Димитър Михалчев и проблемът за предмета на логиката
The paper has two main points: the criticism of the prominent Bulgarian philosopher D. Mihalchev against formal logic and the problem of the subject of logic. The main argument of D. Mihalchev’s criticism against formal logic is that by definition it is a science of thinking but actually it deals with speech, with talking. D. Mihalchev considered that the alternative of formal logic was the theory of thinking of the German philosopher Johannes Rehmke. This viewpoint has been rejected in the paper as being unsubstantiated.The central idea in the paper is that the problem of the subject of logic can be solved by the ordinary understanding of logic. Various definitions of the word “logic” which do not contain the word “thinking” have been analyzed to this end. The conclusion is that logic is usually understood as a science of the argument. Hence the argument is the core of the subject of logic. Different viewpoints become distinct here depending on whether the subject of logic is exhausted by deductive arguments or it also includes inductive arguments and fallacies. It has also been underscored that some authors add two more disciplines to the subject of logic which are not directly related to argumentation: namely logical semantics and the methodology of science.The discussion of the problem of the subject of logic is associated with a distinct understanding of definitions. It has been accepted that similarly to the definitions of the so called natural kinds the definition of the common name “logic” is empirical. Logic has been discussed as a spiritual phenomenon, whose emergence can be explained in general by the role played by the argumentative function of language in the intellectual evolution of mankind.In conclusion it has been pointed out that the correct use of the word “logic” corresponds to the ordinary understanding of logic while all other uses are strictly speaking incorrect.
More...
