Advertisement

The Impact of N.A. Vasiliev’s Imaginary Logic on Epistemic and Relevance Logic

Chapter
Part of the Synthese Library book series (SYLI, volume 387)

Abstract

In his Imaginary Logic N.A. Vasiliev attempted to pave the way for a new logic, which considerably deviates from the traditional classical logic. Vasiliev initiates a free view on possible logical systems, a view which opens important perspectives for the development of different non-classical logics. Not convincing are, however, the reasons and justifications given by Vasiliev for the deviation of his imaginary logic from classical logic and his description of the relations between the new logic and the received Aristotelian logic. In the first part of my paper I want to concentrate upon such an analysis of Vasiliev’s views. Then in the second part I want to discuss how Vasiliev’s approaches can be made fertile, if one treats them in an epistemic context and replaces their ontological dimension by epistemic foundations. In this context special attention is devoted to the differentiation between internal and external sentential connectives and the impact of this differentiation on the development of epistemic founded different logical treatments of assent.

References

  1. Anderson, A. R., & Belnap, N. D. Jr. (1975). Entailment (Vol. 1). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, A. R., Belnap, N. D. Jr., & Dunn, J. M. (1992). Entailment (Vol. 2). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Dunn, J. M. (1972). A modification of parry’s analytic implication. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 13, 195–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Parry, W. T. (1933). Ein Axiomensystem für eine neue Art von Implikation (analytische Implikation). Ergebnisse eines Mathematischen Kolloquiums 4, 5–6. Reprinted in K. Berka/L. Kreiser (Eds.) Logik-Texte (pp. 163–164, 3rd ed.). Berlin: Akademie-Verlag (1983).Google Scholar
  5. Parry, W. T. (1989). Analytic implication. Its history, justification and varieties. In J. Norman & R. Sylvan (Eds.), Directions in relevant logic (pp. 101–118). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Sinowjew, A. A. (1970). Komplexe Logik. Berlin: Verlag der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
  7. Sinowjew, A., & Wessel, H. (1975). Logische Sprachregeln. Eine Einführung in die Logik. Berlin: Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschafte.Google Scholar
  8. Vasiljev, N. A. (1912). Imaginary (non-Aristotelian) Logic. In Zhurnal m–va nar. prosveshcheniya Nov. ser. (Ch. S. 1912, Ch. 40, pp. 207–246). Reprinted in: Васильев, Н. А. (1989), Воображаемая логика. Избранные труды, Москва, 53–94.Google Scholar
  9. Zinov’ev, A. A. (1973). Foundations of the logical theory of scientific knowledge (Complex Logic) (Boston studies in the philosophy and history of science, Vol. IX). Berlin/New York: Springer. Revised and Enlarged English Edition with an Appendix 2013.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for PhilosophyUniversity of BremenBremenGermany

Personalised recommendations