子結構邏輯視域下的語義悖論研究

On Semantic Paradoxes from the Perspective of Substructural Logics

張順(Shun ZHANG)；張建軍(Jianjun ZHANG)

語義悖論 ； 有效性寇里悖論 ； 子結構邏輯 ； 結構規則 ； Semantic Paradox ； Validity Curry Paradox ； Substructural Logic ； Structural Rule

哲學與文化

46卷5期（2019 / 05 / 01）

77 - 95

繁體中文

子結構解悖路徑是近年來出現的一種對說謊者悖論、寇里－吉奇悖論和有效性寇里悖論等語義悖論給出「統一解法」的新穎路徑，其特點是將解悖焦點轉移到悖論推導中的結構規則之修正。儘管該路徑上的非收縮、非傳遞以及非自反三大類具體方案都存在一些待解決問題，但已顯示出相對於修正聯結詞規則的傳統解悖路徑的比較優勢。利用子結構邏輯方法能夠對一系列傳統方案給予「子結構重塑」，非但不構成對子結構路徑之「獨立性」的質疑，反而體現了子結構解悖路徑聚焦於結構規則的獨特價值，有助於釐清各種非經典解悖方案在形式結構上的區別與聯繫。就發展前景而言，子結構路徑需要進一步完善其語形與語義理論建構，給出更加合理的非特設性辯護，並進一步開掘其多維應用價值。

The substructural approach to semantic paradoxes is a novel solution emerged in recent years, with which a ＂uniform solution＂ is given to the semantic paradoxes such as the liar paradox, the Curry-Geach paradox and the validity Curry paradox. This approach is characterized by its transferring the focus to the revision of the structural rules used in the paradox derivations. There are three specific approaches in this spirit-non-contractive, non-transitive and non-reflexive. Although some unresolved problems still remain, these approaches have shown comparative advantages to the traditional approaches focusing on modifying connective rules. A series of traditional approaches can be ＂substructurally reshaped＂ by using substructural logics. This does not lead to any doubt of the ＂independence＂ of the substructural approach, instead it reflects the unique value of the substructural approach focusing on the structural rules. It helps clarify the structural differences and connections among various non-classical solutions. In the long run, the substructural approach needs to further improve its constructions of syntax and semantic theory, to provide a more reasonable non-ad hoc defense, and to further explore its multi-dimensional application values.

1. Achourioti, Theodora(ed.),Galinon, Henri(ed.),Fernández, José Martínez(ed.)(2015).Unifying the Philosophy of Truth.Berlin:Springer.
2. Beall, J. C.(ed.),Armour-Garb, Bradley(ed.)(2005).Deflationism and Paradox.Oxford:Clarendon Press.
3. Beall, Jc(2015).Free of Detachment: Logic, Rationality, and Gluts.Noûs,49(2),410-423.
4. Beall, Jc,Murzi, Julien(2013).Two Flavors of Curry's Paradox.Journal of Philosophy,110(3),143-165.
5. Cobreros, Pablo,Égré, Paul,Ripley, David(2013).Reaching Transparent Truth.Mind,122(488),841-866.
6. Field, Hartry(2008).Saving Truth from Paradox.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
7. Field, Hartry(2017).Disarming a Paradox of Validity.Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic,58(1),1-19.
8. French, Rohan(2016).Structural Reflexivity and the Paradoxes of Self-Reference.Ergo,3(5),113-131.
9. Mares, Edwin,Paoli, Francesco(2014).Logical Consequence and the Paradoxes.Journal of Philosophical Logic,43(2-3),439-469.
10. Miklós, Erdélyi-Szabó(Ed.)(1969).The Collected Papers of Gerhard Gentzen.Amsterdam:North-Holland Publishing Company.
11. Murzi, Julien,Carrara, Massimiliano(2015).Paradox and Logical Revision. A Short Introduction.Topoi,34(1),7-14.
12. Paoli, Francesco(2002).Substructural Logics: A Primer.Berlin:Springer.
13. Priest, Graham(1995).Beyond the Limits of Thought.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
14. Restall, Greg(2007).Curry's Revenge: The Costs of Non-classical Solutions to the Paradoxes of Self-reference.Revenge of the Liar: New Essays on the Paradox,New York:
15. Restall, Greg(2000).An Introduction to Substructural Logics.London:Routledge.
16. Ripley, David(2015).Comparing Substructural Theories of Truth.Ergo,2(13),299-328.
17. Ripley, David(2013).Paradoxes and Failures of Cut.Australasian Journal of Philosophy,91(1),139-164.
18. Schroeder-Heister, Peter(2012).Paradoxes and Structural Rules.Insolubles and Consequences: Essays in Honour of Stephen Read,London:
19. Schroeder-Heister, Peter(Ed.),Došen, Kosta(Ed.)(1993).Substructural Logics.Oxford:Clarendon Press.
20. Shapiro, Lionel. “LP, K3, and FDE as Substructural Logics,” in The Logica Yearbook 2016. Ed. by Arazim Pavel & Lavička Tomáš. London: College Publications, 2017. https://shapiro.philosophy.uconn.edu/home/research/ (Retrieved 2018.4.27).
21. Shapiro, Lionel(2016).The Very Idea of a Substructural Approach to Paradox.Synthese
22. Shapiro, Lionel(2015).Naive Structure, Contraction and Paradox.Topoi,34(1),75-87.
23. Tarski, Alfred. “The Semantic Conception of Truth: And the Foundations of Semantics,”Philosophy & Phenomenological Research 4.3(1944): 341-376.
24. Weir, Alan(2015).A Robust Non-transitive Logic.Topoi,34(1),99-107.
25. Zardini, Elia(2011).Truth without Contra(di)ction.The Review of Symbolic Logic,4(4),498-535.
26. Zardini, Elia(2014).Naive Truth and Naive Logical Properties.The Review of Symbolic Logic,7(2),351-384.
27. 李珂,劉飛(2018)。弗封閉策略及相關論爭探析。邏輯學研究，11(2)，51-61。
28. 張建軍(1994).科學的難題：悖論.臺北:淑馨出版社.
29. 張建軍(2014).邏輯悖論研究引論（修訂本）.北京:人民出版社.
30. 馮棉(2015).結構推理.桂林:廣西師範大學出版社.
31. 馮棉(2007)。子結構邏輯的研究方法與應用前景。哲學動態，6，68-72。