Rationality and logic /

How can the rationality of logic be established? Any argument to support logic will require logic, and either a circle or a vicious infinite regress will result. But to give up on logic leads to skeptical irrationalism. Many have taken up Platonism to defend the necessity of logic, but this book argues that this is unacceptable. Hanna (Univ. of Colorado at Boulder) argues instead that the rationality of logic can be justified by locating it, or at least a simple "protologic," as an innate mental structure belonging to any animal that can be reckoned rational: since it is innate, then since one must think this way, then one ought to think this way--that is the rational thing to do. The argument is intricate, taking up themes in metaphysics, cognitive science, philosophy of mind, philosophy of logic, and more. But innateness is one thing, truth another: what is it about the world that makes innate logic true? What is the logical form of the world? Thus, the study neglects the issues raised in G. Bergmann's Logic and Reality (CH, Sep'65). Also neglected is the work of W. Sellars in his Science, Perception and Reality (CH, Mar'64). But the study is well written, and the intricate argument always well signposted. Reasonable bibliography. Summing Up: Recommended. Upper-level undergraduates through faculty/researchers. F. Wilson University of Toronto