What is Logic About?

Abstract

I am going to tell you a story here. But a few things must be clear from the beginning. First, this is an imaginary story. It doesn’t even try to describe things that happened; if read that way, it would be grossly inaccurate. One might read it as describing what would have happened if indeed it were the case that “what is actual is rational”;¹ or as an account of how someone, starting with certain basic intuitions about logic, could have come up with the kind of picture we have today of this discipline and with some of the problems we find ourselves facing. Second, it is a biased story. You may not share some of my basic intuitions about logic, and if you don’t much of what I say won’t make sense to you. But I am not worried about this outcome: for me, it is an indication that my story is more theory than chronicle. And undoubtedly there might be different theories, but in this field I often have the impression that it is not even clear what the theories are. My story tries to make one of them clearer; if it provoked you to write your own different story, it would have achieved one of its main purposes. Last, but not least, it is not just a story. It is more of an apologue, and I won’t even try to hide its moral behind a figurative language. I will give it to you flat: I will point out that there are in this area of inquiry many confusions to be gotten rid of, many pseudoproblems to be avoided, many false subtleties to be explained away. Of course, not all the verses of my homily will be new with me, and occasionally I will make an effort to refer them back to their Founding Fathers, but the important thing is: it is time to put some of these pieces together and suggest an overall picture that others can confront and criticize (I hope) in a constructive way.