Logiques en partage/ Réseau Interlog
Atelier de recherche organisé par Julie Brumberg-Chaumont du 30 juin au 5 juillet 2025.
Participants
Julie BRUMBERG-CHAUMONT (PSL/CNRS/LEM – Paris, France), L. Scott PRATT (University of Oregon – Eugene, OR, États-Unis), Claude ROSENTAL (Agence Nationale de la Recherche, CNRS/CEMS/EHESS – Paris, France), Jerry ROSIEK (University of Oregon – Eugene, États-Unis), Silvia DI VICENZO (Università Ca’ Foscari – Venezia, Italie), Erich RECK (University of California at Riverside – Riverside, États-Unis), Elodie CASSAN (Université de Rouen Normandie, Département de Philosophie – Mont Saint Aignan Cedex, France), Jonathan Chimakonam OKEKE (University of Pretoria – Pretoria, Afrique Du Sud), Francesco BELLUCCI (University of Bologna – Bologna, Italie), Jean-Philippe NARBOUX (Université de Strasbourg, Faculté de Philosophie – Strasbourg, France), Michael BEANEY (University of Aberdeen – Aberdeen, Scotland, Royaume-Uni), Baptiste GUARRY-PETIT (Université Bordeaux Montaigne – Pessac, France), Zornitsa RADEVA (Postdoc, Leibniz Institute of European History (IEG) – Mainz, Allemagne)
Résumé

Fool’s cap map of the world
La rencontre a eu pour objet la structuration scientifique du ‘Réseau pour l’étude interdisciplinaire de la logique’ (réseau Interlog), qui compte aujourd’hui une centaine de membres. Elle a réuni treize collègues venus de différentes disciplines au-delà de la philosophie (sociologie, sciences de l’éducation, psychologie) ainsi que des philosophes formés à l’interdisciplinarité et/ou spécialistes de domaines non-européens. Elle a accueilli deux chercheurs en postdoctorat qui ont présenté leurs travaux à l’équipe. Le réseau se propose d’étudier la logique comme un objet frontière, c’est-à-dire la logique comme structure, norme, compétence et discipline, comprise dans une variété de configurations sociales, culturelles et politiques, au sein d’une approche interculturelle et globale de la logique. Les leviers principaux de la démarche consistent dans l’élargissement de l’étude de la logique au-delà des seules théories, dans l’observation des pratiques logiques et dans l’étude de la logique ‘hors de la logique’. Le projet cherche à promouvoir une étude interdisciplinaire de la logique, non seulement d’un point de vue historique, mais aussi en cherchant à rencontrer la recherche contemporaine. Il souhaite se doter d’outils susceptibles de mesurer de manière fine l’impact des pratiques sociales actuelles de la logique, souvent ignoré par la recherche ou occulté par des approches compartimentées. Cette première rencontre a eu pour but de permettre de créer un langage commun et un socle de compétences et de méthodes partagées, conditions d’un projet véritablement collaboratif et porteur d’innovation. Dans cette perspective, une série de huit sessions a été organisées par des membres venus de différentes disciplines. Les conclusions générales ont notamment mis en évidence l’importance de distinguer la logique en deux sens, à savoir la logique comme ensemble de pratiques réglementées/justifiées de raisonnement et d’argumentation et la logique comme système d’ordre, mais aussi la Logique, c’est-à-dire la logique comme discipline académique dont l’objet serait la logique dans l’un deux sens précédemment relevés (ou d’autres). Il a fallu encore distinguer la ‘logique’, c’est-à-dire la présence d’un tel mot/concept et de ses équivalents possibles dans diverses cultures, et, enfin, l’existence de philosophies de la logique, c’est-à-dire de théorisations de la logique. Les conditions pour une conversation fructueuse au sein du réseau Interlog ont été identifiées, notamment l’adoption d’une conception dé-naturalisée, historicisée et pluralisée de la logique, ainsi que la nécessité d’étudier la logique sans la Logique (la discipline logique), la logique/la Logique sans la ‘logique’ (le terme ‘logique’ ou ses équivalents), la logique en dehors de la Logique, etc. Divers résultats et possibilités de publications ont été discutés; une première Forum du réseau Interlog a été programmé pour juin 2026.
