Search results for 'McTaggart s Paradox' (try it on Scholar)

1000+ found
Order:
  1.  43
    Anne McTaggart (2012). What Women Want?: Mimesis and Gender in Chaucer's Wife of Bath's Prologue and Tale. Contagion: Journal of Violence, Mimesis, and Culture 19 (1):41-67.
    But nathelees, syn I knowe youre delit, / I shal fulfille youre worldly appetit.1 Chaucer’s Wife of Bath centers on a wonderfully fruitful paradox: she claims for women and for herself the right to “maistrie” and “sovereynetee” in marriage, but she does so by articulating the discourse imparted to her by the “auctoritee” of anti-feminism.2 Indeed, this paradoxical challenge to and reiteration of anti-feminist ideas has left Chaucer’s readers debating for decades which way the irony cuts: is the Wife (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  2.  39
    Cheng-Chih Tsai (2011). A Token-Based Semantic Analysis of McTaggart's Paradox. Linguistic and Philosophical Investigations 10:107-124.
    In his famous argument for the unreality of time, McTaggart claims that i) being past, being present, and being future are incompatible properties of an event, yet ii) every event admits all these three properties. In this paper, I examine two key concepts involved in the formulation of i) and ii), namely that of “validity” and that of “contradiction”, and for each concept I distinguish a static version and a dynamic version of it. I then arrive at three different (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  3.  15
    Domenico Mancuso (2012). The Mathematics of McTaggart's Paradox. Manuscrito 35 (2):233-67.
    Mc Taggart's celebrated proof of the unreality of time is a chain of implications whose final step asserts that the A-series (i.e. the classification of events as past, present or future) is intrinsically contradictory. This is widely believed to be the heart of the argument, and it is where most attempted refutations have been addressed; yet, it is also the only part of the proof which may be generalised to other contexts, since none of the notions involved in it is (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  4. L. Nathan Oaklander (2010). Mctaggart's Paradox and Crisp's Presentism. Philosophia 38 (2):229-241.
    In his review of The Ontology of Time, Thomas Crisp (Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, 2005a ) argues that Oaklander's version of McTaggart's paradox does not make any trouble for his version of presentism. The aim of this paper is to refute that claim by demonstrating that Crisp's version of presentism does indeed succumb to a version of McTaggart's argument. I shall proceed as follows. In Part I I shall explain Crisp's view and then argue in Part II (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  5.  11
    Claudio Cormick (2014). Time and situatedness Merleau-ponty's response to Mctaggart's paradox. Ideas Y Valores 63 (156):165-189.
    Se busca establecer una relación, no satisfactoriamente explorada, entre la fenomenologia merleaupontiana del tiempo y un problema central de la "theory of time" analítica, la paradoja de McTaggart. Al clarificar, en polémica con Priest , el autêntico sentido del "subjetivismo" merleaupontiano con respecto al tiempo, se senala cómo establecer una confluencia entre el acercamiento fenomenológico y las tesis desarrolladas por Michael Dummett como respuesta a la mencionada paradoja. Con los senalamientos de Dummett y la interpretación de Bimbenet acerca del (...)
    Translate
      Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  6.  14
    Vincenzo Fano (2009). A Meinongian Solution of Mctaggart’s Paradox. In Alfred Schramm (ed.), Meinongian Issues in Contemporary Italian Philosophy. De Gruyter 73-92.
    The present paper is divided in two parts . In the first part we will propose Meinong’s theory of time outlined in 1899 interpreted in such a way that the subtlety of his argumentation is emphasised. In the second, we will discuss different solutions for the celebrated McTaggart’s paradox, reaching the conclusion that a theory of time suggested by the reflections of the Austrian Philosopher seems to be the most adequate perspective for tackling this problem.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  7.  83
    L. Nathan Oaklander (1996). Mctaggart's Paradox and Smith's Tensed Theory of Time. Synthese 107 (2):205 - 221.
    Since McTaggart first proposed his paradox asserting the unreality of time, numerous philosophers have attempted to defend the tensed theory of time against it. Certainly, one of the most highly developed and original is that put forth by Quentin Smith. Through discussing McTaggart's positive conception of time as well as his negative attack on its reality, I hope to clarify the dispute between those who believe in the existence of the transitory temporal properties of pastness, presentness and (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  8. R. D. Ingthorsson (2016). Mctaggart’s Paradox. Routledge.
    McTaggart’s argument for the unreality of time, first published in 1908, set the agenda for 20th-century philosophy of time. Yet there is very little agreement on what it actually says—nobody agrees with the conclusion, but still everybody finds something important in it. This book presents the first critical overview of the last century of debate on what is popularly called "McTaggart’s Paradox". Scholars have long assumed that McTaggart’s argument stands alone and does not rely on any (...)
