“…While his (presumably) older logical texts such as the Topics and the Sophistical Refutations are clearly about dialogical interactions, in the (presumably) later texts such as the two Analytics , the dialectic component is already less pronounced. However, the Prior Analytics is full of dialectic vocabulary, and even the definition of a syllogism at the beginning of the text arguably has a dialogical component (as evidenced by the terminology used (Dutilh Novaes ms.)): A syllogism is an argument in which, certain things being posited , something other than what was laid down results by necessity because these things are so. (Aristotle, Prior Analytics 24b18–20, emphasis added)…”
Section: The Forgotten Dialogical Origins Of Logicmentioning
The paper argues that much of the difficulty with making progress on the issue of the normativity of logic for thought, as discussed in the literature, stems from a misapprehension of what logic is normative for. The claim is that, rather than mono‐agent mental processes, (deductive) logic in fact comprises norms for quite specific situations of multi‐agent dialogical interactions, in particular special forms of debates. This reconceptualization is inspired by historical developments in logic and mathematics (briefly surveyed in the paper), in particular the pervasiveness of such dialogical conceptions in the early days of logic in ancient Greece. The multi‐agent, dialogical perspective then allows for the formulation of compelling 'bridge principles’ between the relation of logical consequence and dialogical normative principles, something that is notoriously difficult to achieve in a mono‐agent setting pertaining exclusively to thought and belief. The upshot is also that the truth‐preserving rules of logic generally do not have a primary normative bearing on mono‐agent mental processes, and in this sense the paper sides with Harman's (1986; 2009) critique of the idea that logic has a normative import for thought and belief.
“…While his (presumably) older logical texts such as the Topics and the Sophistical Refutations are clearly about dialogical interactions, in the (presumably) later texts such as the two Analytics , the dialectic component is already less pronounced. However, the Prior Analytics is full of dialectic vocabulary, and even the definition of a syllogism at the beginning of the text arguably has a dialogical component (as evidenced by the terminology used (Dutilh Novaes ms.)): A syllogism is an argument in which, certain things being posited , something other than what was laid down results by necessity because these things are so. (Aristotle, Prior Analytics 24b18–20, emphasis added)…”
Section: The Forgotten Dialogical Origins Of Logicmentioning
The paper argues that much of the difficulty with making progress on the issue of the normativity of logic for thought, as discussed in the literature, stems from a misapprehension of what logic is normative for. The claim is that, rather than mono‐agent mental processes, (deductive) logic in fact comprises norms for quite specific situations of multi‐agent dialogical interactions, in particular special forms of debates. This reconceptualization is inspired by historical developments in logic and mathematics (briefly surveyed in the paper), in particular the pervasiveness of such dialogical conceptions in the early days of logic in ancient Greece. The multi‐agent, dialogical perspective then allows for the formulation of compelling 'bridge principles’ between the relation of logical consequence and dialogical normative principles, something that is notoriously difficult to achieve in a mono‐agent setting pertaining exclusively to thought and belief. The upshot is also that the truth‐preserving rules of logic generally do not have a primary normative bearing on mono‐agent mental processes, and in this sense the paper sides with Harman's (1986; 2009) critique of the idea that logic has a normative import for thought and belief.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
