# metadata.dc.description[].value
Màster en Filosofia Analítica (APhil), Facultat Filosofía, Universitat de Barcelona, Curs: 2021-2022, Director/Tutor: José Martínez

# metadata.dc.description.abstract[].value
The present article follows on a line of research proposed by Ripley in his 2015
article ‘Anything goes’, where he proposes a conception of logical consequence
bearing the peculiar characteristic of discarding the cut rule entirely, and transitivity
with it. This is, of course, a bold step to take, given transitivity’s usefulness.
It still bears some fruitful advantages for an inferential theory of meaning
nonetheless, as it allows entrance into the inferential realm of meaning to many
previously problematic entities -such as connectives like Prior’s infamous tonk.
As the title of Ripley’s article suggests, it seems that in this interpretation of
the turnstile (almost) anything goes. But how exactly does it go, we may ask
ourselves. And indeed, this shall be the question we will try to sketch an answer
for presently. What exactly could the meaning of tonk be in a framework which
accounts for it, i.e. Ripley’s? We believe Ripley’s intuition to be mainly right, and that connectives like tonk do indeed possess a meaning, so we will try to
delve deeper into what the meaning of these faulty connectives could be about.
We will also briefly consider a side issue, which has to do with the fact that,
even if everything goes, it does not seem to be the case that everything goes
in the same way. Indeed, thanks to the many responses to Prior’s article numerous
differences have been spotted between regular, ‘healthy’ connectives like
conjunction and problematic ones like tonk.