-
Expand entry
-
Added by: Adriana Alcaraz Sanchez and Jodie RussellAbstract:
Contrary to influential medical and cognitivist models governing how mental disorder is usually understood today, the socially embedded, disordered "mind," or subject, of feminist theory leaves little room for idiopathic causal analyses, with their narrow focus on the brain and its functioning, and reluctant acknowledgment of symptoms. Mental disorder must originate well beyond the particular brain of the person with whom it is associated, feminist analyses imply. Because the voiced distress of the sufferer cannot be reduced to the downstream, "symptomatic" effects of brain dysfunction, symptoms can be seen differently, as central to the diagnostic identity, and constitutive of (at least some) disorders. And new attention is required for the testimony of women diagnosed with mental disorder, vulnerable as it is to epistemic injustices. Corrected explanations of women's mental disorder leave remaining concerns, both epistemological and ethical, over the madwoman narrating her symptoms.Routley, Richard, Routley, Val. The Semantics of First Degree Entailment1972, Noûs 6 (4):335-359-
Expand entry
-
Abstract:
From the introduction: "we argue that the semantics of the first degree paradox-free implication system FD supports the claim it is superior to strict implication as an analysis of entailment at the first degree level. The semantics also reveals that Disjunctive Syllogism, [...] far from being a paradigmatic entailment, is invalid, and allows the illegitimate suppression of tautologies"
Comment: The paper introduces some of the central ideas in the relevance logic literature, e..g the connection between suppression and sufficiency, and the modeling of negation via the Routley star. It is a natural pick for a specialized course on relevance logic, but it can also be used as an introduction to (or further reading about) relevance logic in a general course on non-classical logics. Some familiarity with classical and modal logic (in particular, the notion of strict implication) is required.
Routley, Richard, Routley, Val. Negation and Contradiction1985, Revista Columbiana de Mathematicas:201--231-
Expand entry
-
Added by: Franci MangravitiAbstract:
The problems of the meaning and function of negation are disentangled from ontological issues with which they have been long entangled. The question of the function of negation is the crucial issue separating relevant and paraconsistent logics from classical theories. The function is illuminated by considering the inferential role of contradictions, contradiction being parasitic on negation. Three basic modelings emerge: a cancellation model, which leads towards connexivism, an explosion model, appropriate to classical and intuitionistic theories, and a constraint model, which includes relevant theories. These three modelings have been seriously confused in the modern literature: untangling them helps motivate the main themes advanced concerning traditional negation and natural negation. Firstly, the dominant traditional view, except around scholastic times when the explosion view was in ascendency, has been the cancellation view, so that the mainstream negation of much of traditional logic is distinctively nonclassical. Secondly, the primary negation determinable of natural negation is relevant negation. In order to picture relevant negation the traditional idea of negation as otherthanness is progressive) refined, to nonexclusive restricted otherthanness. Several pictures result, a reversal picture, a debate model, a record cabinet (or files of the universe) model which help explain relevant negation. Two appendices are attached, one on negation in Hegel and the Marxist tradition, the other on Wittgenstein's treatment of negation and contradiction.
Comment: Can be used in a course on relevant logic or on negation. The emphasis on comparing different models makes it ideal for discussion. No familiarity with relevant logic is required.
Russell, Gillian. Truth in Virtue of Meaning: A Defence of the Analytic/Synthetic Distinction2008, Oxford: Oxford University Press.-
Expand entry
-
Added by: Giada Fratantonio and Berta Grimau
Publisher's Note: The analytic/synthetic distinction looks simple. It is a distinction between two different kinds of sentence. Synthetic sentences are true in part because of the way the world is, and in part because of what they mean. Analytic sentences - like all bachelors are unmarried and triangles have three sides - are different. They are true in virtue of meaning, so no matter what the world is like, as long as the sentence means what it does, it will be true. This distinction seems powerful because analytic sentences seem to be knowable in a special way. One can know that all bachelors are unmarried, for example, just by thinking about what it means. But many twentieth-century philosophers, with Quine in the lead, argued that there were no analytic sentences, that the idea of analyticity didn't even make sense, and that the analytic/synthetic distinction was therefore an illusion. Others couldn't see how there could fail to be a distinction, however ingenious the arguments of Quine and his supporters. But since the heyday of the debate, things have changed in the philosophy of language. Tools have been refined, confusions cleared up, and most significantly, many philosophers now accept a view of language - semantic externalism - on which it is possible to see how the distinction could fail. One might be tempted to think that ultimately the distinction has fallen for reasons other than those proposed in the original debate. In Truth in Virtue of Meaning, Gillian Russell argues that it hasn't. Using the tools of contemporary philosophy of language, she outlines a view of analytic sentences which is compatible with semantic externalism and defends that view against the old Quinean arguments. She then goes on to draw out the surprising epistemological consequences of her approach.Comment: This can be used as further/secondary reading for a postgraduate course on epistemology or philosophy of language, focusing on Quine and on the analytic/synthetic distinction.
Russell, Gillian. Logical Pluralism2013, Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.-
Expand entry
-
Added by: Giada Fratantonio and Berta GrimauAbstract:
Description: Survey article on logical pluralism. The article is divided into three main parts: i) in the first one the author presents the main arguments for logical pluralism with respect to logical consequence; ii) in the second part, the author considers the relation between logical pluralism and Carnap's linguistic pluralism; iii) in the last section, the author considers further kinds of logical pluralism.Comment: This article could be used as background or overview reading on logical pluralism. Suitable for a specialised, perhaps master's level course on logical pluralism or for a more general course on philosophy of logic touching on the topic.
