Insolubilia and the fallacy secundum quid et simpliciter

Vivarium 46 (2):175-191 (2008)
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.
Categories (categorize this paper)
 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: 9,351
External links
  •   Try with proxy.
  •   Try with proxy.
  • Through your library Configure
    References found in this work BETA

    No references found.

    Citations of this work BETA
    Stephen Read (2010). Field's Paradox and Its Medieval Solution. History and Philosophy of Logic 31 (2):161-176.
    Stamatios Gerogiorgakis (2009). The Byzantine Liar. History and Philosophy of Logic 30 (4):313-330.
    Similar books and articles

    Monthly downloads

    Added to index


    Total downloads

    19 ( #74,804 of 1,088,389 )

    Recent downloads (6 months)

    2 ( #42,750 of 1,088,389 )

    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.