Der indische Mythos.--Der Brauch der Fische.--Yoga und Māyā.--Buddha.

In this paper, first some propositional conditional logics based on Belnap and Dunn’s useful four-valued logic of first-degree entailment are introduced semantically, which are then turned into systems of weakly and unrestrictedly connexive conditional logic. The general frame semantics for these logics makes use of a set of allowable (or admissible) extension/antiextension pairs. Next, sound and complete tableau calculi for these logics are presented. Moreover, an expansion of the basic conditional connexive logics by a constructive implication is considered, which gives (...) an opportunity to discuss recent related work, motivated by the combination of indicative and counterfactual conditionals. Tableau calculi for the basic constructive connexive conditional logics are defined and shown to be sound and complete with respect to their semantics. This semantics has to ensure a persistence property with respect to the preorder that is used to interpret the constructive implication. (shrink)

Justification stit logic is a logic for reasoning about proving as a certain kind of activity, namely seeing to it that a proof is publicly available. It merges the semantical analysis of deliberatively seeing-to-it-that from stit theory and the semantics of the epistemic logic with justification from. In this paper, after recalling its language and basic semantical definitions, various ramifications and refinements of justification stit logic are presented and discussed: imposing natural restrictions upon the class of models under consideration, making (...) use of modalities that assert the existence of a proof, introducing a variant of justification stit logic based on a semantics introduced by M. Fitting, and adding variable-binding operators and extending the set of proof polynomials. (shrink)

Anti-realistic conceptions of truth and falsity are usually epistemic or inferentialist. Truth is regarded as knowability, or provability, or warranted assertability, and the falsity of a statement or formula is identified with the truth of its negation. In this paper, a non-inferentialist but nevertheless anti-realistic conception of logical truth and falsity is developed. According to this conception, a formula (or a declarative sentence) A is logically true if and only if no matter what is told about what is told about (...) the truth or falsity of atomic sentences, A always receives the top-element of a certain partial order on non-ontic semantic values as its value. The ordering in question is a told-true order. Analogously, a formula A is logically false just in case no matter what is told about what is told about the truth or falsity of atomic sentences, A always receives the top-element of a certain told-false order as its value. Here, truth and falsity are pari passu , and it is the treatment of truth and falsity as independent of each other that leads to an informational interpretation of these notions in terms of a certain kind of higher-level information. (shrink)

This journey shall provide the reader with a simple, though complete, guide to Leibniz’s metaphysics, incidentally preventing him or her from common errors. I will start with unfolding Leibniz’s definition of a simple substance as a free acting individual substance, which, in doing so, constitutes its complete concept. This latter contains everything that happens to the individual substance, a process taking place in God’s mind by forming the possibilities as combinations of his attributes before his decision to create the best (...) world. The totality of possibilities is divided through the compatibility relation into possible worlds. A world is a collection of all compatible individual substances. God creates the best among all possible worlds. The journey will enlighten the reader on Leibniz’s technical distinction between “possible” and “contingent”. In short, “possible” is defined by Leibniz in logical terms, as what is contradiction-free. “Contingent” is something that is, but might have been not. Just the fact that the non-being of contingent things remains possible saves Leibniz from Descartes’ and Spinoza’s determinism. (shrink)

I am glad to be able to use this opportunity to respond to Marcelo Dascal’s detailed review of volume VI,4 of the Academy edition published in the last issue of this journal. I do not do this in order to enter into the dispute between strong and soft reason, an attempt which would invite certain defeat, not least due to the excellent rhetoric displayed by my opponent. I would rather like to illuminate some points in a different way, based on (...) the sources. There is also the possibility that those who could not read my German Introduction or the Latin original documents might retain the impression the reviewer was trying to create. For them, being supplied only with his English translations, it will be difficult to investigate the reviewer’s arguments. On the other hand it will not be easy for me to weaken these arguments in a sufficient way now, one year after their publication. (shrink)