This
post is less about what Blanshard says in his book than the earlier ones and my last in
this series.
Blanshard's critique is excellent. Still, I
wonder why he did not say something like: Why are two of the rows in
the truth table, when p is F in
post #1,
even relevant? To wit, what logical truth is implied by '7 < 4' or 'the moon is made of cheese'?
Subsequent
to the problems with "material implication" logic being
noticed and acknowledged, relevance
logic
arose. It was proposed before
Blanshard’s book was first published in 1939. However,
it didn’t become prominent until the 1970s.
No comments:
Post a Comment