Graham Priest and Maureen Eckert - Deviant Logic
According to classical systems of logic, anything follows from a contradiction: the relation of logical consequence is explosive. But recent decades have seen growing interest in "deviant," paraconsistent systems that include non-explosive relations of logical consequence. Further, some deviant logicians, such as Priest, assert the existence of dialetheias (true contradictions). In this conversation, Eckert and Priest discuss whether and how deviant logic should be studied in the undergraduate classroom. Then (starting at 29:40) they look for dialetheias in the areas of emotions, legal norms, and contradictory fictions.
Пікірлер: 8
Thanks for sharing this philosophical heart-to-heart.
I love how Priest (around 27:03 - 27:07) says that the position that everything is true is "a bit too much." Understatement. I wonder if Priest was this understated with his graduate student, Paul Kabay, while Kabay was composing and defending a pro-trivialist dissertation.
Thank you !
31:54: Bit of an odd reaction by Maureen Eckert. 😅
I found the story and read it. (It just took a google search and it was free). Very cool.
Interesting. I think in the States we associate non-classical logic with postmodern, cosmopolitan, and continental attempts to circumvent the findings of science as limitations upon democratic will, rather than to incorporate the findings of science as corrections to our sense, perception, experience, reason and calculation. My working opinion is that the objective of any philosophical system cannot be not to define new means of analysis and deduction but must be to ensure that we speak truthfully and do no harm. The reason being that we can intuit a theory by any possible means - even accident, narrative analogy, or mystical allegory - but that we cannot offer it for consumption in the commons unless we are sure it will do no harm (given how much harm philosophers have done). The only way we can know we do no harm is to speak as truthfully as possible, and to speak as truthfully as possible requires we demonstrate internal consistency, external correspondence, and operational possibility (existence proof). If truth does harm, then that harm constitutes a correction not harm. But why philosophers, who along with priests, have shipped 'defective products' matched only by the great plague in their deadly consequences, it seems that we should ask philosophers to warrant their products do no harm just as we ask all other producers of material and intellectual goods, as producing no harm. - Cheers. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
@user-wd8wx5md5z
Жыл бұрын
No it is not the case at all. Analytical Philosophy and Logics are much more vigourous in the Anglo-Saxon world than in France (for instance). When postmodern philosophers refer to logics, it is mostly metaphorically anyways. (I mean they never use formal logics)