Search results for 'Master Argument' (try it on Scholar)

1000+ found
Order:
  1. Napoleon Mabaquiao Jr (2015). The Phenomenal Concept Strategy and a Master Argument. Kemanusiaan 22 (1).
    The phenomenal concept strategy (PCS) is widely regarded as the most promising physicalist defence against the so-called epistemic arguments—the anti-physicalist arguments that establish an ontological gap between physical and phenomenal facts on the basis of the occurrence of epistemic gaps in our descriptions of these facts. The PCS tries to undercut the force of the epistemic arguments by attributing the occurrence of the epistemic gaps to the special character of phenomenal concepts—the concepts by means of which we think about our (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  2.  50
    Charles Pigden (2010). Comments on 'Hume's Master Argument'. In Hume on Is and Ought. Palgrave Macmillan 128-142.
    This is a commentary on Adrian Heathcote’s interesting paper ‘Hume’s Master Argument’. Heathcote contends that No-Ought-From-Is is primarily a logical thesis, a ban on Is/Ought inferences which Hume derives from the logic of Ockham. NOFI is thus a variation on what Heathcote calls ‘Hume’s Master Argument’, which he also deploys to prove that conclusions about the future (and therefore a-temporal generalizations) cannot be derived by reason from premises about the past, and that conclusions about external objects (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  3.  42
    Tomasz Jarmużek & Andrzej Pietruszczak (2009). The Tense Logic for Master Argument in Prior's Reconstruction. Studia Logica 92 (1):85 - 108.
    In this paper we examine Prior’s reconstruction of Master Argument [4] in some modal-tense logic. This logic consists of a purely tense part and Diodorean definitions of modal alethic operators. Next we study this tense logic in the pure tense language. It is the logic K t 4 plus a new axiom ( P ): ‘ p Λ G p ⊃ P G p ’. This formula was used by Prior in his original analysis of Master (...). ( P ) is usually added as an extra axiom to an axiomatization of the logic of linear time. In that case the set of moments is a total order and must be left-discrete without the least moment. However, the logic of Master Argument does not require linear time. We show what properties of the set of moments are exactly forced by ( P ) in the reconstruction of Prior. We make also some philosophical remarks on the analyzed reconstruction. (shrink)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  4.  2
    Peter K. Schotch & Gillman Payette (2011). Worlds and Times: NS and the Master Argument. Synthese 181 (2):295 - 315.
    In the fourteenth century, Duns Scotus suggested that the proper analysis of modality required not just moments of time but also "moments of nature". In making this suggestion, he broke with an influential view first presented by Diodorus in the early Hellenistic period, and might even be said to have been the inventor of "possible worlds". In this essay we take Scotus' suggestion seriously devising first a double-index logic and then introducing the temporal order. Finally, using the temporal order, we (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  5.  17
    Ramon Das (forthcoming). Bad News for Moral Error Theorists: There Is No Master Argument Against Companions in Guilt Strategies. Australasian Journal of Philosophy:1-12.
    ABSTRACTA ‘companions in guilt’ strategy against moral error theory aims to show that the latter proves too much: if sound, it supports an implausible error-theoretic conclusion in other areas such as epistemic or practical reasoning. Christopher Cowie [2016] has recently produced what he claims is a ‘master argument’ against all such strategies. The essence of his argument is that CG arguments cannot work because they are afflicted by internal incoherence or inconsistency. I argue, first, that Cowie's (...) argument does not succeed. Beyond this, I argue that there is no good reason to think that any such argument—one that purports to identify an internal incoherence in CG arguments—can succeed. Second, I argue that the main substantive area of disagreement between error theorists and CG theorists essentially concerns the conceptual profile of epistemic reasons—specifically, whether they are strongly categorical—not the ontological question of whether such reasons exist. I t... (shrink)
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  6. Andre Gallois (1974). Berkeley's Master Argument. Philosophical Review 83 (1):55-69.
