What is the relationship between logical laws and rational thinking? Are there facts about logic that are independent of us, and if so, what is their metaphysical status? Do purely logical statements have meaning? Is there a true logical system, or can several logical systems be accepted at once? What is the relationship between classical logic and alternative logics?

Given the central role that logic plays in contemporary philosophy, the importance of these questions cannot be underestimated. In analytical philosophy in particular, it is often assumed that logical formalization can lend arguments a special power. This power makes it seemingly impossible to accept the premises of an argument and yet reject its conclusion. Arguments that cannot be formalized in this way, on the other hand, are often rejected as ‘unscientific.’

But as central as logic is to analytical philosophy, philosophers disagree about its nature and foundations. This great diversity of positions in the philosophy of logic has a long tradition: Frege believed that the principles of logic were general laws of truth and that rules for correct judgment could be derived from them. (Der Gedanke, 58) Carnap's famous postulate “In logic there are no morals” (The Logical Syntax of Language §17) expresses the idea that logical systems can only claim validity relative to the specification of a particular language. Jared Warren believes that logical truths are a shadow of syntax or reflections on linguistic rules. (Shadows of Syntax, p. 325; Slogan 8)

The aim of the conference is to facilitate the exchange of different positions on the mentioned issues. Both systematic contributions to current debates and discussions of historical positions are welcome.