In Jaśkowski’s model of discussion, discussive connectives represent certain interactions that can hold between debaters. However, it is not possible within the model for participants to use explicit modal operators. In the paper we present a modal extension of the discussive logic $\textbf{D}_{\textbf{2}}$ that formally corresponds to an extended version of Jaśkowski’s model of discussion that permits such a use. This logic is denoted by $\textbf{m}\textbf{D}_{\textbf{2}}$. We present philosophical motivations for the formulation of this logic. We also give syntactic characterizations (...) of the logic and propose a comparison with certain other modal systems. In particular, we prove that $\textbf{m}\textbf{D}_{\textbf{2}}$ is neither normal nor regular. On the basis of the axiomatization of $\textbf{D}_{\textbf{2}}$, we give an axiomatization of $\textbf{m}\textbf{D}_{\textbf{2}}$. We also give another axiomatization which is not based on the axiomatization of $\textbf{D}_{\textbf{2}}$. Furthermore, we give a natural Kripke-style semantics for $\textbf{m}\textbf{D}_{\textbf{2}}$ and prove the respective adequacy theorems. (shrink)

In the paper we analyse the problem of axiomatizing the minimal variant of discussive logic denoted as $$ {\textsf {D}}_{\textsf {0}}$$ D 0. Our aim is to give its axiomatization that would correspond to a known axiomatization of the original discussive logic $$ {\textsf {D}}_{\textsf {2}}$$ D 2. The considered system is minimal in a class of discussive logics. It is defined similarly, as Jaśkowski’s logic $$ {\textsf {D}}_{\textsf {2}}$$ D 2 but with the help of the deontic normal logic (...) $$\textbf{D}$$ D. Although we focus on the smallest discussive logic and its correspondence to $$ {\textsf {D}}_{\textsf {2}}$$ D 2, we analyse to some extent also its formal aspects, in particular its behaviour with respect to rules that hold for classical logic. In the paper we propose a deductive system for the above recalled discussive logic. While formulating this system, we apply a method of Newton da Costa and Lech Dubikajtis—a modified version of Jerzy Kotas’s method used to axiomatize $$ {\textsf {D}}_{\textsf {2}}$$ D 2. Basically the difference manifests in the result—in the case of da Costa and Dubikajtis, the resulting axiomatization is pure modus ponens-style. In the case of $$ {\textsf {D}}_{\textsf {0}}$$ D 0, we have to use some rules, but they are mostly needed to express some aspects of positive logic. $$ {\textsf {D}}_{\textsf {0}}$$ D 0 understood as a set of theses is contained in $$ {\textsf {D}}_{\textsf {2}}$$ D 2. Additionally, any non-trivial discussive logic expressed by means of Jaśkowski’s model of discussion, applied to any regular modal logic of discussion, contains $$ {\textsf {D}}_{\textsf {0}}$$ D 0. (shrink)

I provide an interpretation of Wittgenstein's much criticized remarks on Gödel's First Incompleteness Theorem in the light of paraconsistent arithmetics: in taking Gödel's proof as a paradoxical derivation, Wittgenstein was right, given his deliberate rejection of the standard distinction between theory and metatheory. The reasoning behind the proof of the truth of the Gödel sentence is then performed within the formal system itself, which turns out to be inconsistent. I show that the models of paraconsistent arithmetics (obtained via the Meyer-Mortensen (...) collapsing filter on the standard model) match with many intuitions underlying Wittgensteins philosophy of mathematics, such as its strict finitism and the insistence on the decidability of any meaningful mathematical question. (shrink)