    In my article "berkeley's master argument" I attempt to show that an argument berkeley uses in the 'dialogues' and 'principles' to support his contention that whatever is perceivable is perceived can be seen as an illuminating attempt to relate conceptualizing, Imaging and perceiving. In consequence it cannot be dismissed as resting on an elementary fallacy, But reflects on the conditions for the self ascription of experience.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  7. Sam Coleman, Chalmers's Master Argument and Type Bb Physicalism.
    Chalmers has provided a dilemmatic master argument against all forms of the phenomenal concept strategy. This paper explores a position that evades Chalmers's argument, dubbed Type Bb: it is for Type B physicalists who embrace horn b of Chalmers's dilemma. The discussion concludes that Chalmers fails to show any incoherence in the position of a Type B physicalist who depends on the phenomenal concept strategy.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  8.  12
    David Makinson, Gödel’s Master Argument: What is It, and What Can It Do?
    This text is expository. We explain Gödel’s ‘Master Argument’ for incompleteness as distinguished from the 'official' proof of his 1931 paper, highlight its attractions and limitations, and explain how some of the limitations may be transcended by putting it in a more abstract form that makes no reference to truth.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  9.  45
    Zoltan Gendler Szabo (2005). Sententialism and Berkeley's Master Argument. Philosophical Quarterly 55 (220):462 - 474.
    Sententialism is the view that intensional positions in natural languages occur within clausal complements only. According to proponents of this view, intensional transitive verbs such as 'want', 'seek' or 'resemble' are actually propositional attitude verbs in disguise. I argue that 'conceive' (and a few other verbs) cannot fit this mould: conceiving-of is not reducible to conceiving-that. I offer a new diagnosis of where Berkeley's 'master argument' goes astray, analysing what is odd about saying that Hylas conceives a tree (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   6 citations  
  10.  17
    Zoltán Gendler Szabó (2005). Sententialism and Berkeley's Master Argument. Philosophical Quarterly 55 (220):462–474.
    Sententialism is the view that intensional positions in natural languages occur within clausal complements only. According to proponents of this view, intensional transitive verbs such as 'want', 'seek' or 'resemble' are actually propositional attitude verbs in disguise. I argue that 'conceive' cannot fit this mould: conceiving-of is not reducible to conceiving-that. I offer a new diagnosis of where Berkeley's 'master argument' goes astray, analysing what is odd about saying that Hylas conceives a tree which is not conceived. A (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  11.  38
    Harry Ide (1992). Chrysippus's Response to Diodorus's Master Argument. History and Philosophy of Logic 13 (2):133-148.
    Chrysippus claims that some propositions perish. including some true conditionals whose consequent is impossible and antecedent is possible, to which he appeals against Diodorus?s Master Argument. On the standard interpretation. perished propositions lack truth values. and these conditionals are true at the same time as their antecedents arc possible and consequents impossible. But perished propositions are false, and Chrysippus?s conditionals are true when their antecedent and consequent arc possible, and false when their antecedent is possible and consequent impossible. (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  12.  6
    Lars Gundersen (2003). The Master Argument and Branching Time. Logic and Logical Philosophy 5:49-60.
    It is argued that reconstructions of the so-called ‘Master Argument’ of Dideros Cronos to the effect that possibility should be understood as present or future truth, essentially relies on two axioms: i) that every true proposition concerning the past is necessary, and ii) that it follows necessarily from a proposition being true that it always has been the case that it would be true. It is furthermore argued that these two axioms are inconsistent in the sense that any (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  13.  38
    Daniele Bertini (2007). Berkeley and Gentile: A Reading of Berkeley's Master Argument. Idealistic Studies 37 (1):43-50.
    My purpose is to compare Berkeley’s and Gentile’s idealism, interpreting Berkeley’s Treatise, §§22–23, and Gentile’s reading of this passage. The Italianphilosopher finds in Berkeley’s master argument the original source of the true idealistic way of thinking, but he believes that Berkeley has not been sufficientlyconsistent in deducing all the consequences from his new principle. This criticism is the ground of Gentile’s actual idealism. Comparing the two positions is very instructive both to elucidate the general issue of idealism and (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  14.  13
    Kazimierz Trzesicki (1987). Is Discreteness of Time Necessary for Diodorean Master Argument. Bulletin of the Section of Logic 16 (3):125-131.
