Logic taking care of itself: the case of connexive logic

Luis Estrada-González

doi:10.5007/1808-1711.2024.e96733

Authors

Luis Estrada-González Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1466-0240

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5007/1808-1711.2024.e96733

Keywords:

Connexive Logic, Contradiction, Triviality, Simplification, Contraposition, Detachment

Abstract

Logic is an excellent tool for reasoning about most philosophical topics, including logical issues themselves. Discussions about the validity or otherwise of certain principles have been widespread throughout the history of logic. This chapter exemplifies that with the analysis of the debate surrounding connexive logics. In connexive logics, certain principles involving mainly negation and implication hold good, whereas they are not valid in most well-known logics. Despite their intuitiveness, the connexive principles quickly lead to contradictions and even to triviality, i.e. to the truth of every proposition. This chapter surveys the main arguments against the connexive principles and discusses some prospects for challenging those arguments and endorsing the connexive principles.

References

Aristotle. 1989. Prior Analytics. Trans. Robin Smith. Indianapolis: Hackett.

Francez, N. 2021. A View of Connexive Logics. London: College Publications.

Lenzen, W. 2019. Leibniz’s laws of consistency and the philosophical foundations of connexive logic. Logic and Logical Philosophy 28(3): 537–551.

Lenzen, W. 2022. Rewriting the history of connexive logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic 51(3): 525-553.

McCall, S. 1966. Connexive implication. The Journal of Symbolic Logic 31(3): 415–433.

McCall, S. 2012. A history of connexivity. In D.M. Gabbay et al. (eds.), Handbook of the History of Logic. Logic: A History of its Central Concepts, vol. 11, p. 415-449. Amsterdam.

Nelson, E. J. 1930. Intensional relations, Mind 39(156): 440–453.

Read, S. 2012. Relevant Logic: A Philosophical Examination of Inference. https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~slr/Relevant_Logic.pdf

Routley, R.; Meyer, R. K.; Plumwood, V.; Brady, R. 1982. Relevant Logics and Their Rivals 1. Atascadero, CA: Ridgeview.

Sylvan, R. 1989. A preliminary Western history of sociative logics. In Bystanders’ Guide to Sociative Logics, Research Series in Logic and Metaphysics #9, chapter 4. Canberra: Australian National University. Reprinted with minor modifications in Sociative Logics and Their Applications: Essays by the Late Richard Sylvan, edited by D. Hyde and G. Priest, Ashgate, 2000, pp. 53–138. I am citing from the reprint.

Wansing, H. 2006. Connexive logic. In E.N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Spring 200 edition. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2006/entries/logic-connexive/.

Wansing, H. 2022. Connexive logic. In E.N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Summer 2022 edition. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2022/entries/logic-connexive/.

Wansing, H.; Skurt, D. 2018. Negation as cancellation, connexive logic, and qLPm. Australasian Journal of Logic 15(2): 476–488.