Russell, Gillian. The Analytic/Synthetic Distinction2014, Philosophy Compass 2(5): 712–729.-
Expand entry
-
Added by: Giada Fratantonio and Berta Grimau
Abstract: Once a standard tool in the epistemologist’s kit, the analytic/synthetic distinction was challenged by Quine and others in the mid-twentieth century and remains controversial today. But although the work of a lot contemporary philosophers touches on this distinction – in the sense that it either has consequences for it, or it assumes results about it – few have really focussed on it recently. This has the consequence that a lot has happened that should affect our view of the analytic/synthetic distinction, while little has been done to work out exactly what the effects are. All these features together make the topic ideal for either a survey or research seminar at the graduate level: it can provide an organising theme which justifies a spectrum of classic readings from Locke to Williamson, passing though Kant, Frege, Carnap, Quine and Kripke on the way, but it could also provide an excuse for a much more narrowly construed research seminar which studies the consequences of really contemporary philosophy of language and linguistics for the distinctionComment: This paper can be used as introductory/background reading on the topic of the analytic/synthetic distinction and the famous Quinean critique to it. Suitable for an advance course on philosophy of language or a specialised course on the analytic/synthetic distinction. It can also be used in a course on the history of analytic philosophy.
Russell, Gillian, Fara, Delia Graff. Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Language2013, Routledge.-
Expand entry
-
Added by: Berta Grimau
Abstract: Philosophy of language is the branch of philosophy that examines the nature of meaning, the relationship of language to reality, and the ways in which we use, learn, and understand language. This companion provides a comprehensive and up-to-date survey of the field, charting its key ideas and movements, and addressing contemporary research and enduring questions in the philosophy of language. Unique to this companion is clear coverage of research from the related disciplines of formal logic and linguistics, and discussion of the applications in metaphysics, epistemology, ethics and philosophy of mind. The book is divided into seven sections: Core Topics; Foundations of Semantics; Parts of Speech; Methodology; Logic for Philosophers of Language; Philosophy of Language for the Rest of Philosophy; and Historical Perspectives.Comment: The first part of this book ('Core Topics') can be used as background reading for a general course in philosophy of language. The rest of the book includes more specialised articles, which can be used as background reading for specialized courses. Chapter 6, 'Philosophy of Language for the Rest of Philosophy', could be the core reading for a final section in a philosophy of language course focusing on the applicability of the philosophy of language for other areas of philosophy.
Russell, Gillian. Logical Nihilism: Could there be no Logic?2018, Philosophical Issues, 28: 308-324-
Expand entry
-
Added by: Franci MangravitiAbstract:
Logical nihilism can be understood as the view that there are no laws of logic. This paper presents both a counterexample-based argument in favor of logical nihilism, and a way to resist it by using Lakatos' method of lemma incorporation. The price to pay is the loss of absolute generality.
Comment: The paper is appropriate for any course discussing the monism vs pluralism vs nihilism debate in logic (or maybe even focusing on varieties of logical nihilism). On a technical level it requires no more than an introduction to formal logic; some familiarity with monist and pluralist positions is helpful for context.
Russell, Gillian. Logic: A Feminist Approach2020, In Garchar, Kimberly K. and Shew, Melissa M. (Ed.). Philosophy for girls: An invitation to a life of thought, pp. 79-98-
Expand entry
-
Added by: Franci MangravitiAbstract:
This chapter asks whether there is any such thing as feminist logic. It defines feminism and logic, and then goes on to present and evaluate four possible views, introducing and critiquing the work of Andrea Nye, Val Plumwood, and Susan Stebbing. It argues that Stebbing’s approach—on which feminism is one among many political applications of logic—is correct, but that feminist logic could do more, by providing a formal framework for the study of social hierarchies, much as it presently provides a formal framework for the study of numbers and similarity rankings among possible worlds.
Comment: Ideal for an intro course to either feminist philosophy or logic, to introduce possible interactions between the fields. More advanced courses (in either direction) might want to adopt G. Russell's "From Anti-Exceptionalism to Feminist Logic" instead, which covers the same topic in a lot more detail.
Russell, Gillian. From Anti-Exceptionalism to Feminist Logic2023, Hypatia, forthcoming-
Expand entry
-
Added by: Franci MangravitiAbstract:
Anti-exceptionalists about formal logic think that logic is continuous with the sciences. Many philosophers of science think that there is feminist science. Putting these two things together: can anti-exceptionalism make space for feminist logic? The answer depends on the details of the ways logic is like science and the ways science can be feminist. This paper wades into these details, examines five different approaches, and ultimately argues that anti-exceptionalism makes space for feminist logic in several different ways.
Comment:
available in this Blueprint
Can’t find it?Contribute the texts you think should be here and we’ll add them soon!
-
-
-
This site is registered on Toolset.com as a development site. -
-
-
-
-
-
Radden, Jennifer. Symptoms in particular: feminism and the disordered mind
2022, In McWeeny, J. and Maitra, K. (eds) Feminist Philosophy of Mind. New York: Oxford University Press, pp.121-138
Comment (from this Blueprint): Radden's paper introduces the reader to broad concerns with the dominant medical model of disorder from a feminist perspective, highlighting the tension with a naturalistic, reductionist approach with the situated and ecological approach of Radden's feminism. This article touches on topics mentioned in other readings (such as enactive concpetions of mind and epistemic injustice) but contextualises them within the field of philosophy of psychiatry. As such, this article is a fruitful springboard for critically considering the nature of medicine and psychiatry from multiple angles. This chapter would be complimented by the further reading of Russell's (2023) paper on Enactive Psychiatry.