    The well known Master Argument of ancient Stoic logician Diodorus Cronus is an argument in favour of the philosophical doctrine of fatalism. Perhaps in antiquity this argument was a subject of the most celebrated controversy about temporal truth and modality. This argument is a subject of logical analysis, especially in connection with temporal logic, also today. 1 The most elegant tense-logical formulation of the Master Argument has been given by A. N. Prior. Discreteness (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  15.  24
    R. McKirahan (1979). Diodorus and Prior and the Master Argument. Synthese 42 (2):223 - 253.
    On prior's reconstruction, The master argument of diodorus contains an equivocation and so is invalid for one class of diodorean "propositions." but diodorus knew of such "propositions" and an argument in his treatment of motion can be used to bring them under the master argument's sway. Also, Despite the consensus of antiquity, The master argument does not commit diodorus to determinism, Although it commits him to non-Deterministic theses which can be easily misinterpreted as (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  16.  23
    Michael J. White (1980). Diodorus' “MasterArgument: A Semantic Interpretation. [REVIEW] Erkenntnis 15 (1):65 - 72.
    This paper discusses the 'master argument' of diodorus cronos from a semantic perspective. An argument is developed which suggests that proposition (1), 'every proposition true about the past is necessary', May have provided the principal motivation for diodorus denial of proposition (3), I.E., His equation of possibility with present-Or-Future truth. It is noted that (1) and (3) are jointly inconsistent only given the assumption of a linear ordering of time. It is further noted that diodorus' fatalism "could" (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  17.  1
    ZoltÁn Gendler SzabÓ (2005). Sententialism and Berkeley's Master Argument. Philosophical Quarterly 55 (220):462-474.
    Sententialism is the view that intensional positions in natural languages occur within clausal complements only. According to proponents of this view, intensional transitive verbs such as 'want', 'seek' or 'resemble' are actually propositional attitude verbs in disguise. I argue that 'conceive' cannot fit this mould: conceiving-of is not reducible to conceiving-that. I offer a new diagnosis of where Berkeley's 'master argument' goes astray, analysing what is odd about saying that Hylas conceives a tree which is not conceived. A (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  18. N. Denyer (1999). The Master Argument of Diodorus Chronus: A Near Miss. Logical Analysis and History of Philosophy 2:239-252.
    Diodorus' Master Argument was intended to show that whatever is possible either is or will be true. The intended conclusion does not follow from the extant premisses of the Master Argument. The Near Miss argues however, from those premisses alone, that nothing can be more than momentarily an exception to the Master Argument's intended conclusion. Strong arguments support even the most contentious of those premisses . We therefore cannot easily ignore the Near Miss. Moreover, (...)
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  19. Richard Gaskin (1999). Tense Logic and the Master Argument. Logical Analysis and History of Philosophy 2:203-224.
    We may distinguish between two ways of understanding tense-logical formulae, depending on whether we construe tense operators as operators on sentences or on predicates. Bearing this distinction in mind helps us formalise the premisses of Diodorus Cronus' Master Argument correctly, and give a formal reconstruction of the Argument itself.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  20. Anton F. Mikel (1992). The Master Argument of Diodorus Cronus. Dissertation, The Florida State University
    My dissertation deals with the Master Argument of Diodorus Cronus, a contemporary of Aristotle's. The argument was one of the most famous pieces of temporal and modal reasoning in ancient philosophy. It purports to prove that a proposition is possible if and only if it is true or will be true. The argument runs as follows: Everything that is past and true is necessary; The impossible does not follow the possible; Therefore, nothing is possible which neither (...)
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  21. Michael J. White (1999). The Lessons of Prior's Master Argument. Logical Analysis and History of Philosophy 2:225-238.
    A Master-like argument, in the usage of the present paper, is an argument that employs a reductio ad impossibile principle to transmit the necessity of what are or become past truths to the remainder of time by means of necessary conditionals of some sort. The conclusion of such an argument is some no-unactualized-possibilities principle. This paper argues that the formulation of a Master-like argument by A. N. Prior in a mixed modal temporal propositional logic (...)
