In this paper we re-assess the philosophical foundation of Exactly True Logic (\(\mathcal {ET\!L}\)), a competing variant of First Degree Entailment (\(\mathcal {FDE}\)). In order to do this, we first rebut an argument against it. As the argument appears in an interview with Nuel Belnap himself, one of the fathers of \(\mathcal {FDE}\), we believe its provenance to be such that it needs to be taken seriously. We submit, however, that the argument ultimately fails, and that \(\mathcal {ET\!L}\) cannot easily be dismissed. We then proceed to give an overview of the research that was inspired by this logic over the last decade, thus providing further motivation for the study of \(\mathcal {ET\!L}\) and, more generally, of \(\mathcal {FDE}\)-related logics that result from semantical analyses alternative to Belnap’s canonical one. We focus, in particular, on philosophical questions that these developments raise.

在本文中，我们重新评估精确真实逻辑（\(\mathcal {ET\!L}\) ）的哲学基础，它是一级蕴涵（\(\mathcal {FDE}\) ）的竞争变体。为了做到这一点，我们首先反驳反对它的论点。正如这个论点出现在对 Nuel Belnap 本人（\(\mathcal {FDE}\)之父之一）的采访中，我们相信它的出处是需要认真对待的。然而，我们认为该论证最终失败，并且\(\mathcal {ET\!L}\)不能轻易被驳回。然后，我们继续概述过去十年受这一逻辑启发的研究，从而为研究提供进一步的动力\(\mathcal {ET\!L}\)，更一般地说，是\(\mathcal {FDE}\)相关逻辑，这些逻辑是由贝尔纳普规范逻辑的替代语义分析产生的。我们特别关注这些发展提出的哲学问题。