Abstract
The purpose of this first meeting was to establish the scientific structure of the ‘Network for the Interdisciplinary Study of Logic’ (‘Interlog Network’). It includes today about a hundred members. Thirteen colleagues from various disciplines beyond philosophy, such as sociology, educational sciences and psychology, were brought together, as well as philosophers trained in interdisciplinarity and/or scholars specialized in non-European fields. Two postdoctoral researchers were present and discussed their work with the team. The network aims at studying logic as a frontier object, as a structure, a norm, a skill and a discipline. It considers logic in a variety of social, cultural and political settings within an intercultural and global approach. The approach primarily seeks to broaden the study of logic beyond theory alone by observing logical practices and studying logic ‘outside of logic’. The project seeks to promote interdisciplinary logic studies, not only from a historical perspective, but also by engaging with contemporary research. It wishes to develop tools capable of accurately measuring the impact of logic on contemporary social practices, a topic which is often overlooked by research or obscured by compartmentalized approaches. The meeting has been organized in such a way as to facilitate the development of a shared language and a set of common skills and methods, which are essential for truly collaborative and innovative research. Accordingly, members from different disciplines organized a series of eight sessions. The general conclusions led, among others, to insist on the importance of distinguishing logic as regulated/justified practices of reasoning and arguing and logic as a system of order. The general conclusions led, among others, to insist on the importance of distinguishing logic as regulated/justified practices of reasoning and arguing and logic as a system of order. The pervasiveness of the term ‘logic’ led to the need to further distinguish Logic as an academic discipline – studying logic in one of two above-distinguished senses (or other ones) – and ‘logic’ as a term naming a concept with possible equivalents in various cultures, as well as to ascertain the existence of philosophies of logic, i.e. theorizations about logic. The conditions for an ongoing fruitful conversation in the Interlog Network have also relied on adopting a de-naturalized, historicized and pluralized concept of logic, and on studying logic without Logic (the discipline of logic), logic/Logic without ‘logic’ (the very term’ logic and its equivalent), logic outside Logic, etc. Various outcomes and possible edited volumes have been discussed and a first Forum of the Interlog Network has been planned for June 2026.
Compte-rendu
The project of creating the ‘Interlog Network’ is the result of a series of reflections and experiments carried out since 2016, some of them with members of the Network: the projects ‘Homo logicus’ (2016-2023), org. Julie Brumberg-Chaumont, Antonella Romano (EHESS), Catherine König-Pralong (EHESS), Claude Rosental (CNRS/CEMS/EHESS); ‘A Europe of Logic/Empires of logic’ (2017-2019), org. Julie Brumberg-Chaumont, Antonella Romano and Alain de Libera (Collège de France); ‘Social History of Logic in the Middle Ages’ (2018), org. Julie Brumberg-Chaumont and John Marenbon (Cambridge, Trinity College); ‘Pluralizing logic’ (2024-2028), org. Julie Brumberg-Chaumont and Scott L. Pratt (University of Oregon) – focused on the concept of a ‘natural logic’ (logica naturalis).
From the point of view of logical studies, researches conducted in the framework of the ‘Interlog Network’ are based upon the broad ‘Old Model of Logic’. This ‘Old Model’ is broad because it includes today separate fields such as epistemology, philosophy of language, methodology, semiotics, ‘informal logic’, etc. Logic is essentially studied in connection to theories and practices of reasoning and argumentation, where the study of the formal aspects of valid inference represents only a tiny portion of the scope of logic: this clearly opens the field for a much more inclusive approach to cross-cultural and global history of logic, as well as to many European and Western logical traditions that have been quite neglected so far by the historiography of logic. In addition, the model is broad in the sense that it targets the many realities on which logic and logical concepts have been projected over the course of history so as to become newly described as logical in essence: the human mind (with the concept of a ‘natural logic’), creation, nature, action, sensation, emotions, etc. The objective is to pluralize the study of logic and make it meet (again) the cultural, scientific, social and educational dimensions logic has long displayed, to begin with the Middle Ages and its ancient roots. Once taken out of its ‘theoretical box’, logic can be seen to be involved in a great many theories and practices about nature, mankind and society, over the course of history and today. This implies seeing logic as a discipline but also an ‘undisciplined’ knowledge (cf. König-Pralong), a natural ability, a skill, a structure of reality/creation, etc.
Because many researchers in the history of logic in non-Western cultures work in departments other than philosophy departments, the ‘interdisciplinary’ study of logic includes here the study of logic in non-Western traditions.
The idea is to promote an interdisciplinary study of logic, not only from an historical point of view, by associating logic with the history of grammar, literature, law, theology, philosophy, mathematics, sciences, psychology, social sciences, etc., but also by seeking to meet contemporary research, such as legal logic, the sociology of controversy, psychology of reasoning, cognitive sciences, AI, the sociology of discrimination and education sciences, psychometrics (intelligence tests, logic tests), the study of intellectual disability, biology, neurophysiology, etc. During the twentieth century, especially after the birth of the idea of logical pluralism, the hypothesis has also emerged that members of non-Western societies and/or societies, instead of being either ‘pre-logical’ (Lévy-Bruhl) or logical in the same way as we are, would just follow a different or variant logic, maybe one of the non-classical logics invented since the beginning of the twentieth century or one they have carved for themselves. Some scholars have added the idea that some non-Western logics would be more inclusive than ‘our’ logic (often identified to Aristotelian/classical logic) and in fact included classical logic, obtained by restriction.
