Reflections on language and charity: a response to Stei’s “Logical Pluralism and Logical Consequence”

Abstract In Logical Pluralism and Logical Consequence (Cambridge University Press, 2023), Erik Stei argues for logical monism, the view that there is exactly one correct logic, in opposition to logical pluralism and logical nihilism. The present review aims to challenge two premisses in the main argument of the volume. First, Stei argues that no version of pluralism based on a plurality of senses of the logical connectives succeeds in proving that logical vocabulary is genuinely plural in the required sense. Second, he also argues that pluralism cannot account for the rivalry between logics, which makes the position less charitable than it claims. I will give arguments against the two premisses after presenting the details of the main argument for monism that we find in the book.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Asian Journal of Philosophy
Published
2025-05-09
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s44204-025-00249-z
Primary Topic
Wittgensteinian philosophy and applications
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Reflections on language and charity: a response to Stei’s “Logical Pluralism and Logical Consequence”

Pilar Terrés Villalonga
Asian Journal of Philosophy
Wittgensteinian philosophy and applications
article

Reflections on language and charity: a response to Stei’s “Logical Pluralism and Logical Consequence”

Pilar Terrés Villalonga
article en

Abstract

Abstract In Logical Pluralism and Logical Consequence (Cambridge University Press, 2023), Erik Stei argues for logical monism, the view that there is exactly one correct logic, in opposition to logical pluralism and logical nihilism. The present review aims to challenge two premisses in the main argument of the volume. First, Stei argues that no version of pluralism based on a plurality of senses of the logical connectives succeeds in proving that logical vocabulary is genuinely plural in the required sense. Second, he also argues that pluralism cannot account for the rivalry between logics, which makes the position less charitable than it claims. I will give arguments against the two premisses after presenting the details of the main argument for monism that we find in the book.

Asian Journal of PhilosophyVol. 4(1)
Universitat de València (ES)
Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación, Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia
Openalex Percentile: Top 89%
Wittgensteinian philosophy and applications
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.