On What Follows

Philosophers use deductive arguments. I argue that in doing so we presuppose that some claims entail other claims, and that we can often recognize these entailments. I then argue that we are thereby committed to both metaphysical and epistemological theses regarding entailment. In particular, my dissertation concludes that---lest we give up deductive arguments entirely---there are primitive entailment facts, many of which we can directly recognize by way of intellectual seemings (or 'intuitions'). In arguing for this conclusion, I give reasons to reject modal, model-theoretic, and proof-theoretic accounts of entailment.