Javascript must be enabled to continue!
Rewriting the History of Connexive Logic
View through CrossRef
AbstractThe “official” history of connexive logic was written in 2012 by Storrs McCall who argued that connexive logic was founded by ancient logicians like Aristotle, Chrysippus, and Boethius; that it was further developed by medieval logicians like Abelard, Kilwardby, and Paul of Venice; and that it was rediscovered in the 19th and twentieth century by Lewis Carroll, Hugh MacColl, Frank P. Ramsey, and Everett J. Nelson. From 1960 onwards, connexive logic was finally transformed into non-classical calculi which partly concur with systems of relevance logic and paraconsistent logic. In this paper it will be argued that McCall’s historical analysis is fundamentally mistaken since it doesn’t take into account two versions of connexivism. While “humble” connexivism maintains that connexive properties (like the condition that no proposition implies its own negation) only apply to “normal” (e.g., self-consistent) antecedents, “hardcore” connexivism insists that they also hold for “abnormal” propositions. It is shown that the overwhelming majority of the forerunners of connexive logic were only “humble” connexivists. Their ideas concerning (“humbly”) connexive implication don’t give rise, however, to anything like a non-classical logic.
Title: Rewriting the History of Connexive Logic
Description:
AbstractThe “official” history of connexive logic was written in 2012 by Storrs McCall who argued that connexive logic was founded by ancient logicians like Aristotle, Chrysippus, and Boethius; that it was further developed by medieval logicians like Abelard, Kilwardby, and Paul of Venice; and that it was rediscovered in the 19th and twentieth century by Lewis Carroll, Hugh MacColl, Frank P.
Ramsey, and Everett J.
Nelson.
From 1960 onwards, connexive logic was finally transformed into non-classical calculi which partly concur with systems of relevance logic and paraconsistent logic.
In this paper it will be argued that McCall’s historical analysis is fundamentally mistaken since it doesn’t take into account two versions of connexivism.
While “humble” connexivism maintains that connexive properties (like the condition that no proposition implies its own negation) only apply to “normal” (e.
g.
, self-consistent) antecedents, “hardcore” connexivism insists that they also hold for “abnormal” propositions.
It is shown that the overwhelming majority of the forerunners of connexive logic were only “humble” connexivists.
Their ideas concerning (“humbly”) connexive implication don’t give rise, however, to anything like a non-classical logic.
Related Results
Aristotle’s dilemma
Aristotle’s dilemma
Abstract
The contra-classicality of connexive logics presents a challenge to classical logic that is interestingly different from other non-classical logics, and dis...
Inferentialism and Relevance
Inferentialism and Relevance
This paper provides an inferentialist motivation for a logic belonging in the connexive family, by borrowing elements from the bilateralist interpretation for Classical Logic witho...
Die spore van Raka: Oor herskrywing en kanonisering (Deel 2)
Die spore van Raka: Oor herskrywing en kanonisering (Deel 2)
Every literary system possesses a canon with the classical canon as the most stable and simultaneously the one with the most restrictive access. Writers and texts can only maintain...
Rewriting Mansfield: Writing, Editing and Translation
Rewriting Mansfield: Writing, Editing and Translation
<p>This thesis explores the notion, the process and the ethical implications of rewriting, drawing on insights from literary and translation theories, psychoanalysis and trau...
Uniform Monad Presentations and Graph Quasitoposes
Uniform Monad Presentations and Graph Quasitoposes
Category theory is a field of mathematics that provides a unifying framework for the generalisation of mathematical definitions and theorems, and which has found significant applic...
Rationality and Logic
Rationality and Logic
An argument that logic is intrinsically psychological and human psychology is intrinsically logical, and that the connection between human rationality and logic is both constitutiv...
Greek and Roman Logic
Greek and Roman Logic
In ancient philosophy, there is no discipline called “logic” in the contemporary sense of “the study of formally valid arguments.” Rather, once a subfield of philosophy comes to be...
A logic of defeasible argumentation: Constructing arguments in justification logic
A logic of defeasible argumentation: Constructing arguments in justification logic
In the 1980s, Pollock’s work on default reasons started the quest in the AI community for a formal system of defeasible argumentation. The main goal of this paper is to provide a l...

