Abstract

A logic is paraconsistent if it allows for non-trivial inconsistent theories. Given the usual definition of inconsistency, the notion of paraconsistent logic seems to rely upon the interpretation of teh sign '¬'. As paraconsistent logic challenges properties of negation taken to be basic in other contexts, it is disputable that an operator lacking those properties will count as real negation. The conclusion is that there cannot be genuine paraconsistent logics. This objection can be met from a substructural perspective, since paraconsistent sequent calculi can be built from the same operational rules as classical logic but with slightly different structural rules.