What is wrong with classical negation?

Grazer Philosophische Studien 92 (1):51-86 (2015)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
The focus of this paper are Dummett's meaning-theoretical arguments against classical logic based on consideration about the meaning of negation. Using Dummettian principles, I shall outline three such arguments, of increasing strength, and show that they are unsuccessful by giving responses to each argument on behalf of the classical logician. What is crucial is that in responding to these arguments a classicist need not challenge any of the basic assumptions of Dummett's outlook on the theory of meaning. In particular, I shall grant Dummett his general bias towards verificationism, encapsulated in the slogan 'meaning is use'. The second general assumption I see no need to question is Dummett's particular breed of molecularism. Some of Dummett's assumptions will have to be given up, if classical logic is to be vindicated in his meaning-theoretical framework. A major result of this paper will be that the meaning of negation cannot be defined by rules of inference in the Dummettian framework.
Reprint years
2015
PhilPapers/Archive ID
KURWIW
Revision history
First archival date: 2016-10-28
Latest version: 2 (2019-04-27)
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
The Seas of Language.Dummett, Michael
The Logical Basis of Metaphysics.Dummett, Michael; Putnam, Hilary & Conant, James

View all 26 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

View all 6 citations / Add more citations

Added to PP index
2015-03-17

Total views
381 ( #10,119 of 46,144 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
97 ( #6,239 of 46,144 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.