Scholarlink

<p>In their terrific book <i>Reasons for Logic, Logic for Reasons</i>, Ulf Hlobil and Robert Brandom defend a normative-pragmatic interpretation of implication and incompatibility cashed out in bilateral terms. Using epistemic modal cases, I argue that Hlobil and Brandom’s normative-pragmatic interpretation of implication fails to account for the force of consequence and to provide an extensionally adequate characterization of implication. I also show that the same cases cause trouble for Hlobil and Brandom’s condition relating negation to incompatibility. I argue, however, that these problems can be avoided by switching from a bilateral to a multilateral setting.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

A plea for multilateralism

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年2月20日

查看全文
  • Luca Incurvati

摘要

In their terrific book Reasons for Logic, Logic for Reasons, Ulf Hlobil and Robert Brandom defend a normative-pragmatic interpretation of implication and incompatibility cashed out in bilateral terms. Using epistemic modal cases, I argue that Hlobil and Brandom’s normative-pragmatic interpretation of implication fails to account for the force of consequence and to provide an extensionally adequate characterization of implication. I also show that the same cases cause trouble for Hlobil and Brandom’s condition relating negation to incompatibility. I argue, however, that these problems can be avoided by switching from a bilateral to a multilateral setting.