Harmony and proof-theoretic semantics
Summer in St Andrews - if you thought that meant vacation, you better think again. An endless onslaught of visitors has us all chained to the seminar room. May and June are the months of visitors to Arché, and we've been blessed with many good talks so far. To mention just a few, Robert May, Mark Richard, Jonathan Schaffer, Kent Bach, Paul Pietroski, and, of course, everyone presenting at the adjective workshop. Yet to come this week is Brian Weatherson and François Recanati, and a joint talk with John Hawthorne and our very own Herman Cappelen.
Meanwhile, I'm slowly getting my head over water again after a couple of rough weeks with marking etc. The proof-theoretic semantics workshop was a success and I got some vital feedback on my paper about proof-theoretic harmony. The second draft of the paper is on its way, but for now I've just made available the slides from my presentation.
Meanwhile, I'm slowly getting my head over water again after a couple of rough weeks with marking etc. The proof-theoretic semantics workshop was a success and I got some vital feedback on my paper about proof-theoretic harmony. The second draft of the paper is on its way, but for now I've just made available the slides from my presentation.
Posts
2 comments:
Hey Ole,
The slides look quite nice. I just got my hands on a copy of Dummett's Logical Basis of Metaphysics, so I'm hoping to read through his harmony stuff at some point this summer. I was wondering, though, if you have seen what Brandom says about harmony in the first chapter of his Articulating Reasons? He talks about harmony for inferentialism as applied to the whole of natural languages, not just logical constants. I don't have a great grip on the line of thought (owing partly to a lack of a grip on some of the important concepts), but I think he argues that it can't serve as a constraint on rules for the whole language. I'm curious what someone more knowledgable thinks of that discussion. I will try to post about it in the next week or so as well.
Hi Shawn,
Still haven't had time to read Brandom's book, but I know I need to. It's already standing ready on my shelf, but it will have to wait until after the annual review. I'd be really interested in what you think about, so please do put up a post. Maybe I'll just read the relevant passages of Brandom to get up to speed.
There's another motivation for reading Brandom now, and that is the fact that Macfarlane's disagreement/relativism debate seems to draw heavily on Brandomian notions. I suspect this will prove valuable for my disagreement about logic paper.
Post a Comment