What contradictions say (and what they say not)
AbstractThe aim of this paper is twofold. The first is to present and to defend a view of the nature of contradictions that intends to provide a philosophical justification for logics of formal inconsistency. The view we shall present here is not committed to so-called dialetheism, the thesis according to which there are true contradictions. We want to make clear that the philosophical significance of logics of formal inconsistency, a family of paraconsistent logics that encompasses the great majority of paraconsistent systems developed within the Brazilian and Polish traditions, although not restricted to these (cf. [CarMa01] and [CarCoMa07]), is absolutely independent of one’s beliefs regarding real contradictions.