Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorSimonelli, Ryan
dc.date.accessioned2025-11-19T14:27:54Z
dc.date.available2025-11-19T14:27:54Z
dc.date.issued2025-01-08
dc.identifier.issn0138-0680
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11089/56721
dc.description.abstractIn a recent paper, Nils Kürbis argues that bilateral natural deduction systems in which assertions and denials figure as hypothetical assumptions are unintelligible. In this paper, I respond to this claim on two counts. First, I argue that, if we think of bilateralism as a tool for articulating discursive norms, then supposition of assertions and denials in the context of bilateral natural deduction systems is perfectly intelligible. Second, I show that, by transposing such systems into sequent notation, one can make perfect sense of them without talking about supposition at all, just talking in terms of relations of committive consequence. I conclude by providing some motivation for adopting this normative interpretation of bilateralism on which this response to Kürbis’s argument is based.en
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherWydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiegopl
dc.relation.ispartofseriesBulletin of the Section of Logic;1en
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0
dc.subjectbilateralismen
dc.subjectassertionen
dc.subjectdenialen
dc.subjectsuppositionen
dc.subjectassumptionen
dc.subjectspeech actsen
dc.titleSupposition: No Problem for Bilateralismen
dc.typeArticle
dc.page.number1-21
dc.contributor.authorAffiliationWuhan University, School of Philosophy, Wuhan, Hubei Province, Chinaen
dc.identifier.eissn2449-836X
dc.referencesR. Brandom, Making It Explicit, Harvard University Press (1994).en
dc.referencesR. Brandom, A Spirit of Trust: A Reading of Hegel’s Phenomenology, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts (2019).en
dc.referencesG. Frege, Begriffsschrift, [in:] J. V. Heijenoort (ed.), From Frege to Gödel, Harvard University Press (1967), pp. 1–83.en
dc.referencesG. Gentzen, Untersuchungen über das logische Schließen. I., Mathematische Zeitschrift, vol. 35 (1935), pp. 176–210, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01201353en
dc.referencesP. Hanks, Propositional Content, Oxford University Press (2015).en
dc.referencesO. Hjortland, Speech Acts, Categoricity, and the Meanings of Logical Connectives, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, vol. 55 (2014), pp. 445–467, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1215/00294527-2798700en
dc.referencesU. Hlobil, The Laws of Thought and the Laws of Truth as Two Sides of One Coin, Journal of Philosophical Logic, vol. 52(1) (2022), pp. 313–343, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-022-09673-5en
dc.referencesU. Hlobil, R. B. Brandom, Reasons for Logic, Logic for Reasons: Pragmatics, Semantics, and Conceptual Roles, Routledge, New York (2024), DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003330141en
dc.referencesL. Incurvati, J. J. Schlöder, Reasoning with Attitude, Oxford University Press USA, New York (2023), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197620984.001.0001en
dc.referencesL. Incurvati, J. Schlöder, Weak Rejection, Australasion Journal of Philosophy, vol. 95 (2017), pp. 741–760, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00048402.2016.1277771en
dc.referencesL. Incurvati, P. Smith, Is ‘No’ a Force-Indicator? Sometimes, Possibly, Analysis, vol. 72 (2012), pp. 225–231, DOI: https://doi.org/doi-org.proxy.uchicago.edu/10.1093/analys/ans048en
dc.referencesS. Jaśkowski, On the Rules of Suppositions in Formal Logic, Studia Logica, vol. 1 (1934), pp. 3–32.en
dc.referencesO. Ketonen, Untersuchungen zum Prädikatenkalkül, Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae Series A, I. Mathematica-physica, (1944).en
dc.referencesN. Kürbis, Proof and Falsity, Cambridge University Press (2019), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108686792en
dc.referencesN. Kürbis, On a Definition of Logical Consequence, Thought, (2023), DOI: https://doi.org/10.5840/tht20233612en
dc.referencesN. Kürbis, Supposition: A Problem for Bilateralism, Bulletin of the Section of Logic, vol. 52 (2023), p. 3, DOI: https://doi.org/10.18778/0138-0680.2023.07en
dc.referencesG. Restall, Assertion, Denial, and Non-Classical Theories, [in:] Paraconsistency: Logic and applications, Springer (2013), pp. 81–99.en
dc.referencesG. Restall, Speech Acts & the Quest for a Natural Account of Classical Proof (2021), URL: https://consequently.org/papers/speech-acts-for-classical-natural-deduction.pdf, unpublished manuscript.en
dc.referencesI. Rumfitt, “Yes” and “No”, Mind, vol. 109 (2000), pp. 781–823, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/109.436.781en
dc.referencesW. Sellars, Inference and Meaning, Mind, vol. 62(247) (1953), pp. 313–338, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/lxii.247.313en
dc.referencesR. Simonelli, Meaning and the World, Ph.D. thesis, University of Chicago (2022).en
dc.referencesR. Simonelli, A General Schema for Bilateral Proof Rules, Journal of Philosophical Logic, vol. 3 (2024), pp. 623–656, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-024-09743-wen
dc.referencesR. Simonelli, An Act-Based Approach to Assertibles and Instantiables, Ergo, (Forthcoming).en
dc.referencesR. Simonelli, Generalized Bilateral Harmony, [in:] The 2023 Logica Yearbook, College Publications (Forthcoming).en
dc.referencesT. Smiley, Rejection, Analysis, vol. 56 (1996), pp. 1–9, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0003-2638.1996.00001.xen
dc.referencesR. M. Smullyan, First-Order Logic, Springer Verlag, New York (1968), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-86718-7en
dc.referencesH. Wansing, Falsification, natural deduction and bi-intuitionistic logic,Journal of Logic and Computation, vol. 26(1) (2013), pp. 425–450, DOI: https://doi.org/doi:10.1093/logcom/ext035en
dc.referencesH. Wansing, S. Ayhan, Logical Multilateralism, Journal of Philosophical Logic, vol. 52 (2023), pp. 1603–1636, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-023-09720-9en
dc.referencesL. Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus: German and English Edition, Routledge (1981), (translated by C. K. Ogden).en
dc.contributor.authorEmailryanasimonelli@gmail.com
dc.identifier.doi10.18778/0138-0680.2025.01
dc.relation.volume54


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0