According to Weyl, “‘inexhaustibility’ is essential to the infinite”. However, he distinguishes two kinds of inexhaustible, or merely potential, domains: those that are “extensionally determinate” and those that are not. This article clarifies Weyl's distinction and explains its enduring logical and philosophical significance. The distinction sheds lights on the contemporary debate about potentialism, which in turn affords a deeper understanding of Weyl.

Critical views of logic are presented. These are views that are critical of logic in a sense akin to the way in which Kant is critical rather than dogmatic about traditional metaphysics. Such approaches differ from the Fregean ‘logic-first’ view. In accordance with the latter, logic is often regarded as epistemologically and methodologically fundamental. Hence, all disciplines – including mathematics – are considered as answerable to logic, rather than vice versa. In critical views of logic, by contrast, the logical principles (...) that govern some subject matter may depend on the metaphysics of this subject matter or on the semantics of our discourse about it. Space is thereby carved out between a Fregean position on the one hand and thoroughgoing holism à la Quine on the other. (shrink)

What is the relation between some things and the set of these things? Mathematical practice does not provide a univocal answer. On the one hand, it relies on ordinary plural talk, which is implicitly committed to a traditional form of plural logic. On the other hand, mathematical practice favors a liberal view of definitions which entails that traditional plural logic must be restricted. We explore this predicament and develop a “critical” alternative to traditional plural logic.

Plural expressions found in natural languages allow us to talk about many objects simultaneously. Plural logic — a logical system that takes plurals at face value — has seen a surge of interest in recent years. This book explores its broader significance for philosophy, logic, and linguistics. What can plural logic do for us? Are the bold claims made on its behalf correct? After introducing plural logic and its main applications, the book provides a systematic analysis of the relation between (...) this logic and other theoretical frameworks such as set theory, mereology, higher-order logic, and modal logic. The applications of plural logic rely on two assumptions, namely that this logic is ontologically innocent and has great expressive power. These assumptions are shown to be problematic. The result is a more nuanced picture of plural logic's applications than has been given thus far. Questions about the correct logic of plurals play a central role in the final chapters, where traditional plural logic is rejected in favor of a "critical" alternative. The most striking feature of this alternative is that there is no universal plurality. This leads to a novel approach to the relation between the many and the one. In particular, critical plural logic paves the way for an account of sets capable of solving the set-theoretic paradoxes. (shrink)

ABSTRACT I suggest how a broadly Kantian critique of classical logic might spring from reflections on constructibility conditions. According to Kant, mathematics is concerned with objects that are given through ‘arbitrary synthesis,’ in the form of ‘constructions of concepts’ in the medium of ‘pure intuition.’ Logic, by contrast, is narrowly constrained – it has no objects of its own and is fixed by the very forms of thought. That is why there is not much room for developments within logic, as (...) compared to the progress in mathematics. Kant’s view of logic remains critical, though – through considerations that are effectively on the scope and limits of classical logic and which play a part in his transcendental idealism. The most important ones are to be found in his critique of the use of reductio ad absurdum proofs in metaphysics and his solutions to the ‘antinomies of pure reason.’ Arguably, these considerations carry over to mathematics as well – by way of ‘analogues’ to the antinomies – in particular in resolving infinity paradoxes. (shrink)

ABSTRACT This paper seeks to clarify Husserl’s critical remarks about Kant’s view of logic by comparing their respective views of logic. In his Formal and Transcendental Logic Husserl criticizes Kant for not asking transcendental questions about formal logic, but rather ascribing an ‘extraordinary apriority’ to it. He thinks the reason for Kant’s uncritical attitude to logic lies in Kant’s view of logic as directed toward the subjective, instead of being concerned with a ‘“world” of ideal Objects’. Whereas for Kant, general (...) logic is about laws of reasoning. Husserl thinks that formal logic should describe formal structures. Husserl claims that if Kant had had a more comprehensive concept of logic, he would have thought of raising critical questions about how logic is possible. This kind of criticism cannot itself use forms of judgments or syllogisms of logic, nor even the ‘inferential’ [schliessende] method more generally, but should be descriptive in nature. Husserl's transcendental phenomenology is the method for such criticism. The paper argues that this results in reflection, and possibly revision, of the logical principles with respect to the normative goals governing the investigation in question. (shrink)