Logic or Reason?

This paper explores the question of what logic is not. It argues against the wide spread assumptions that logic is: a model of reason; a model of correct reason; the laws of thought, or indeed is related to reason at all such that the essential nature of the two are crucially or essentially coillust...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Logic and logical philosophy 2012-06, Vol.21 (2), p.127-163
1. Verfasser: Rush, P.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 163
container_issue 2
container_start_page 127
container_title Logic and logical philosophy
container_volume 21
creator Rush, P.
description This paper explores the question of what logic is not. It argues against the wide spread assumptions that logic is: a model of reason; a model of correct reason; the laws of thought, or indeed is related to reason at all such that the essential nature of the two are crucially or essentially coillustrative. I note that due to such assumptions, our current understanding of the nature of logic itself is thoroughly entangled with the nature of reason. I show that most arguments for the presence of any sort of essential relationship between logic and reason face intractable problems and demands, and fall well short of addressing them. These arguments include those for the notion that logic is normative for reason (or that logic and correct reason are in some way the same thing), that logic is some sort of description of correct reason and that logic is an abstracted or idealised version of correct reason. A strong version of logical realism is put forward as an alternative view, and is briefly explored.
doi_str_mv 10.2478/llc-2012-0008
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>istex_walte</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_walterdegruyter_journals_10_2478_llc_2012_0008212127</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>ark_67375_QT4_SG41QB57_6</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-i907-52dfdc40c267a3f30637e77d288ea2ea77bb621c025f32ab0608f82fd468e6fc3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNotj09LAzEUxIMgWKvgxXu_QPTl5c-LeBAtWoUFqe49ZLNJ2bp2Jdui_fbdpTKHmcvM8GPsWsANKrK3bRs4gkAOAPaETYRCzaUEfcbO-34NYLTUYsKuim7VhFmXZx_R993m4YKdJt_28fLfp6x8eS7nr7x4X7zNHwve3AFxjXWqg4KAhrxMEoykSFSjtdFj9ERVZVAEQJ0k-goM2GQx1crYaFKQU3Z_nP317TbmOq7ybj8Et-52eTMcOwFuJHEDiRtJ3EiCYhANbX5sN_02_rmf3Hz7vHc-fzlDkrRblsp9LpRYPmlyRh4AO8dMtQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Publisher</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Logic or Reason?</title><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><creator>Rush, P.</creator><creatorcontrib>Rush, P.</creatorcontrib><description>This paper explores the question of what logic is not. It argues against the wide spread assumptions that logic is: a model of reason; a model of correct reason; the laws of thought, or indeed is related to reason at all such that the essential nature of the two are crucially or essentially coillustrative. I note that due to such assumptions, our current understanding of the nature of logic itself is thoroughly entangled with the nature of reason. I show that most arguments for the presence of any sort of essential relationship between logic and reason face intractable problems and demands, and fall well short of addressing them. These arguments include those for the notion that logic is normative for reason (or that logic and correct reason are in some way the same thing), that logic is some sort of description of correct reason and that logic is an abstracted or idealised version of correct reason. A strong version of logical realism is put forward as an alternative view, and is briefly explored.</description><identifier>EISSN: 1425-3305</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.2478/llc-2012-0008</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Versita</publisher><subject>logic ; mathematics ; psychology ; reason ; thought</subject><ispartof>Logic and logical philosophy, 2012-06, Vol.21 (2), p.127-163</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>315,781,785,27929,27930</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Rush, P.</creatorcontrib><title>Logic or Reason?</title><title>Logic and logical philosophy</title><description>This paper explores the question of what logic is not. It argues against the wide spread assumptions that logic is: a model of reason; a model of correct reason; the laws of thought, or indeed is related to reason at all such that the essential nature of the two are crucially or essentially coillustrative. I note that due to such assumptions, our current understanding of the nature of logic itself is thoroughly entangled with the nature of reason. I show that most arguments for the presence of any sort of essential relationship between logic and reason face intractable problems and demands, and fall well short of addressing them. These arguments include those for the notion that logic is normative for reason (or that logic and correct reason are in some way the same thing), that logic is some sort of description of correct reason and that logic is an abstracted or idealised version of correct reason. A strong version of logical realism is put forward as an alternative view, and is briefly explored.</description><subject>logic</subject><subject>mathematics</subject><subject>psychology</subject><subject>reason</subject><subject>thought</subject><issn>1425-3305</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNotj09LAzEUxIMgWKvgxXu_QPTl5c-LeBAtWoUFqe49ZLNJ2bp2Jdui_fbdpTKHmcvM8GPsWsANKrK3bRs4gkAOAPaETYRCzaUEfcbO-34NYLTUYsKuim7VhFmXZx_R993m4YKdJt_28fLfp6x8eS7nr7x4X7zNHwve3AFxjXWqg4KAhrxMEoykSFSjtdFj9ERVZVAEQJ0k-goM2GQx1crYaFKQU3Z_nP317TbmOq7ybj8Et-52eTMcOwFuJHEDiRtJ3EiCYhANbX5sN_02_rmf3Hz7vHc-fzlDkrRblsp9LpRYPmlyRh4AO8dMtQ</recordid><startdate>20120601</startdate><enddate>20120601</enddate><creator>Rush, P.</creator><general>Versita</general><scope>BSCLL</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20120601</creationdate><title>Logic or Reason?</title><author>Rush, P.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-i907-52dfdc40c267a3f30637e77d288ea2ea77bb621c025f32ab0608f82fd468e6fc3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>logic</topic><topic>mathematics</topic><topic>psychology</topic><topic>reason</topic><topic>thought</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Rush, P.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><jtitle>Logic and logical philosophy</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Rush, P.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Logic or Reason?</atitle><jtitle>Logic and logical philosophy</jtitle><date>2012-06-01</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>21</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>127</spage><epage>163</epage><pages>127-163</pages><eissn>1425-3305</eissn><abstract>This paper explores the question of what logic is not. It argues against the wide spread assumptions that logic is: a model of reason; a model of correct reason; the laws of thought, or indeed is related to reason at all such that the essential nature of the two are crucially or essentially coillustrative. I note that due to such assumptions, our current understanding of the nature of logic itself is thoroughly entangled with the nature of reason. I show that most arguments for the presence of any sort of essential relationship between logic and reason face intractable problems and demands, and fall well short of addressing them. These arguments include those for the notion that logic is normative for reason (or that logic and correct reason are in some way the same thing), that logic is some sort of description of correct reason and that logic is an abstracted or idealised version of correct reason. A strong version of logical realism is put forward as an alternative view, and is briefly explored.</abstract><pub>Versita</pub><doi>10.2478/llc-2012-0008</doi><tpages>37</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier EISSN: 1425-3305
ispartof Logic and logical philosophy, 2012-06, Vol.21 (2), p.127-163
issn 1425-3305
language eng
recordid cdi_walterdegruyter_journals_10_2478_llc_2012_0008212127
source EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals
subjects logic
mathematics
psychology
reason
thought
title Logic or Reason?
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-16T06%3A55%3A15IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-istex_walte&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Logic%20or%20Reason?&rft.jtitle=Logic%20and%20logical%20philosophy&rft.au=Rush,%20P.&rft.date=2012-06-01&rft.volume=21&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=127&rft.epage=163&rft.pages=127-163&rft.eissn=1425-3305&rft_id=info:doi/10.2478/llc-2012-0008&rft_dat=%3Cistex_walte%3Eark_67375_QT4_SG41QB57_6%3C/istex_walte%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true