P. (1984). Logical propaedeutic: Pre-school of reasonable discourse. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
  13. Keiff, L. (2007). Le Pluralisme dialogique: Approches dynamiques de l’argumentation formelle. PhD thesis, Lille.Google Scholar
  14. Klev, A. (2017). The justification of identity elimination in Martin-Löf’s type theory. Topoi, 1–25.Google Scholar
  15. Lorenz, K. (1970). Elemente der Sprachkritik. Eine Alternative zum Dogmatismus und Skeptizismus in der Analytischen Philosophie. Frankfurt, Germany: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  16. Lorenz, K. (1981). Dialogical logic. In W. Marciszewsku (Ed.), Dictionary of logic as applied in the study of language (pp. 117–125). The Hague, The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lorenz, K. (2001). Basic objectives of dialogue logic in historical perspective. (S. Rahman, & H. Rückert, Eds.) 127(1–2), 225–263.Google Scholar
  18. Lorenz, K. (2009). Dialogischer Konstruktivismus. Berlin, Germany/New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  19. Lorenz, K. (2010a). Logic, language and method: On polarities in human experiences. Berlin, Germany/New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  20. Lorenz, K. (2010b). Philosophische Variationen: Gesammelte Aufsätze unter Einschluss gemeinsam mit Jürgen Mittelstrass geschriebener Arbeiten zu Platon und Leibniz. Berlin, Germany/New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  21. Lorenz, K., & Mittelstrass, J. (1967). On rational philosophy of language. The programme in Plato’s cratylus reconsidered. Mind, 76(301), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lorenzen, P. (1955). Einführung in die operative Logik und Mathematik. Berlin, Germany: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Luce, J. V. (1969). Plato on truth and falsity in names. The Classical Quaterly, 19(2), 222–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Marion, M. (2006). Hintikka on Wittgenstein: From language games to game semantics. In T. Aho & A.-V. Pietarinen (Eds.), Truth and games: Essays in honour of Gabriel Sandu (pp. 237–256). Helsinki, Finland: Acta Philosophica Fennica.Google Scholar
  25. Martin-Löf, P. (1971). Hauptsatz for the intuitionistic theory of iterated inductive definitions. In J. E. Fenstad (Ed.), Proceedings of the second Scandinavian logic symposium (pp. 179–216). Amsterdam: North-Holland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Martin-Löf, P. (2017a). Assertion and request. Lecture held at Oslo, 2017. Transcription by Ansten Klev.Google Scholar
  27. Martin-Löf, P. (2017b). Assertion and request. Lecture held at Stockholm. Transcription by Ansten Klev.Google Scholar
  28. Peregrin, J. (2014). Inferentialism. Why rules matter. New York: Plagrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Plato. (1997). Plato. Complete Works. (J. M. Cooper, Trans.) Indianapolis IN: Hackett.Google Scholar
  30. Rahman, S. (2012). Negation in the logic of first degree Entailment and Tonk. A dialogical study. In S. Rahman, G. Primiero, & M. Marion (Eds.), The realism-antirealism debate in the age of alternative logics (pp. 213–250). Springer Netherlands.Google Scholar
  31. Rahman, S. (2015). On hypothetical judgements and Leibniz’s notion of conditional right. In M. Armgardt, P. Canivez, & S. Chassagnard-Pinet (Eds.), G. W. Leibniz: Past and present interactions in legal reasoning (pp. 109–167). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rahman, S., & Clerbout, N. (2015). Constructive type theory and the dialogical turn : A new start for the Erlanger Konstruktivismus. In J. Mittelstrass & C. von Bülow (Eds.), Dialogische Logik (pp. 91–148). Münster, Germany: Mentis.Google Scholar
  33. Rahman, S., Clerbout, N., & Keiff, L. (2009). On dialogues and natural deduction. In G. Primiero & S. Rahman (Eds.), Acts of knowledge: History, philosophy and logic: Essays dedicated to Göran Sundholm (pp. 301–336). London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  34. Rahman, S., & Iqbal, M. (2018). Unfolding parallel reasoning in islamic jurisprudence (I). Epistemic and dialectical meaning within Abū Isḥāq al-Shīrāzī’s system of co-relational inferences of the occasioning factor. Cambridge Journal of Arabic Sciences and Philosophy, 28, 67–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rahman, S., & Keiff, L. (2005). On how to be a dialogician. In D. Vanderveken (Ed.), Logic, thought and action (pp. 359–408). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rahman, S., & Redmond, J. (2016). Armonía Dialógica: tonk, Teoría Constructiva de Tipos y Reglas para Jugadores Anónimos. (Dialogical Harmony: Tonk, Constructive Type Theory and Rules for Anonymous Players). Theoria. An International Journal for Theory, History and Foundations of Science, 31(1), 27–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Read, S. (2008). Harmony and modality. In C. Dégremont, L. Keiff, & H. Rückert (Eds.), Dialogues, logics and other strange things: Essays in honour of Shahid Rahman (pp. 285–303). London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  38. Read, S. (2010). General elimination harmony and the meaning of the logical constants. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 39, 557–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Smullyan, R. (1968). First-order logic. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Trafford, J. (2017). Meaning in dialogue. An Interactive approach to logic and reasoning. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  41. Tulenheimo, T. (2017). Intentional objects as world lines. In T. Tulenheimo (Ed.), Objects and modalities. A study in the semantics of modal logic (pp. 85–112). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shahid Rahman
    • 1
  • Zoe McConaughey
    • 2
    • 3
  • Ansten Klev
    • 4
  • Nicolas Clerbout
    • 5
  1. 1.Département de philosophie CNRS, UMR 8163 - STL - Savoirs Textes LangageUniv. LilleLilleFrance
  2. 2.Univ. Lille, CNRS, UMR 8163 - STL - Savoirs Textes LangageLilleFrance
  3. 3.Département de philosophie & Centre Interuniversitaire de Recherche en Science et TechnologieUniversité du Québec à MontréalMontréalCanada
  4. 4.Institute of PhilosophyCzech Academy of SciencesPragueCzechia
  5. 5.Universidad de ValparaísoValparaísoChile

Personalised recommendations