Book Review of Jody Azzouni's Tracking Reason

1629 Words4 Pages

Jody Azzouni, Tracking Reason

In many ways, Tracking Reason resembles Jody Azzouni’s previous book,

Deflating Existential Consequence. The subject matter of each lies at the interface

of metaphysics, logic, philosophy of mathematics, and philosophy of

language. The style is both entertaining and clear. The positions argued for

are so controversial as to sound almost insane. And yet the arguments provided

are illuminating, and manage to make the positions seem almost like common

sense. Both books are worth reading both for specialists and those interested

in a clarifying (if idiosyncratic) take on these issues.

In the previous book, Azzouni argued for a type of fictionalism about mathematics.

But rather than following Hartry Field in denying the indispensability

of mathematics, he simply argues that the indispensability of a form of discourse

(and even the truth of existentially quantified sentences!) is not a sign of ontological

commitment. This position helps motivate some of the positions in the

current book, but I think it isn’t necessary.

Tracking Reason advances several separate, but related positions in its three

parts. However, for some reason the subtitle has them in the wrong order -

Part I argues for a special deflationary account of truth (and deals at length

with the semantics and regimentation of natural language); Part II argues that

the role of mathematical proof is to “indicate” a derivation in some mechanical

deduction system; and Part III argues that these two positions are (despite

appearances) compatible with a non-syntactic view of consequence as a type of

truth-preservation. Parts I and II are relatively independent, and I think can

profitably be read on their own. Part III depends mo...

... middle of paper ...

...f semantics (topological and Kripke) that are sound and

complete for S4 modal logic. The fact that we only know of one semantics

for propositional logic has misled us into thinking that its models are more

significant than they really are.

As I mentioned earlier, this book is modular enough that it may be worth

reading parts of this book independently of the whole thing. Although Azzouni

says that much of the material of the nine chapters of this book derives from ten

3

papers (cited in the introduction to each of the three parts), they seem to have

been edited and unified enough that a reader interested in just one topic may

prefer to read the relevant Part (I or II) of this book rather than the separate

papers that it is based on. But for anyone interested in the relationships between

truth, proof, and consequence, I recommend reading the entire thing.

Open Document