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  22. Sven Walter (2008). The Supervenience Argument, Overdetermination, and Causal Drainage: Assessing Kim's Master Argument. Philosophical Psychology 21 (5):673 – 696.
    This paper examines Jaegwon Kim's Supervenience Argument (SA) against nonreductive physicalism, concentrating on Kim's response to two of the most important objections against the SA: First, the Overdetermination Argument, according to which Kim has no convincing argument against the possibility that mental causation might be a case of genuine or systematic overdetermination; second, the Generalization Argument, according to which the SA would entail that causation at any level gives way to causation at the next lower level, (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   11 citations  
  23.  61
    Christopher Cowie (2015). Good News for Moral Error Theorists: A Master Argument Against Companions in Guilt Strategies. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 94 (1):115-130.
    Moral error theories are often rejected by appeal to ‘companions in guilt’ arguments. The most popular form of companions in guilt argument takes epistemic reasons for belief as a ‘companion’ and proceeds by analogy. I show that this strategy fails. I claim that the companions in guilt theorist must understand epistemic reasons as evidential support relations if her argument is to be dialectically effective. I then present a dilemma. Either epistemic reasons are evidential support relations or they are (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  24. Tomis Kapitan (2002). A Master Argument for Incompatibilism? In Robert H. Kane (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Free Will. Oxford University Press 127--157.
    The past 25 years have witnessed a vigorous discussion of an argument directed against the compatibilist approach to free will and responsibility. This reasoning, variously called the “consequence argument,” the “incompatibility argument,” and the “unavoidability argument,” may be expressed informally as follows: If determinism is true then whatever happens is a consequence of past events and laws over which we have no control and which we are unable to prevent. But whatever is a consequence of what’s (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   10 citations  
  25.  16
    F. A. Muller (2008). In Defence of Constructive Empiricism: Maxwell's Master Argument and Aberrant Theories. Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 39 (1):131-156.
    Over the past years, in books and journals , N. Maxwell launched a ferocious attack on B. C. van Fraassen's view of science called Constructive Empiricism . This attack has been totally ignored. Must we conclude from this silence that no defence is possible and that a fortiori Maxwell has buried CE once and for all? Or is the attack too obviously flawed as not to merit exposure? A careful dissection of Maxwell's reasoning will make it clear that neither is (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  26.  42
    F. A. Muller (2008). In Defence of Constructive Empiricism: Maxwell's Master Argument and Aberrant Theories. [REVIEW] Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 39 (1):131 - 156.
    Over the past years, in books and journals (this journal included), N. Maxwell launched a ferocious attack on B. C. van Fraassen’s view of science called Constructive Empiricism (CE). This attack has been totally ignored. Must we conclude from this silence that no defence is possible and that a fortiori Maxwell has buried CE once and for all? Or is the attack too obviously flawed as not to merit exposure? A careful dissection of Maxwell’s reasoning will make it clear that (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  27.  28
    Greg Ray (2004). Williamson's Master Argument on Vagueness. Synthese 138 (2):175-206.
    According to Timothy Williamson 's epistemic view, vague predicates have precise extensions, we just don't know where their boundaries lie. It is a central challenge to his view to explain why we would be so ignorant, if precise borderlines were really there. He offers a novel argument to show that our insuperable ignorance ``is just what independently justified epistemic principles would lead one to expect''. This paper carefully formulates and critically examines Williamson 's argument. It is shown that (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  28.  19
    John Sutula (1976). Diodorus and the “Master Argument”. Southern Journal of Philosophy 14 (3):323-343.
    Diodorus cronus was a megaric logician who was reputed to have derived from uncontroversial premises the surprising conclusion that the possible is that which either is or will be the case. Versions of his lost argument have been reconstructed recently by prior, Hintikka, And rescher. I analyze and compare these versions and argue that none of them forms a sound argument.