In the fields of IA, psychology, cognitive sciences, philosophy and logic, many new approaches have tended, from the 1970s, to adopt and design non-standard logics – a wealth of non-classical logics that associated nonmonotonicity to interesting features such as intuitionism, para-consistency or fuzziness – as well as to launch the movement of ‘informal logic’, parallel to the ‘New Rhetoric’ one. Statements and views in these trends generally aim at saving the explanatory power of logic by questioning and widening its concept in order to make it capable of meeting further challenges and capturing higher degrees of complexity, especially for researchers interested in natural language-based, agent-based, and argument-based logics – or in ‘naturalized’ logics.
In all these enterprises, the resources of the history of logic have sometimes been recognized as especially fruitful: a further-enriched, complexified, interdisciplinary, global and cross-cultural history of logic, where the dominance of a formal definition of logic and the exclusive point of view of Western traditions are abandoned can only have more significant results. This is one of the strengths and originality of the Interlog network, namely, systematically discussing every topic taking into account the point of view of the history of logic – or, more precisely, a ‘New Deal History of Logic’ focused on the ‘Old Model’ of logic – thereby always approaching interdisciplinary with a look taken at the history of disciplines. A different way of defining and writing history of logic by scholars who specialize in logic and in history of logic is indeed required as a precondition a new way of sharing logic with colleagues from other fields. This new method is a based on a series of strategic moves, especially a practice-orientated history of logic; a content-related/argumentation-based history of logic, breaking away with the exclusive definition of logic as a formal discipline, a history of logic that mainly targets the very history of the concept of logic and includes a history of the histories of logic; a history interested in cross-cultural approaches and to the study of the various ‘empires of logic’ (Aristotelian/Latin/European empire, especially in the Americas; Islamic empire of logic in Asia, Europe, Africa and India; Buddhist logic in China and India).
The Interlog Network has a dual structure. It includes a team of historians specialized in the history of European/‘Western’ logic (ancient, medieval, early modern and modern) and in non-Western traditions (China ; India (including Islamic logic in the Mughal Empire); Jewish (Hebrew) logic; ‘Arabic’ logic, African logic/logic in Africa (including Islamic logic); logic in the Americas) as well as a team of scholars specialized in various fields in their connection to logical studies: literature, law, medicine, intellectual history, gender studies, psychology, cognitive sciences, sociology, anthropology, education sciences, rhetorics, grammar/linguistics, theology (apologetics, heresiology), disputational/agonistic practices (including martial arts), mathematics/ethnomathematics, postcolonial studies, neurophysiology.
The first meeting of the Interlog Network in ‘Les Treilles’ has ambitioned to address foundational issues regarding various definitions of logic and the kind of methodological innovations that re to be expected. It was organized in such a way as to facilitate the development of a shared vocabulary and set of skills and methods between the thirteen members then present. These are essential tools for a truly collaborative and innovative research. Accordingly, members from different disciplines organized a series of eight sessions, as well as two general discussion sessions. The eight sessions were: ‘Logic and Anthropology’, ‘Studying Logic in the Wild’, ‘Logical Pluralism outside and before ‘Logical Pluralism’’, ‘Logic and Psychology’, ‘A New Deal History of Logic’, ‘Logical Education’, ‘A Cultural History of Logic’, ‘Cross-cultural and Global History of Logic’.
The general conclusions led, among others, to insist on the importance of distinguishing logic as regulated/justified practices of reasoning and arguing and logic as a system of order. The pervasiveness of the term ‘logic’ led to the need to further distinguish Logic as an academic discipline studying logic in one of two above-distinguished senses (or other ones), and ‘logic’ as a term naming a concept with possible equivalents in various cultures, as well as the existence of philosophies of logic, i.e. theorizations about logic. The conditions for an ongoing fruitful conversation in the Interlog Network have also relied on adopting a de-naturalized, historicized and pluralized concept of logic, and on studying logic without Logic (the discipline of logic), logic/Logic without ‘logic’ (the very term’ logic and its equivalent), logic outside Logic, etc. Various outcomes and possible edited volumes have been discussed and a first Forum of the Interlog Network has been planned for June 2026.

Légende : ‘La logique des Treilles (fontaine de Tourtour)’
OpenEdition vous propose de citer ce billet de la manière suivante :
ldiebold (19 septembre 2025). Logiques en partage/ Réseau Interlog. Les carnets de la Fondation des Treilles. Consulté le 10 novembre 2025 à l’adresse https://doi.org/10.58079/14ptd

