Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T03:53:37.389Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Le problème de la justification des lois logiques de base

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 December 2016

PATRICE PHILIE
PATRICE PHILIE*
Affiliation:
Université d’Ottawa
*
*<[email protected]>
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article is about the problem of the justification of basic logical laws. Starting from an exposition of Lewis Carroll’s regress, I show the inadequacy of dominant current approaches in the epistemology of logic: they are incapable of responding satisfyingly to the central problem raised by the regress. The realisation of this failure motivates the need to adopt a different perspective on our conception of logical laws. I suggest, in the last portion of the article, that we should follow a suggestion made by Paul Boghossian and look carefully at the primitivist conception of the foundations of logic, such as it is put forward by Aristotle.

Cet article porte, de façon générale, sur le problème de la justification des lois logiques de base. Il s’agit en premier lieu de montrer, en prenant comme point de départ la régression à l’infini de Lewis Carroll, que les approches contemporaines les plus en vue en épistémologie de la logique sont incapables de rendre compte de la légitimité de notre pratique inférentielle de base. Cet échec des perspectives traditionnelles motive la recherche d’une nouvelle approche. Je suggère, dans la dernière portion de l’article, qu’il serait profitable de suivre une proposition faite par Paul Boghossian et d’examiner attentivement la conception primitiviste d’Aristote concernant les fondements de la logique.

Keywords

épistémologielois logiquesjustificationCarrollrégressionprimitivismeAristote
Type
Articles
Information
Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review / Revue canadienne de philosophie , Volume 55 , Issue 3 , September 2016 , pp. 407 - 428
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Philosophical Association 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Références bibliographiques

Aristote 2005 Seconds analytiques, trad. Pellegrin, Pierre, Paris, GF Flammarion.Google Scholar
Aristote 2008 Métaphysique, trad. Duminil, M.-P. et Jaulin, A., Paris, GF Flammarion.Google Scholar
Aristote 2015 Topiques et Réfutations sophistiques, trad. Brunschwig, J. et Hecquet, M., Paris, GF Flammarion.Google Scholar
Boghossian, Paul 2003 «Blind Reasoning», Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume, vol. 77, p. 225–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boghossian, Paul 2008 «Epistemic Rules», The Journal of Philosophy, vol.105, no 9, p. 472–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boghossian, Paul 2012 «Inferentialism and the Epistemology of Logic: Reflections on Casalegno and Williamson», Dialectica, vol. 66, no 2, p. 221–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, Lewis 1895 «What the Tortoise Said to Achilles», Mind, vol. 4, p. 278–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enoch, D. et Schechter, J. 2006 «Meaning and Justification: The Case of Modus Ponens», Noûs, vol. 40, no 4, p. 687–715.Google Scholar
Enoch, D. et Schechter, J. 2008 «How Are Basic Belief-Forming Methods Justified?» Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, vol. 76, no 3, p. 547–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gentzen, G. 1964 «Investigations into Logical Deduction» [1934], American Philosophical Quarterly, vol. 1, no 4, p. 288–306.Google Scholar
Horwich, Paul 2008 «Ungrounded Reason», The Journal of Philosophy, vol. 105, no 9, p. 453–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Philie, Patrice 2007 «Carroll’s Regress and the Epistemology of Logic», Philosophical Studies, vol. 134, no 2, p. 183–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Platon 2002 La République, trad. Leroux, Georges, Paris, GF Flammarion.Google Scholar
Quine, W.V. 1969 «Epistemology Naturalized», dans Ontological Relativity and Other Essays, New York (NY), Columbia University Press, p. 69–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sellars, Wilfrid 1963 «Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind» [1956], dans Science, Perception and Reality, Londres, Routledge & Kegan Paul, p. 127–196.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig 2004 Recherches philosophiques [1953], trad. Dastur, F., Élie, M., Gautero, J.-L., Janicaud, D., et Rigal, É., Paris, Gallimard.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig 2005 The Big Typescript: TS 213, Londres, Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig 2006 De la certitude [1969], trad. Moyal-Sharrock, Danièle, Paris, Gallimard.Google Scholar
Wright, Crispin 2004 «Warrant for Nothing (And Foundations for Free?)», Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume, vol. 78, p. 167–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, Crispin 2004a «Intuition, Entitlement and the Epistemology of Logical Laws», Dialectica, vol. 58, no 1, p. 155–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar