Are there true contradictions? A critical discussion of Graham Priest's, beyond the limits of thought
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 29 (2):289-299 (1998)
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)|
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.
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.
Similar books and articles
Andrea Sauchelli (2012). Fictional Objects, Non-Existence, and the Principle of Characterization. Philosophical Studies 159 (1):139-146.
Yaroslav Shramko & Heinrich Wansing (2006). Hyper-Contradictions, Generalized Truth Values and Logics of Truth and Falsehood. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 15 (4):403-424.
Jay L. Garfield & Graham Priest (2003). Nagarjuna and the Limits of Thought. Philosophy East and West 53 (1):1-21.
Graham Priest (2002). Beyond the Limits of Thought. Oxford University Press.
Jay Garfield & Graham Priest (2008). The Way of the Dialetheist: Contradictions in Buddhism. Philosophy East and West 58 (3):395 - 402.
I. Grattan-Guinness (1998). Discussion. Structural Similarity of Structuralism? Comments on Priest's Analysis of the Paradoxes of Self-Reference. Mind 107 (428):823-834.
Emil Badici (2008). The Liar Paradox and the Inclosure Schema. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 86 (4):583 – 596.
Graham Priest (2010). Badici on Inclosures and the Liar Paradox. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 88 (2):359-366.
Laurence Goldstein (2005). Introduction. The Monist 88 (1):3-10.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads26 ( #142,242 of 1,789,899 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #263,819 of 1,789,899 )
How can I increase my downloads?