I'm referred to

therefore I am.

That is what I thought when I saw myself referred to in Philosophy of Logic (the chapter on Infinity). I'm a very bookish person. The editor's chapter on the Liar paradoxes was more interesting, though (my view of his view is here). Any logical paradox will be showing us that something in our logic was not logical enough. Different logics have different paradoxes, and the ideal logic would have no paradoxes. But if our logic told us very little, then we could easily have no paradoxes. So presumably we want our logic to tell us as much as possible without also giving us contradictions. Now, we start with our innate logics, and we learn how to be more logical by solving logical puzzles. But the logic in Philosophy of Logic is a million miles away from that natural process. Why? The history of logic indicates that the answer has a lot to do with the history of infinity (not that you would guess that from the chapter on the history of truth).