Are there true contradictions? A critical discussion of Graham Priest's, beyond the limits of thought

The present article critically examines three aspects of Graham Priest's dialetheic analysis of very important kinds of limitations (the limit of what can be expressed, described, conceived, known, or the limit of some operation or other). First, it is shown that Priest's considerations focusing on Hegel's account of the infinite cannot be sustained, mainly because Priest seems to rely on a too restrictive notion of object. Second, we discuss Priest's treatment of the paradoxes in Cantorian set-theory. It is shown that Priest does not address the issue in full generality; rather, he relies on a reading of Cantor which implicitly attributes a very strong principle concerning quantification over arbitrary domains to Cantor. Third, the main piece of Priest's work, the so-called “inclosure schema”, is investigated. This schema is supposed to formalize the core of many well-known paradoxes. We claim, however, that formally the schema is not sound.
Keywords dialetheism  paraconsistent logic  paradox  infinity  quantification  domain principle  Priest  Hegel  Cantor  Cartwright
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1023/A:1008230118573
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
Download options
PhilPapers Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 23,189
External links
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Gregory Landini (2009). Russell's Schema, Not Priest's Inclosure. History and Philosophy of Logic 30 (2):105-139.
Zach Weber (2010). Explanation And Solution In The Inclosure Argument. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 88 (2):353-357.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Monthly downloads

Added to index


Total downloads

28 ( #170,259 of 1,940,952 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

1 ( #457,800 of 1,940,952 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature

Start a new thread
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.