    No categories
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  29.  16
    Reginald Williams, Berkeley's Master Argument: Its Form and Implications.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  30. Thomas M. Crisp & Ted A. Warfield (2001). Kim's Master Argument. [REVIEW] Noûs 35 (2):304–316.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   12 citations  
  31. Roger Gibson (1995). A Note on Boghossian's Master Argument. In Philosophical Issues. Atascadero: Ridgeview 222-226.
  32.  60
    Richard Gaskin (1995). The Sea Battle and the Master Argument: Aristotle and Diodorus Cronus on the Metaphysics of the Future. W. De Gruyter.
    Preliminaries: Terminology and Notation We may make a distinction between temporally definite and temporally indefinite sentences. ...
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   5 citations  
  33. James Levine (2013). 1 Berkeley's Master Argument and Prior's Analysis. In Peter Sullivan Michael Potter (ed.), Wittgenstein's Tractatus. History and Interpretation. OUP 170.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  34. Nicholas Denyer (2009). Diodorus Cronus: Modality, The Master Argument and Formalisation. Humana.Mente 8.
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  35.  74
    Herbert Guerry (1967). Rescher's Master Argument. Journal of Philosophy 64 (10):310-312.
    No categories
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  36. Seiki Akama, Tetsuya Murai & Sadaaki Miyamoto (2011). A Three-Valued Modal Tense Logic for the Master Argument. Logique Et Analyse 213:19-30.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  37.  24
    Nicholas Rescher (1966). A Version of the "Master Argument" of Diodorus. Journal of Philosophy 63 (15):438-445.
    No categories
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   5 citations  
  38.  13
    Tomasz Jarmuzek (2009). Master Argument Vs. Sea-Fight Tomorrow1. Bulletin of the Section of Logic 38 (3/4):205-214.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  39.  18
    Derk Pereboom (2001). Review: Howell, Kant's Transcendental Deduction: An Analysis of the Main Themes in His Critical Philosophy; Assessing Kant's Master Argument. Kantian Review 5 (1):90-156.
  40. Brad J. Kallenberg (1997). The Master Argument of MacIntyre's After Virtue. In Nancey C. Murphy, Brad J. Kallenberg & Mark Nation (eds.), Virtues & Practices in the Christian Tradition: Christian Ethics After Macintyre. University of Notre Dame Press 7--29.
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  41.  19
    Frederick Seymour Michael (1976). What Is the Master Argument of Diodorus Cronus? American Philosophical Quarterly 13 (3):229 - 235.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  42.  13
    John M. DePoe (2011). Berkeley's Master Argument for Idealism. In Michael Bruce & Steven Barbone (eds.), Just the Arguments: 100 of the Most Important Arguments in Western Philosophy. Wiley-Blackwell
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  43.  3
    Tomasz Jarmużek & Andrzej Pietruszczak (2009). The Tense Logic for Master Argument in Prior’s Reconstruction. Studia Logica 92 (1):85-108.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  44.  10
    Jaakko Hintikka (1964). Aristotle and the "Master Argument" of Diodorus. American Philosophical Quarterly 1 (2):101 - 114.
  45.  11
    Richard L. Purtill (1973). The Master Argument. Apeiron 7 (1):31 - 36.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  46.  2
    Michael J. White (1980). Diodorus' “MasterArgument: A Semantic Interpretation. Erkenntnis 15 (1):65-72.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  47.  12
    Thomas M. Crisp & Ted A. Warfield (2001). Review: Kim's Master Argument. [REVIEW] Noûs 35 (2):304 - 316.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  48.  10
    Janice Thomas (2006). The Solipsism Trap, the So-Called Master Argument, and the Pleasant Mistake. History of Philosophy Quarterly 23 (4):339 - 355.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  49.  11
    Anthony Brueckner (1992). The Anti‐Realist's Master Argument. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 17 (1):214-223.
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  50. Richard Bosley (1996). Jules Vuillemin, Necessity or Contingency: The Master Argument and Its Philosophical Solutions Reviewed By. Philosophy in Review 16 (4):299-301.
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
1 — 50 / 1000