Graduate studies at Western
Vivarium 46 (2):175-191 (2008)
|Abstract||Thomas Bradwardine makes much of the fact that his solution to the insolubles is in accordance with Aristotle's diagnosis of the fallacy in the Liar paradox as that of secundum quid et simpliciter. Paul Spade, however, claims that this invocation of Aristotle by Bradwardine is purely "honorary" in order to confer specious respectability on his analysis and give it a spurious weight of authority. Our answer to Spade follows Bradwardine's response to the problem of revenge: any proposition saying of itself that it is false says more than does Bradwardine's proposition saying of it that it is false, and so follows from that other proposition only in respect of part of what it says, and not simpliciter.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
L. Goldstein (2012). The Sorites is Nonsense Disguised by a Fallacy. Analysis 72 (1):61-65.
Douglas Walton (1999). Rethinking the Fallacy of Hasty Generalization. Argumentation 13 (2):161-182.
Stephen Read (2010). Field's Paradox and Its Medieval Solution. History and Philosophy of Logic 31 (2):161-176.
Allan Bäck (2002). The Role of Qualification. Journal of Philosophical Research 27:159-171.
Stephen Read (2009). Plural Signification and the Liar Paradox. Philosophical Studies 145 (3):363 - 375.
Catarina Dutilh Novaes (2011). Lessons on Truth From Mediaeval Solutions to the Liar Paradox. Philosophical Quarterly 61 (242):58-78.
Paul Vincent Spade (1975). The Mediaeval Liar: A Catalogue of the Insolubilia-Literature. Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies.
M. V. Dougherty (2001). Perplexity Simpliciter and Perplexity Secundum Quid. International Philosophical Quarterly 41 (4):469-480.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads19 ( #71,310 of 739,404 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,288 of 739,404 )
How can I increase my downloads?