The chapter is concerned with a commitment of the logical pluralist: if there are at least two correct logics, then these logics will either involve different logical vocabulary or they will assign different meanings to the shared vocabulary. A central question is how this plurality in meaning can be implemented within a pluralist framework. Pluralists typically endorse claims to the effect that (i) the connectives of the logics have different meanings or (ii) that the notion of validity employed by one logic may be relevantly different from the one employed by the other. A further important question is whether the plurality of meanings is confined to the theoretical level only or whether a corresponding plurality is postulated regarding the extra-systematic counterparts of the logical vocabulary of correct logics. I argue that both connectives pluralism and consequence pluralism are implausible when construed as pluralistic theories. Meta-contextualism–the view that the question of whether the meaning of the logical terminology is the same or different in different contexts is itself subject to semantic variability–is shown to have exceedingly radical implications.

Logical pluralism is sometimes motivated by the claim that it affords a more charitable interpretation of important debates in philosophical logic than monism does. This chapter argues that this claim is false. Pluralists are unable to account for important parts of logical and mathematical practice since they are in no position to account for potential rivalry between different logics. This is a problem for the charity-based project because most non-classical logicians formulate their theories of logical consequence as rivals to classical logic. I introduce three approaches to rivalry that focus on semantics, metasemantics, and applications, respectively. I argue in this chapter that neither the semantic nor the metasemantic approach offer a sense of rivalry that is plausible from a pluralist perspective, leaving the applicational approach for the following chapter. I further argue that this supports the conclusion that, at least as far as issues concerning the meanings of logical vocabulary are concerned, the correct logics are ultimately compatible. If we are interested in potential rivalry between the logics, we will have to look elsewhere.