Robby Finley

This paper lays the groundwork for expanding on past work on the connection between logic and games, which has largely focused on formal models of dialogical games or mathematical theories of games and decision. I lay out a new approach by arguing that use of formal, deductive logic can be fruitfully analysed as a Suitsian game. To do so, I outline an account of use of deductive logic in reasoning and motivate the analysis by appealing to Suits’s classic account of gameplay, his work on detective fiction and a discussion of puzzle games. I then respond to worries that use of logic is not less efficient and that one does not take on a lusory attitude in using a logic. I suggest that in my responses one can see where the analysis bears fruit, both with respect to debates in the philosophy of games and in the philosophy of logic.

One of the strongest challenges to Aristotle’s defence of the Principle of Non-Contradiction (PNC) in Metaphysics Γ comes from contemporary dialetheists, who accept some, but not all, contradictions. In this paper, I reconsider Aristotle’s refutations from the perspective of contemporary work in the epistemology of logic to argue that we can read them as providing prudential reasons for belief in PNC. This reading of the refutations reveals how they can provide reasons that not only are compelling for contemporary dialetheists but also would be missed by evidentialist positions in the epistemology of logic.

I analyze Peirce’s reply in the 1903 Lowell Lectures to the “defendant argument” and show how his response provides a key to interpreting his later philosophy of logic and his views on the normative role of deductive logic in inquiry. I argue that in Peirce’s discussion of self-control in reasoning and evaluation of reasoning, we find an underappreciated position on logical revision and how to understand rational choice between deductive theories. To defend this point, I reconstruct Peirce’s reply by providing an interpretation of his comments on higher-order criticism and the soundness of our reasoning, arguing that the resulting position’s ability to separate questions involving the role of logic in inquiry from questions better suited to the mathematical study of a logical theory provides a fruitful pragmatist reframing of problems in the epistemology of logic.

In this paper, I outline a pragmatist epistemology of logic inspired by later work of Charles S. Peirce that shares many features with an anti-exceptionalism about logic but, I argue, can better respond to a key problem that plagues the anti-exceptionalist. I first lay out what I take to be the tenets of anti-exceptionalism, discussing some difficulties in formulating the position that make it difficult to definitively label the position discussed here. I then analyze a key problem for the anti-exceptionalist, the background logic problem, and suggest that when framed as a problem for certain types of inquiry, it shares a presupposition about the priority of logic with other problems in the epistemology of logic. Turning to a discussion of Peirce from the 1903 Lowell Lectures, I then outline a pragmatism about logic that rejects the priority claims underlying the problems for inquiry in logic and, I argue, can resolve the background logic problem.

There are two distinct but interrelated questions concerning Aristotle’s account of infinity that have been the subject of recurring debate. The first of these, what I call here the interpretative question, asks for a charitable and internally coherent interpretation of the limited pieces of text where Aristotle outlines his view of the ‘potential’ (and not ‘actual’) infinite. The second, what I call here the philosophical question, asks whether there is a way to make Aristotle’s notion of the potential infinite coherent and rigorous with modern tools that can stand as a rival to the widely-accepted view of the infinite as characterized in a mathematical theory of sets. In this paper, I argue that the theoretical roles that Aristotle intends his account of the potential infinite to fulfill lead to a deep and irresoluble tension that can help explain the persistence of debates on both of these questions. I do so by turning to the places where Aristotle attempts to argue for or against the existence of particular infinite processes to show that he slides between different underlying notions of when changes are possible. Making these underlying notions clear can help us better understand the role of Aristotle’s account in the history of philosophy, the possible pitfalls for a contemporary theory of the potential infinite, and what each of these debates might learn from each other.

In ancient philosophy, there is no discipline called “logic” in the contemporary sense of “the study of formally valid arguments.” Rather, once a subfield of philosophy comes to be called “logic,” namely in Hellenistic philosophy, the field includes (among other things) epistemology, normative epistemology, philosophy of language, the theory of truth, and what we call logic today. This entry aims to examine ancient theorizing that makes contact with the contemporary conception. Thus, we will here emphasize the theories of the “syllogism” in the Aristotelian and Stoic traditions. However, because the context in which these theories were developed and discussed were deeply epistemological in nature, we will also include references to the areas of epistemological theorizing that bear directly on theories of the syllogism, particularly concerning “demonstration.” Similarly, we will include literature that discusses the principles governing logic and the components that make up arguments, which are topics that might now fall under the headings of philosophy of logic or non-classical logic. This includes discussions of problems and paradoxes that connect to contemporary logic and which historically spurred developments of logical method. For example, there is great interest among ancient philosophers in the question of whether all statements have truth-values. Relevant themes here include future contingents, paradoxes of vagueness, and semantic paradoxes like the liar. We also include discussion of the paradoxes of the infinite for similar reasons, since solutions have introduced sophisticated tools of logical analysis and there are a range of related, modern philosophical concerns about the application of some logical principles in infinite domains. Our criterion excludes, however, many of the themes that Hellenistic philosophers consider part of logic, in particular, it excludes epistemology and metaphysical questions about truth. Ancient philosophers do not write treatises “On Logic,” where the topic would be what today counts as logic. Instead, arguments and theories that count as “logic” by our criterion are found in a wide range of texts. For the most part, our entry follows chronology, tracing ancient logic from its beginnings to Late Antiquity. However, some themes are discussed in several eras of ancient logic; ancient logicians engage closely with each other’s views. Accordingly, relevant publications address several authors and periods in conjunction. These contributions are listed in three thematic sections at the end of our entry.