Social Entrepreneurship: The Logic of Paradox

Social entrepreneurship is a paradoxical phenomenon wherein seemingly incompatible elements such as business and social logics coexist. Previous research has been insufficient to systematically describe how social entrepreneurship organizations (SEO) try to balance these logics and why these same paradoxical elements make social entrepreneurship what it is. Using the systematic literature review method, this paper examines six major paradoxes and how they affect both the theory and practice of social entrepreneurship by furthering the nascent discussion about the role of paradoxes in SEOs. Viewed through the lens of organizational logics, this paper argues that the dynamic interplay between these paradoxes initiates and drives the innovations and changes necessary for the very existence of SEOs.

Inferences and Metainferences in ST

In a recent paper, Barrio, Tajer and Rosenblatt establish a correspondence between metainferences holding in the strict-tolerant logic of transparent truth ST+ and inferences holding in the logic of paradox LP+. They argue that LP+ is ST+’s external logic and they question whether ST+’s solution to the semantic paradoxes is fundamentally different from LP+’s. Here we establish that by parity of reasoning, ST+ can be related to LP+’s dual logic K+. We clarify the distinction between internal and external logic and argue that while ST+’s nonclassicality can be granted, its self-dual character does not tie it to LP+ more closely than to K+.

Extensions of paraconsistent weak Kleene logic

Paraconsistent weak Kleene ($\textrm{PWK}$) logic is the $3$-valued logic based on the weak Kleene matrices and with two designated values. In this paper, we investigate the poset of prevarieties of generalized involutive bisemilattices, focussing in particular on the order ideal generated by Α$\textrm{lg} (\textrm{PWK})$. Applying to this poset a general result by Alexej Pynko, we prove that, exactly like Priest’s logic of paradox, $\textrm{PWK}$ has only one proper nontrivial extension apart from classical logic: $\textrm{PWK}_{\textrm{E}}\textrm{,}$ PWK logic plus explosion. This $6$-valued logic, unlike $\textrm{PWK} $, fails to be paraconsistent. We describe its consequence relation via a variable inclusion criterion and identify its Suszko-reduced models.

The “Ontological Difference” Again. A Dialetheic Perspective on Heidegger’s Mainstay

This paper intends to offer a new assessment of the “Ontological Difference” (OD), one of Martin Heidegger’s mainstays, in the light of the metaphysical view called “dialetheism”. In the first paragraph I briefly summarize the main argument of Heidegger’s contradiction of Being, where OD is present as a premise. In the second paragraph I introduce dialetheism, indicate two kinds of dialetheic solutions to the paradox and explain why they face comeback troubles from OD. The third paragraph is devoted to a review of Heidegger’s uses of OD and underlines the crucial role of negation in it. In the fourth paragraph I investigate the philosopher’s account of negation and show similarities with the account provided by the paraconsistent logic called “Logic of Paradox”. The fifth paragraph puts forward two possible readings of OD, the first based on the classical notion of negation and the second on the notion of negation pointed out in the previous paragraph. The second reading is proved suitable for dialetheists and in accordance with the exegesis of some textual passages from Heidegger’s late works.

Dialetheists’ Lies About the Liar

Liar-like paradoxes are typically arguments that, by using very intuitive resources of natural language, end up in contradiction. Consistent solutions to those paradoxes usually have difficulties either because they restrict the expressive power of the language, or else because they fall prey to extended versions of the paradox. Dialetheists, like Graham Priest, propose that we should take the Liar at face value and accept the contradictory conclusion as true. A logical treatment of such contradictions is also put forward, with the Logic of Paradox (LP), which should account for the manifestations of the Liar. In this paper we shall argue that such a formal approach, as advanced by Priest, is unsatisfactory. In order to make contradictions acceptable, Priest has to distinguish between two kinds of contradictions, internal and external, corresponding, respectively, to the conclusions of the simple and of the extended Liar. Given that, we argue that while the natural interpretation of LP was intended to account for true and false sentences, dealing with internal contradictions, it lacks the resources to tame external contradictions. Also, the negation sign of LP is unable to represent internal contradictions adequately, precisely because of its allowance of sentences that may be true and false. As a result, the formal account suffers from severe limitations, which make it unable to represent the contradiction obtained in the conclusion of each of the paradoxes.

Negation as Cancellation, Connexive Logic, and qLPm

In this paper, we shall consider the so-called cancellation view of negation and the inferential role of contradictions. We will discuss some of the problematic aspects of negation as cancellation, such as its original presentation by Richard and Valery Routley and its role in motivating connexive logic. Furthermore, we will show that the idea of inferential ineffectiveness of contradictions can be conceptually separated from the cancellation model of negation by developing a system we call qLPm, a combination of Graham Priest’s minimally inconsistent Logic of Paradox with q-entailment (quasi-entailment) as introduced by Grzegorz Malinowski.