Skip to main content

A Phenomenological Analysis of the Distinction Between Structural Rules and Particle Rules in Dialogical Logic

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Constructive Semantics

Part of the book series: Logic, Epistemology, and the Unity of Science ((LEUS,volume 44))

Abstract

As it is well-known, Husserl distinguishes between three levels of formal logic: pure morphology, consequence-logic and truth-logic. The distinction between the second level, which concerns the peculiarities of the derivation of propositions from each other, and the third level, which concerns the deduction or any kind of proof as a whole in which the truth of the premises and the consequences are at work, is very important to understand Husserl’s conception of pure logic. Such a distinction remains unnoticed for the truth-functional approaches toward logic, for they define the meaning of logical connectives on the basis of truth and falsity. Therefore, they cannot recognize the peculiarities of the derivation or consequence-relation as such. My aim in this paper is to show that the dialogical distinction between particle rules and structural rules, and also the distinction between play-level and strategy-level, may be considered as representing the distinction between the second and the third levels of logic; and thus the dialogical semantics provides us with a device to explore the phenomenological idea in a precise way. On the other hand, certain themes of the overall phenomenological analysis of logic help to show the philosophical significance of those dialogical features.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    A helpful explanation of these distinctions has been given by Bachelard in (1968, pp. 11–24). See also the section “Husserl’s Idea of Pure Logic” in (Shafiei 2018).

  2. 2.

    Der ideale Gegenstand, der ideale schlichte Gegenstand (ich meine nicht in kategorialer Synthesis gefasst) und ebenso jeder kategoriale Gegenstand, der auf Ideales geht, ist ein in der Ideation, in der kategorialen Anschauung abgeschlossen, fest, fertig Gegebenes oder zu Gebendes (Husserl 1986, p. 210).

  3. 3.

    For a good explanation of this point see Rückert (2001).

  4. 4.

    The following rules are standard within dialogical studies. However in the current manner of presentation, I particularly benefited from the representations given in Rebuschi (2009) and Rahman and Keiff (2005).

  5. 5.

    In order to handle this rule it should be determined for each party how many times it may repeat the same attack (repetition of defense is redundant in any case and it is not allowed). This is called repetition ranks. Clerbout (Clerbout 2014) has shown that, in propositional logic, it would be sufficient to assign the rank n + 1 to the proponent while the rank n is assigned to the opponent, namely there is a winning strategy for a formula if and only if there is a winning-strategy for that formula while the proponent is allowed to attack once more than the opponent. Therefore, I do not specify the ranks in the following dialogues, and one can suppose that it is 1 for O and 2 for P.

  6. 6.

    See for example (Husserl 1969, p. 137).

References

  • Bachelard, S. (1968). A study of Husserl’s formal and transcendental logic (L. E. Embree, Trans.). Evanston: Northwestern University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clerbout, N. (2014). Finiteness of plays and the dialogical problem of decidability. IfCoLog Journal of Logics and their Applications, 1(1), 115–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hertz, P. (1922). Über Axiomensysteme für beliebige Satzsysteme. I. Teil. Sätze ersten Grades. Mathematische Annalen, 87, 246–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Husserl, E. (1969). Formal and transcendental logic (D. Cairns, Trans.). Netherlands: Martin Nijhoff, The Hague.

    Google Scholar 

  • Husserl, E. (1986). Vorlesungen über Bedeutungslehre Sommersemester 1908, volume XXVI of Husserliana. Netherlands: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rahman, S., & Keiff, L. (2005). On how to be a dialogician. In D. Vanderveken (Ed.), Logic, thought and action (pp. 359–408). Netherlands: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rahman, S., McConaughey, Z., Klev, A., & Clerbout, N. (2018). Immanent reasoning or equality in action. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rückert, H. (2001). Why dialogical logic? In H. Wansing (Ed.), Essays on non-classical logic (pp. 165–185). River Edge: World Scientific.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rebuschi, M. (2009). Implicit versus explicit knowledge in dialogical logic. In O. Majer, A. V. Pietarinen, & T. Tulenheimo (Eds.), Games: Unifying logic, language, and philosophy (pp. 229–246). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Shafiei, M. (2018). Meaning and intentionality: A dialogical approach. London: College Publications.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper is a revised version of the talk I gave in the workshop Constructive Semantics. I warmly thank the organizer, Dr. Christina Weiss, for the invitation and also the participants for the valuable comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohammad Shafiei .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Shafiei, M. (2019). A Phenomenological Analysis of the Distinction Between Structural Rules and Particle Rules in Dialogical Logic. In: Weiss, C. (eds) Constructive Semantics. Logic, Epistemology, and the Unity of Science, vol 44. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-21313-8_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics