Cesare Cozzo

The traditional opposition between mathematical proof and rhetorical argument is based on a non-contextual picture of proof, against which historical and theoretical objections have been raised. The author advocates a different opposition, between epistemic rhetoric and instrumental rhetoric. Instrumental rhetoric aims at persuasion without caring for truth. Epistemic rhetoric is a practice aimed at both persuasion and truth. Aiming at truth is a way of acting, which can be characterized in terms of epistemically virtuous behavioural traits. In this sense epistemic rhetoric aims at truth, even though it is contextual and addressed to a particular audience. Real life mathematical proofs are instances of epistemic rhetoric and contextual rigour. But it is right to contrast proofs with instrumentally rhetoric arguments.

How do we get new knowledge? Following the maverick tradition in the philosophy of science, Carlo Cellucci gradually came to the conclusion that logic can only fulfill its role in mathematics, science and philosophy if it helps us to answer this question. He argues that mathematical logic is inadequate and that we need a new logic, framed in a naturalistic conception of knowledge and philosophy - the heuristic conception. This path from logic to a naturalistic conception of knowledge and philosophy explains the title, From a Heuristic Point of View, which recalls the celebrated collection of essays, From a Logical Point of View, by Willard Van Orman Quine, the father of modern naturalized epistemology. The word 'heuristic' points to Cellucci's favorite theme and the main difference between him and Quine: the emphasis on discovery and building a 'logic' for generating new knowledge. This book is a collection of essays from leading figures in this field who discuss, criticize, or expand on the main topics in Cellucci's work, dealing with some of the most challenging questions in logic, science and philosophy.

Ideas on meaning, rules and mathematical proofs abound in Wittgenstein’s writings. The undeniable fact that they are present together, sometimes intertwined in the same passage of Philosophical Investigations or Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics, does not show, however, that the connection between these ideas is necessary or inextricable. The possibility remains, and ought to be checked, that they can be plausibly and consistently separated. I am going to examine two views detectable in Wittgenstein’s works: one about proofs, the other about meaning and rules. The first is the denial of the objectivity of proof. The second is a conception of meaning stemming from the rule-following considerations. I shall argue that, though Wittgenstein seems to conjoin the two views, they can be, and should be, separated1.

“Identità” qui si intende nel senso già precisato da Aristotele di “identità numerica”, che si ha “quando i nomi sono parecchi, ma la cosa è una sola” e, non nel senso di “identità specifica”, che si ha invece “quando gli oggetti, pur essendo parecchi, non rivelano differenze quanto alla specie”.1 In questo articolo intendo fornire al lettore indicazioni introduttive (non certo esaustive) sul posto che la nozione di identità numerica occupa nella logica contemporanea e nell’area di riflessione filosofica del Novecento più strettamente legata alla logica, la filosofia analitica. Nella terza parte proporrò qualche spunto per un’indagine originale.