Hamid Alaeinejad; Morteza Haji Hosseini
Abstract
According to Beall and Restall pluralism, classical logic, relevant logic and intuitionistic logic are all correct. In this type of pluralism, logic is considered to be normative; in the sense that one who accepts the truth of the premises of a valid argument, is bounded to accept the result of that ...
Read More
According to Beall and Restall pluralism, classical logic, relevant logic and intuitionistic logic are all correct. In this type of pluralism, logic is considered to be normative; in the sense that one who accepts the truth of the premises of a valid argument, is bounded to accept the result of that argument. Some philosophers try to show that accepting Beall and Restall pluralism is incompatible by the acceptance of the normativity of logic. However, Blake-Turner and Russell have proposed telic pluralism that is not based on the normativity of logic; claiming that their arguments is not threatened by the collapse argument. In this article, by examining telic pluralism, we have determined that Blake-Turner and Russell’s pluralism lacks strong arguments in defense of non-normativity of logic. On the other hand, we try to present a version of the Priest’s collapse argument that still can be used against telic pluralism.
