Studia humana (SH) is a multi-disciplinary peer reviewed journal publishing valuable
contributions on any aspect of human sciences such as...
Special issue: Indian logic
February 13th, 2022
Studia Humana special issue on Indian logic

Interdisciplinary journal Studia Humana invites contributors interested in Indian logic to send paper proposals. In this ussue we are going to explicate a logical-epistemological dimension of traditional philosophical thinking of different darśanas as well as of non-orthodox schools such as Yogācāra and Mādhyamaka.

Suggested topics include, but are not limited to the following:

- Conceptual differences between dharma and dharmin in the darśanas

- Epistemological and cognitive aspects of Advaita Vedānta

- Semantical and epistemological aspects of Mīmāṃsā

- Ontological and semantical aspects of Vaiśeṣika

- Logical theory of Nyāya

- Logical theory of Yogācāra

- Jain logic

- Logical critics of Mādhyamaka

- Argumentation and debates according to one of the schools of Indian philosophy

- Formalizations of epistemological and logical doctrines of Indian philosophy

Authors are asked to send their papers until the end of August 2022 to the following e-mail address:

Accepted papers are scheduled for publication in 4 issue 2022 (November), while all finally accepted papers may be published prior to assignment to the issue as early view.

Instructions for authors:
Special issue: argumentation logic
February 6th, 2022
Special issue: space philosophy and space ethics
February 15th, 2021
Early view option
September 25th, 2020


Many-worlds theory of truth
author: Alexander Boldachev,
The logical world is a set of propositions, united by common principles of establishing their truth. The many-worlds theory asserting that the truth of any proposition in any given logical world is always established by comparing it with standard propositions in this world – directly or via the procedure of transferring the truth.


Trends in Argumentation Logic

author: Sofia Almpani, Elena Lisanyuk, Andrew Schumann,
In this paper, we introduce the subject of the special issue Trends in Argumentation Logic. Here we mainly describe two approaches to argumentation logic with explicating monotonic and non-monotonic, or defeasible, reasoning and explain the role of artificial intelligence in applying argumentation logic. Then we give a short overview of the papers contributed to the special issue.

Argumentation: Reasoning Universalis

author: Antonis Kakas,
Can argumentation form the basis for any form of reasoning, informal or formal logical reasoning? We examine this question from the particular perspective of the recent developments in logic-based Artificial Intelligence (AI). We propose that argumentation provides the wider framework encompassing uniformly all reasoning, with strict or formal logical reasoning being a special boundary case. We also attempt to link this unifying role of argumentation with Aristotle’s original investigation of methods and formalisms for the systematic study of human reasoning.

Ambiguity in Argumentation: The Impact of Contextual Factors on Semantic Interpretation

author: Dimitra Serakioti, Petros Stefaneas,
This article is concerned with the concept of ambiguity in argumentation. Ambiguity in linguistics lies on the coexistence of two possibly interpretations of an utterance, while the role of contextual factors and background/encyclopedic knowledge within a specific society seems to be crucial. From a systemic point of view, Halliday has proposed three main language functions (meta-functions): a) ideational function, b) interpersonal function, c) textual function. Language could reflect speaker’s experience of his external and internal world, interpersonal relationships and organization of text, respectively. Lexico-grammatical choices under a micro-level perspective and context (the environment of language) may lead to inconsistent interpretations through semantic or syntactic ambiguities. In philosophy and argumentation logic, strategies of ambiguity have been investigated by Aristotle, since the first sophistic movement. In his Topics, Metaphysics and Rhetoric, has pointed out the notion of “τὸ διττῶς / διχῶς λεγόμενον”, meaning that a term can have different senses and double interpretation. In this paper we discuss how we reconstruct the meaning of an utterance in dialogue through the mechanism of interpretation and how we analyze and construe ambiguities, combining the insights of argumentation theory and text linguistics. Research results show that in case of misunderstanding, the “best interpretation” is the less defeasible one according to contextual presumptions.