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  9. Tobias Hansson Wahlberg (2013). Dissolving McTaggart's Paradox. In C. Svennerlind, J. Almäng & R. Ingthorsson (eds.), Johanssonian Investigations. Ontos Verlag
  10.  68
    Quentin Smith (1988). The Logical Structure of the Debate About McTaggart's Paradox. Philosophy Research Archives 14:371-379.
    This short article aims to illustrate the mutually question-begging arguments that are often presented in debates between opponents and defenderss of McTaggart’s “proof” that A-properties (pastness, presentness and futurity) are logically incoherent. A sample of such arguments is taken from a recent debate between L. Nathan Oaklander (a defender of McTaggart) and myself (an opponent of McTaggart) and a method of escaping the impasse that is often reached in such debates is suggested.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  11. Jonathan Tallant (2005). Mctaggart’s Paradox: That to Which We Are Compelled to Respond. The Question is, ‘How?’. Philosophical Writings 28 (1).
    McTaggart’s original arguments have been interpreted and reinterpreted in a series of highly complex and, oft times, original ways. In this introductory paper I will offer a brief exposition of the original argument that McTaggart first gave and note a number of different ways in which philosophers have seen fit to respond. In doing so I hope to offer little more than an introduction to the topic that will pave the way for the papers that follow. It should (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  12. William Lane Craig (1998). Mctaggart's Paradox and the Problem of Temporary Intrinsics. Analysis 58 (2):122–127.
  13.  76
    L. Nathan Oaklander (1999). Craig on Mctaggart's Paradox and the Problem of Temporary Intrinsics. Analysis 59 (264):314–318.
  14.  75
    E. J. Lowe (1992). Mctaggart's Paradox Revisited. Mind 101 (402):323-326.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  15.  4
    W. L. Craig (1998). McTaggart's Paradox and the Problem of Temporary Intrinsics. Analysis 58 (2):122-127.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  16.  4
    L. N. Oaklander (1999). Craig on McTaggart's Paradox and the Problem of Temporary Intrinsics. Analysis 59 (4):314-318.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  17.  45
    W. Lane Craig (2001). Mctaggart's Paradox and Temporal Solipsism. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 79 (1):32 – 44.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  18.  16
    Ingthorsson Rögnvaldur (2013). Dissolving McTaggart's Paradox. In Christer Svennerlind, Jan Almäng & Rögnvaldur Ingthorsson (eds.), Johanssonian Investigations. Ontos Verlag 5--240.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  19.  28
    L. Nathan Oaklander (1987). Mctaggart's Paradox and the Infinite Regress of Temporal Attributions: A Reply to Smith. Southern Journal of Philosophy 25 (3):425-431.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  20.  41
    Ferrel Christensen (1974). Mctaggart's Paradox and the Nature of Time. Philosophical Quarterly 24 (97):289-299.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  21.  11
    L. Nathan Oaklander (1987). McTaggart's Paradox and the Infinite Regress of Temporal Attributions. Southern Journal of Philosophy 25 (3):425-431.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  22. L. Oaklander (2002). Mctaggart S Paradox Defended. Metaphysica 3 (1).
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  23.  25
    Ernâni Magalhães (2010). Introduction: Mctaggart's Paradox at One Hundred. Philosophia 38 (2):225-227.
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  24.  8
    Kenneth Rankin (1981). McTaggart's Paradox: Two Parodies. Philosophy 56 (217):333 - 348.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  25.  4
    Tobias Hansson Wahlberg (2013). Dissolving McTaggart's Paradox. In Christer Svennerlind, Jan Almäng & Rögnvaldur Ingthorsson (eds.), Johanssonian Investigations. Ontos Verlag 240.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  26.  1
    Strahinja Djordjevic (2015). McTaggart’s Paradox and its Consequences. Filozofija I Društvo 26 (1):226-242.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  27. David J. Farmer (1991). Being in Time: The Nature of Time in Light of McTaggart's Paradox. Mind 100 (3):388-390.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  28. L. Nathan Oaklander (1994). Introduction: McTaggart's Paradox and the Tensed Theory of Time.”. In L. Nathan Oaklander & Quentin Smith (eds.), The New Theory of Time. Yale Up 157--162.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  29. Kenneth Rankin (1981). McTaggart's Paradox: Two Parodies: Kenneth Rankin. Philosophy 56 (217):333-348.
