In this thesis I discuss the problems associated with the epistemological task of arriving at basic logical knowledge. This is knowledge that the primitive rules of inference we use in deductive reasoning are correct. Knowledge of correctness, like all knowledge, is available to us either as the product of inference, or it is available non-inferentially. Success in the campaign to justify the correctness of these rules is mired by opposing views on how to do this properly. Inferential justifications of rules of inference, which are based on reasons, lead to regressive or circular results. Non-inferential justifications, based on something other than reasons, at first do not seem to fare any better: without a basis for these justifications, they appear arbitrary and unfounded. The works of Boghossian and Dummett who argue for an inferentialist approach, and Hale who supports non-inferentialism are carefully examined in this thesis. I conclude by finding superiority in Hale's suggestion that a particular set of basic logical constants are indispensable to deductive reasoning. I suggest that we endorse a principle which states that rules are not premises, and are therefore to be excluded from expression as statements in a deductive argument. I argue that the quality of being indispensable is sufficient for a basic rule of deduction to be countenanced as default-justified, and therefore need not be expressed in argument. By a rule's evading expression in argument, it avoids circular reasoning in deductive arguments about its own correctness. Another important outcome that emerges from my research is the finding that non-inferential knowledge is ontologically prior to the inferential sort. This is because plausible inferential knowledge of basic logical constants shall always be justified by circular reasoning that already assumes the correctness of the rule to be vindicated. This initial assumption is tantamount to non-inferential knowledge, and therefore this latter is more primitive-in fact the only primitive-species of basic logical knowledge.

In this thesis I discuss the problems associated with the epistemological task of arriving at basic logical knowledge. This is knowledge that the primitive rules of inference we use in deductive reasoning are correct. Knowledge of correctness, like all knowledge, is available to us either as the product of inference, or it is available non-inferentially. Success in the campaign to justify the correctness of these rules is mired by opposing views on how to do this properly. Inferential justifications of rules of inference, which are based on reasons, lead to regressive or circular results. Non-inferential justifications, based on something other than reasons, at first do not seem to fare any better: without a basis for these justifications, they appear arbitrary and unfounded. The works of Boghossian and Dummett who argue for an inferentialist approach, and Hale who supports non-inferentialism are carefully examined in this thesis. I conclude by finding superiority in Hale's suggestion that a particular set of basic logical constants are indispensable to deductive reasoning. I suggest that we endorse a principle which states that rules are not premises, and are therefore to be excluded from expression as statements in a deductive argument. I argue that the quality of being indispensable is sufficient for a basic rule of deduction to be countenanced as default-justified, and therefore need not be expressed in argument. By a rule's evading expression in argument, it avoids circular reasoning in deductive arguments about its own correctness. Another important outcome that emerges from my research is the finding that non-inferential knowledge is ontologically prior to the inferential sort. This is because plausible inferential knowledge of basic logical constants shall always be justified by circular reasoning that already assumes the correctness of the rule to be vindicated. This initial assumption is tantamount to non-inferential knowledge, and therefore this latter is more primitive-in fact the only primitive-species of basic logical knowledge.

This thesis discusses the central ideas that surround Michael Dummett's claim that there is an incompatibility between a truth-conditional conception of meaning and a minimalist conception of truth. These ideas are brought into relation to the work of John McDowell and Donald Davidson, as all three philosophers can be better understood by locating them within Dummett's dialectic regarding the incompatibility. Dummett's argument crucially depends upon the assumption that a meaning-theory should be full-blooded in nature, against McDowell's insistence that a meaning-theory can only ever be modest. The main contention of this thesis is that neither Dummett nor McDowell is successful in establishing their strong contentions regarding the form that a meaning-theory should take. McDowell only wants to provide trivial answers to questions about the constitutive nature of the meanings and competency of particular items in a language. Dummett, on the other hand, wants to provide a reductive account of the central concepts that concern the philosophy of language. What this thesis will argue is that once both of these claims have been rejected, the position Dummett and McDowell jointly dictate is in fact the position that we should read Davidson as occupying, who lies in a conceptual space between the extremes of maximal full-bloodedness and modesty. This is an understanding of Davidson that is contrary to how McDowell reads him, who has been an influential commentator of Davidson. How Davidson should actually be interpreted is achieved by understanding how he has the resources to avoid Dummett's claim of an incompatibility between a truth-conditional conception of meaning and a minimalist conception of truth.