Social interaction as fundament of logical meaning

Adjoua Bernadette Dango

doi:10.22370/rhv2017iss9pp121-142

Authors

Adjoua Bernadette Dango Département de Philosophie. Université Alassane Ouattara (Bouaké, Côte d’Ivoire)

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.22370/rhv2017iss9pp121-142

Keywords:

Interaction, Contemporary Logics, Entitlement, Commitment, Meaning, Pragmatic Inferentialism

Abstract

Our article aims to show, on the one hand, the preeminence of the interactive paradigm as a determining element in the process of constitution of logical meaning and, on the other hand, to examine the contents of the linguistic expressions of pragmatic semantics. To do this, we expose three major figures of the logic of mathematical obedience in particular those of Gottfreid Leibniz, George Boole and Gottlob Frege. If this approach to mathematical logic has seen meritorious progress, it should be pointed out that it does not favor the emphasis on epistemic and interactive aspects in the notions of logical consequences and inference. Our contribution is therefore to demonstrate that these weaknesses can be solved with the revolutionary approach of Robert Brandom based on the framework that promotes the interactive game of supply and demand of reasons. This analysis leads to the idea that interactive play is the basis of contemporary logical approaches.

References

Boole G. (1916). An investigation of the laws of thought on which are founded mathematical theories of logic and probabilities (1854). London: Dover, Reprint; nouvelle édition par Philip E. B. Jourdain.

Brandom R. (1994). Making it Explicit: Reasoning, Representing, and Discursive Commitment. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Brandom R. (2009). Articulating Reasons (2000). Trad. franç. L’articulation des raisons, ed. du Cerf. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Brandom, R. (2010). Rendre explicite. Trad. Franç. sous la direction d’I. Thomas-Fogiel, éditions du cerf.

Clerbout N. (2014). Etude sur quelques sémantiques dialogiques : concepts fondamentaux et éléments de métathéorie, Thèse de Doctorat, Universités de Lille 3 et de Leiden.

Dummett M. (1975). «The philosophical basis of intuitionistic logic», Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, vol. 80, pp. 5–40.

Fontaine M. et J. Redmond (2008). Logique dialogique : une introduction. Méthode de dialogique règles et exercices. London : College Publications.

Frege G. (1971). Écrits logiques et philosophiques. Trad. et Introduction de Claude Imbert. Paris : Éditions du Seuil.

Heyting A. (1956). Intuitionism: An introduction. Studies in logic and the foundations of mathematics. Amsterdam: Publishing Company.

Hintikka J. (1962). Knowledge and belief, An introduction to the logic of the two notions. New York: Cornell University Press, Ithaca.

Jevons W.S. (1864). Pure Logic or the Logic of Quality apart from Quantity with Remarks on Boole’s System and the Relation of Logic and Mathematics. London: E. Stanford.

Leibniz G. W. (1972). Oeuvres. Éd. par Lucy Prenant. Paris : Éditions Aubier-Montaigne.

Magnier S. (2013). Approche dialogique de la dynamique épistémique et de la condition juridique. Londres: College Publications.

Prawitz D. (2012). «Truth as an epistemic notion», Topoi, vol. 31, no 1, pp. 9–16.

Rahman S. et H. Rückert (1999). «Dialogische Modallogik (für T, B, S4, und S5)», Logique et analyse, vol. 167, no 168, pp. 243–282.

Sundholm, G. (2014). Constructive Recursive Functions, Church’s Thesis, and Brouwer’s Theory of the Creating Subject: In Constructivity and Computability in Historical and Philosophical Perspective, ed. J. Dubucs / M. Bordeau Logic, Epistemology, and the Unity of Science no. 34. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 1-35.