The Doctrine of Descent in Jerónimo Pardo: Meaning, Inference, Truth
In I. Angelelli & M. Cerezo (eds.), Studies on the History of Logic. Walter de Gruyter (1996)
|Abstract||The complexity of the scholastic view of descent stems from the attempt to find a reply to three different questions at the same time: those pertaining to the meaning of propositions, the relationships of inference between propositions, and the truth conditions of propositions. From each of these issues there arises a different sequence of developments to this doctrine, each of which has its own problems and solutions. Initially, the concept of descent is introduced in response to the problem of determining the meaning of quantified propositions. This is the first axis of the development of the doctrine of descent, according to which descent consists of the construction of individual propositions which make explicit the meaning of the quantified proposition. The appearance of these new propositions, however, gives rise to the second axis in the development of the doctrine of descent. As soon as we have this multiplicity of singular propositions, it is possible to forget where they came from and how, simply considering the problem of their logical relationship with the original quantified proposition. This is how descent comes to be viewed not as an analysis of the meaning of the proposition, but as a relationship of consequence: that which could be established between a quantified proposition and a set of singular propositions. Lastly, when descent is considered as a relationship of consequence, it is possible to develop this doctrine in a third direction, given that this relationship between a quantified proposition and a set of singular propositions can be used as a means of showing the truth or falsehood of the quantified proposition. Pardo’s text is a good example of the problems which the concept of descent inevitably encounters when it is approached from three points of view which are superimposed upon each other without regard for their radical diversity.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|External links||This entry has no external links. Add one.|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Paloma Pérez-Ilzarbe (2000). Time and Propositions in Jerónimo Pardo. In I. Angelelli & P. Pérez-Ilzarbe (eds.), Medieval and Renaissance Logic in Spain. Olms.
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.
Christopher Menzel (1993). Singular Propositions and Modal Logic. Philosophical Topics 21 (2):113-148.
Jacques Bouveresse (1992). Wittgenstein, Anti-Realism and Mathematical Propositions. Grazer Philosophische Studien 42:133-160.
Aviv Hoffmann (2003). A Puzzle About Truth and Singular Propositions. Mind 112 (448):635-651.
Anssi Korhonen (2009). Russell's Early Metaphysics of Propositions. Prolegomena 8 (2):159-192.
Paloma Pérez-Ilzarbe (2009). Jerónimo Pardo on the Unity of Mental Propositions. In J. Biard (ed.), Le langage mental du Moyen Âge à l'Âge Classique. Peeters Publishers.
Paul Thom (1982). Conversion of Propositions Containing Singular or Quantified Terms in Pseudo-Scotus. History and Philosophy of Logic 3 (2):129-149.
B. G. Sundholm (1998). Inference, Consequence, Implication: A Constructivist's Perspective. Philosophia Mathematica 6 (2):178-194.
Franz Huber (2009). Belief and Degrees of Belief. In F. Huber & C. Schmidt-Petri (eds.), Degrees of Belief. Springer.
Heather Dyke (2012). Propositions: Truth Vs. Existence. In James Maclaurin (ed.), Ratiois Defensor.
A. Hoffmann (2012). Are Propositions Sets of Possible Worlds? Analysis 72 (3):449-455.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2011-01-27
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?