CALCULIZING CLASSICAL INFERENTIAL EROTETIC LOGIC

This paper contributes to the calculization of evocation and erotetic implication as defined by Inferential Erotetic Logic (IEL). There is a straightforward approach to calculizing (propositional) erotetic implication which cannot be applied to evocation. First-order evocation is proven to be uncalculizable, i.e. there is no proof system, say FOE, such that for all $X, Q$ : X evokes Q iff there is an FOE-proof for the evocation of Q by X. These results suggest a critique of the represented approaches to calculizing IEL. This critique is expanded into a programmatic reconsideration of the IEL-definitions of evocation and erotetic implication. From a different point of view these definitions should be seen as desiderata that may or may not play the role of a point of orientation when setting up “rules of asking.”

Silence as an Uncertainty Communicational Inductor

The study explores the silence as communicational element and as autonomous message; also, highlights its specificity as an inductor of uncertainty. Thesis that silence radiating uncertainties is proved by using the comparative method and procedures of natural logic and erotetic logic. From the comparison between word and silence follows some characteristic notes of silence: a) the silence is an element without accredited code (there is not a coherent and usable code of silence); b) mostly silence is not only element of communication, but autonomous message; c) the fact that peace is a property of nature and the silence is intentional human element; d) the fact that silence is no speech, logos, discourse, it is an incomplete and expressive "language"; e) that silence is the most important communicational element and uncertainty message inductor.

Time and Interrogative Logical Form

Despite some talk of ‘erotetic logic’ and ‘the logic of interrogatives’, logicians have hitherto completely overlooked the peculiar logical form of questions, also shared by interrogative clauses generally. Of relevance to an understanding of time are those interrogative clauses that are janus-like: sometimes raising a question, sometimes answering it—which can then no longer arise. Since a closed question can no longer arise, it might seem that simply the passing of time turns an open into a closed question. Instead, the passing of time itself can be understood as the closing or resolution of open questions, of the determination of what is not fixed but as yet in question.