Please wait a minute...
Frontiers of Philosophy in China

ISSN 1673-3436

ISSN 1673-355X(Online)

CN 11-5743/B

Postal Subscription Code 80-983

Front Phil Chin    2013, Vol. 8 Issue (3) : 498-506    https://doi.org/10.3868/s030-002-013-0039-9
research-article |
Beyond Language: Using Logic to Introduce New Philosophical Distinctions
Sven Ove Hansson()
Division of Philosophy, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Stockholm 10044, Sweden
 Download: PDF(240 KB)   HTML
 Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

Philosophy has to be communicable in language, and therefore, whatever it has to say must be expressible in (some) language. But in order to make progress, philosophy has to gradually extend and improve its terminological apparatus. It is argued that logical formalization is a highly useful tool for discovering and confirming distinctions that are not present in ordinary language or in pre-existing philosophical terminology. In particular, it is proposed that if two usages of a word require different logical formalizations, then that is a strong reason to distinguish between them also in informal philosophy. The distinction between two types of normative conditionals, conditional veritable norms and conditional normative rules, is used as an example to corroborate this proposal.

Keywords logic      formalization      structuralization      deontic logic      conditional obligation      conditional permission      dyadic deontic logic      counterfactual conditionals     
Corresponding Authors: Sven Ove Hansson,Email:soh@kth.se   
Issue Date: 05 September 2013
 Cite this article:   
Sven Ove Hansson. Beyond Language: Using Logic to Introduce New Philosophical Distinctions[J]. Front Phil Chin, 2013, 8(3): 498-506.
 URL:  
http://academic.hep.com.cn/fpc/EN/10.3868/s030-002-013-0039-9
http://academic.hep.com.cn/fpc/EN/Y2013/V8/I3/498
[1] Selusi Ambrogio. Mou Zongsan and Martin Heidegger: Reopening a Debate on Ontology and Ethics[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(1): 55-71.
[2] ZHANG Junguo. A Critical Examination of Anselm’s Ontological Argument[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2017, 12(1): 137-150.
[3] Mircea Dumitru. On Toleration, Charity, and Epistemic Fallibilism[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(4): 671-679.
[4] Megan Altman. Heidegger on the Struggle for Belongingness and Being at Home[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(3): 444-462.
[5] KE Xiaogang. Reason and Besinnung: Heidegger’s Reflections on Science in Contributions to Philosophy [J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(3): 430-443.
[6] López-Astorga Miguel. Logic, Pragmatics, and Types of Conditionals[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(2): 279-297.
[7] LI Guo. Empirical Propositions and the Change of Language- Games[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(1): 21-34.
[8] Tom Stoneham. Quine on Quantification and Existence[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(1): 54-72.
[9] XU Zhaoqing. On Kripke’s Dogmatism Paradox: A Logical Dynamical Analysis[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2015, 10(2): 298-310.
[10] WEI Yanxia. Why Logical Revisabilism Is Wrong[J]. Front Phil Chin, 2013, 8(3): 507-517.
[11] HAO Changchi. On the “Theological Turn” in French henomenology[J]. Front Phil Chin, 2013, 8(3): 428-450.
[12] Thierry Lucas. Parallelism in the Early Moist Texts[J]. Front Phil Chin, 2013, 8(2): 289-308.
[13] WU Xiaoming. The End of the Supersensory World’s Mythology: Marx’s Ontological Revolution and Its Contemporary Significance[J]. Front Phil Chin, 2012, 7(1): 128-141.
[14] DENG Xize. On the Problem of the Meaning of Life in “Chinese Philosophy”[J]. Front Phil Chin, 2011, 6(4): 609-627.
[15] James O. YOUNG. The Ontology of Musical Works: A Philosophical Pseudo-Problem[J]. Front Phil Chin, 2011, 6(2): 284-297.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed