逻辑后承语义定义探析——从塔斯基、埃切门迪到吉拉·谢尔  

Inquires into Semantic Definition of Logical Consequence—From Tarski,Etchemendy to Gila Sher

作　　者：郭建萍[1] 李伟 Guo Jianping;Li Wei

机构地区：[1]山西大学哲学学院,山西太原030006

出　　处：《河南社会科学》2025年第4期105-113,共9页Henan Social Sciences

基　　金：国家社会科学基金一般项目“知识论的逻辑基础研究”(21BZX105)。

摘　　要：塔斯基在论文《论逻辑后承概念》中以逻辑后承的两个直观考虑为出发点,基于满足等语义概念给出了逻辑后承语义定义,并认为这一定义与逻辑后承的通常用法相一致。然而,埃切门迪却批评塔斯基的语义定义在概念上未把握住逻辑后承的必然性,因而与通常的逻辑后承概念不一致。埃切门迪的批评在学界引起广泛讨论,其中,吉拉·谢尔独创性地以逻辑性完善了塔斯基逻辑后承语义定义,并在为逻辑性提供同构不变标准的基础上,较为全面、彻底、深刻地反驳了埃切门迪的批评,在逻辑和哲学上都具有重要意义。In the“On the Concept of Logical Consequence”,Tarski gave a semantic definition of logical consequence based on satisfication,from two intuitive considerations.He declared this definition is consistent with the common usage of logical consequence.However,Etchemendy criticizes Tarski’s semantic definition does not grasp the necessity of logical consequence conceptually,therefore,it is inconsistent with the common usage of logical consequence.Etchemendy’s criticisms arouse widely academic discussion.Among the discussion,Gila Sher’s plan originally improves Tarski’s semantic definition with logicality,and by providing isomorphism-invariance criterion for logical constants,she refutes Etchemendy’s criticisms in a more comprehensive,thorough and profound way,which is of important significance in both logic and philosophy.

关 键 词：逻辑后承 必然性 形式性 逻辑性 

分 类 号：B81[哲学宗教—逻辑学]