Graduate studies at Western
|Abstract||He began his negative case by attacking platonist theories, that is, theories identifying the universal as a separated form really distinct from the individuals it characterizes.3 His next target was so-called moderate realist theories, which identify the universal as a form that is really distinct but not separate from the individuals it characterizes.4 Finally, he turns to Scotist theories, which identify the universal as a form that is only formally distinct from the individuals it characterizes, neither really distinct nor separable from them.5 Buridan’s discussion therefore follows a pattern similar to that found in William of Ockham, where the arguments against..|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Colin Connors (2009). Scotus and Ockham. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 83:141-153.
Jean Buridan (1982). John Buridan on Self-Reference: Chapter Eight of Buridan's Sophismata. Cambridge University Press.
Gonzalo Rodriguez-Pereyra (2000). What is the Problem of Universals? Mind 109 (434):255-273.
Hill (2010). Is Buridan's Theory of Abstraction Incompatible with His Nominalist Semantics? An Evaluation of Klima's Charge Against Buridan. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 84:167-178.
Peter King (1987). Jean Buridan's Philosophy of Science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 18 (2):109-132.
Simon Evnine, &Quot;every Proposition Asserts Itself to Be True&Quot;: A Buridanian Solution to the Liar Paradox?
Christopher H. Eliot (2011). Hempel's Provisos and Ceteris Paribus Clauses. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 42 (2):207-218.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads15 ( #86,014 of 739,352 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,538 of 739,352 )
How can I increase my downloads?