    To be truly provocative and outrageous the superior philosophical sophistry will commonly possess four somewhat adventitious features. I shall rate it as classic if it has all four. First, and least adventitiously, the argument will be crisp and initially seductive. Second, by the standard the sophistry sets direct rebuttal will be laborious and diffuse. Third, the recipe for the latter will prescribe that we pick out some hitherto unarticulated logical principle such that if the principle be true then the sophistical (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  30. David Zeilicovivi (1986). A Solution of Mctaggart's Paradox. Ratio 28 (2):175.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  31. Rebecca Lloyd-Waller (2011). The M Event Paradox and the Specious Present: An Analysis and Refutation of Mctaggart's 2nd Argument. Analysis and Metaphysics 10:101-112.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  32.  64
    Edward Freeman (2010). On McTaggart's Theory of Time. History of Philosophy Quarterly 27 (4):389-401.
    McTaggart’s theory of time is the locus classicus of the contemporary philosophy of time. However, despite its prominence, there is little agreement as to what the theory actually amounts. In this paper, it is first argued that, contrary to the received opinion, McTaggart’s A-time/B-time distinction is not a distinction between static and fluid temporal series. Rather, it is a certain distinction between two types of static temporal series. It is then shown that in his temporal transience paradox, (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  33. Natalja Deng (2013). Fine's Mctaggart, Temporal Passage, and the a Versus B‐Debate. Ratio 26 (1):19-34.
    I offer an interpretation and a partial defense of Kit Fine's ‘Argument from Passage’, which is situated within his reconstruction of McTaggart's paradox. Fine argues that existing A-theoretic approaches to passage are no more dynamic, i.e. capture passage no better, than the B-theory. I argue that this comparative claim is correct. Our intuitive picture of passage, which inclines us towards A-theories, suggests more than coherent A-theories can deliver. In Finean terms, the picture requires not only Realism about tensed (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   5 citations  
  34.  54
    Declan Smithies (forthcoming). Belief and Self-Knowledge: Lessons From Moore's Paradox. Philosophical Issues 26.
    The aim of this paper is to argue that what I call the simple theory of introspection can be extended to account for our introspective knowledge of what we believe as well as what we consciously experience. In section one, I present the simple theory of introspection and motivate the extension from experience to belief. In section two, I argue that extending the simple theory provides a solution to Moore’s paradox by explaining why believing Moorean conjunctions always (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  35.  75
    Alessandro Giordani (2015). On a New Tentative Solution to Fitch’s Paradox. Erkenntnis.
    In a recent paper, Alexander argues that relaxing the requirement that sound knowers know their own soundness might provide a solution to Fitch’s paradox and introduces a suitable axiomatic system where the paradox is avoided. In this paper an analysis of this solution is proposed according to which the effective move for solving the paradox depends on the axiomatic treatment of the ontic modality rather than the limitations imposed on the epistemic one. It is then shown that, (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  36. Andrew Bacon (2013). Curry's Paradox and Omega Inconsistency. Studia Logica 101 (1):1-9.
    In recent years there has been a revitalised interest in non-classical solutions to the semantic paradoxes. In this paper I show that a number of logics are susceptible to a strengthened version of Curry's paradox. This can be adapted to provide a proof theoretic analysis of the omega-inconsistency in Lukasiewicz's continuum valued logic, allowing us to better evaluate which logics are suitable for a naïve truth theory. On this basis I identify two natural subsystems of Lukasiewicz logic which individually, (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  37. Jack Woods (2014). Expressivism and Moore's Paradox. Philosophers' Imprint 14 (5):1-12.
    Expressivists explain the expression relation which obtains between sincere moral assertion and the conative or affective attitude thereby expressed by appeal to the relation which obtains between sincere assertion and belief. In fact, they often explicitly take the relation between moral assertion and their favored conative or affective attitude to be exactly the same as the relation between assertion and the belief thereby expressed. If this is correct, then we can use the identity of the expression relation in the two (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  38. Clayton Littlejohn (2010). Moore's Paradox and Epistemic Norms. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 88 (1):79 – 100.
    We shall evaluate two strategies for motivating the view that knowledge is the norm of belief. The first draws on observations concerning belief's aim and the parallels between belief and assertion. The second appeals to observations concerning Moore's Paradox. Neither of these strategies gives us good reason to accept the knowledge account. The considerations offered in support of this account motivate only the weaker account on which truth is the fundamental norm of belief.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   5 citations  
  39.  26
    John N. Williams (2013). Moore's Paradox and the Priority of Belief Thesis. Philosophical Studies 165 (3):1117-1138.
    Moore’s paradox is the fact that assertions or beliefs such asBangkok is the capital of Thailand but I do not believe that Bangkok is the capital of Thailand or Bangkok is the capital of Thailand but I believe that Bangkok is not the capital of Thailand are ‘absurd’ yet possibly true. The current orthodoxy is that an explanation of the absurdity should first start with belief, on the assumption that once the absurdity in belief has been explained then (...)
