Is Buridan's Theory of Abstraction Incompatible with His Nominalist Semantics? An Evaluation of Klima's Charge against Buridan
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 84:167-178 (2010)
This paper addresses Klima’s charge of inconsistancy against John Buridan in a book recently published on the subject. Klima argues that Buridan’s theoryof abstraction commits him to the aspectuality of substantial concepts. However, his semantics of absolute terms and concepts prevents him from accepting anyaspectuality of substantial concepts. In light of this problem, the paper gives a detailed reconstruction of Buridan’s account of abstraction, beginning with sensoryperception and singular cognition and ending with the formation of substantial concepts that have a universal signification. Then, from this reconstruction, someBuridanian responses are given to Klima’s critique, which explain at least why Buridan did not see the problem himself. Finally, the conclusion comes down in favor of Klima and, in light of the discussion, highlights some fundamental problems with the nominalist project
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|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
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Gyula Klima (2009). John Buridan. Oxford University Press.
Catarina Dutilh Novaes (2005). Buridan's Consequentia: Consequence and Inference Within a Token-Based Semantics. History and Philosophy of Logic 26 (4):277-297.
Jean Buridan (1982). John Buridan on Self-Reference: Chapter Eight of Buridan's Sophismata. Cambridge University Press.
Gyula Klima (2004). Consequences of a Closed, Token-Based Semantics: The Case of John Buridan. History and Philosophy of Logic 25 (2):95-110.
Jean Buridan (1982). John Buridan on Self-Reference: Chapter Eight of Buridan's Sophismata, with a Translation, an Introduction, and a Philosophical Commentary. Cambridge University Press.
Paloma Pérez-Ilzarbe (2004). Complexio, Enunciatio, Assensus: The Role of Propositions in Knowledge According to John Buridan. In A. Maierù & L. Valente (eds.), Medieval Theories on Assertive and Non-Assertive Language. Leo S. Olschki.
Peter King (1987). Jean Buridan's Philosophy of Science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 18 (2):109-132.
Jeffrey C. Witt (2009). John Buridan. By Gyula Klima, Edited by Brian Davies. Heythrop Journal 50 (4):731-731.
Paloma Pérez-Ilzarbe (2003). John Buridan and Jerónimo Pardo on the Notion of Propositio. In R. L. Friedman & S. Ebbesen (eds.), John Buridan and Beyond. Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters. 89--153.
Stephen Read (2012). John Buridan's Theory of Consequence and His Octagons of Opposition. In J.-Y. Beziau & Dale Jacquette (eds.), Around and Beyond the Square of Opposition. Birkhäuser. 93--110.
Added to index2011-12-01
Total downloads7 ( #185,490 of 1,101,116 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #81,278 of 1,101,116 )
How can I increase my downloads?