(with Jc Beall, Ross Brady, Michael Dunn, Allen Hazen, Edwin Mares, Robert K. Meyer, Graham Priest, David Ripley, John Slaney and Richard Sylvan) “On the Ternary Relation and Conditionality,” Journal of Philosophical Logic (2012) 41:3, pp. 595–612.

doi:10.1007/s10992-011-9191-5

 download pdf

One of the most dominant approaches to semantics for relevant (and many paraconsistent) logics is the Routley–Meyer semantics involving a ternary relation on points. To some (many?), this ternary relation has seemed like a technical trick devoid of an intuitively appealing philosophical story that connects it up with conditionality in general. In this paper, we respond to this worry by providing three different philosophical accounts of the ternary relation that correspond to three conceptions of conditionality. We close by briefly discussing a general conception of conditionality that may unify the three given conceptions.


Do you like this, or do you have a comment? Then please  share or reply on Twitter, or  email me.


← Molinism and the Thin Red Line | Writing Archive | Interpreting and Applying Proof Theories for Modal Logics →

about

I’m Greg Restall, and this is my personal website. I teach philosophy and logic as Professor of Philosophy at the University of Melbourne. ¶ Start at the home page of this site—a compendium of recent additions around here—and go from there to learn more about who I am and what I do. ¶ This is my personal site on the web. Nothing here is in any way endorsed by the University of Melbourne.

elsewhere

subscribe

To receive updates from this site, you can subscribe to the  RSS feed of all updates to the site in an RSS feed reader, or follow me on Twitter at  @consequently, where I’ll update you if anything is posted.

search