    Direct download (12 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  40.  15
    Prasanta S. Bandyopadhyay, Mark Greenwood, Don Dcruz & Venkata Raghavan (2015). Simpson's Paradox and Causality. American Philosophical Quarterly 52 (1):13-25.
    There are three questions associated with Simpson’s Paradox (SP): (i) Why is SP paradoxical? (ii) What conditions generate SP?, and (iii) What should be done about SP? By developing a logic-based account of SP, it is argued that (i) and (ii) must be divorced from (iii). This account shows that (i) and (ii) have nothing to do with causality, which plays a role only in addressing (iii). A counterexample is also presented against the causal account. Finally, the causal and (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  41.  27
    John N. Williams (2014). Moore's Paradox in Belief and Desire. Acta Analytica 29 (1):1-23.
    Is there a Moore ’s paradox in desire? I give a normative explanation of the epistemic irrationality, and hence absurdity, of Moorean belief that builds on Green and Williams’ normative account of absurdity. This explains why Moorean beliefs are normally irrational and thus absurd, while some Moorean beliefs are absurd without being irrational. Then I defend constructing a Moorean desire as the syntactic counterpart of a Moorean belief and distinguish it from a ‘Frankfurt’ conjunction of desires. Next I (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  42. David Ebrey (2014). Meno's Paradox in Context. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 22 (1):4-24.
    I argue that Meno’s Paradox targets the type of knowledge that Socrates has been looking for earlier in the dialogue: knowledge grounded in explanatory definitions. Socrates places strict requirements on definitions and thinks we need these definitions to acquire knowledge. Meno’s challenge uses Socrates’ constraints to argue that we can neither propose definitions nor recognize them. To understand Socrates’ response to the challenge, we need to view Meno’s challenge and Socrates’ response as part of a larger disagreement about the (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  43. Samuel Alexander (2013). An Axiomatic Version of Fitch's Paradox. Synthese 190 (12):2015-2020.
    A variation of Fitch’s paradox is given, where no special rules of inference are assumed, only axioms. These axioms follow from the familiar assumptions which involve rules of inference. We show (by constructing a model) that by allowing that possibly the knower doesn’t know his own soundness (while still requiring he be sound), Fitch’s paradox is avoided. Provided one is willing to admit that sound knowers may be ignorant of their own soundness, this might offer a way out (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  44.  20
    Adam Rieger (2015). Moore's Paradox, Introspection and Doxastic Logic. Thought: A Journal of Philosophy 4 (4):215-227.
    An analysis of Moore's paradox is given in doxastic logic. Logics arising from formalizations of various introspective principles are compared; one logic, K5c, emerges as privileged in the sense that it is the weakest to avoid Moorean belief. Moreover it has other attractive properties, one of which is that it can be justified solely in terms of avoiding false belief. Introspection is therefore revealed as less relevant to the Moorean problem than first appears.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  45.  28
    Walter Dean (2014). Montague’s Paradox, Informal Provability, and Explicit Modal Logic. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 55 (2):157-196.
    The goal of this paper is to explore the significance of Montague’s paradox—that is, any arithmetical theory $T\supseteq Q$ over a language containing a predicate $P$ satisfying $P\rightarrow \varphi $ and $T\vdash \varphi \,\therefore\,T\vdash P$ is inconsistent—as a limitative result pertaining to the notions of formal, informal, and constructive provability, in their respective historical contexts. To this end, the paradox is reconstructed in a quantified extension $\mathcal {QLP}$ of Artemov’s logic of proofs. $\mathcal {QLP}$ contains both explicit modalities (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  46.  80
    Catharine Saint Croix & Richmond Thomason (2014). Chisholm's Paradox and Conditional Oughts. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 8554:192-207.
    Since it was presented in 1963, Chisholm’s paradox has attracted constant attention in the deontic logic literature, but without the emergence of any definitive solution. We claim this is due to its having no single solution. The paradox actually presents many challenges to the formalization of deontic statements, including (1) context sensitivity of unconditional oughts, (2) formalizing conditional oughts, and (3) distinguishing generic from nongeneric oughts. Using the practical interpretation of ‘ought’ as a guideline, we propose a linguistically (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  47.  68
    Ken Binmore & Alex Voorhoeve (2003). Defending Transitivity Against Zeno’s Paradox. Philosophy and Public Affairs 31 (3):272–279.
    This article criticises one of Stuart Rachels' and Larry Temkin's arguments against the transitivity of 'better than'. This argument invokes our intuitions about our preferences of different bundles of pleasurable or painful experiences of varying intensity and duration, which, it is argued, will typically be intransitive. This article defends the transitivity of 'better than' by showing that Rachels and Temkin are mistaken to suppose that preferences satisfying their assumptions must be intransitive. It makes cler where the argument goes wrong by (...)
    Direct download (14 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   6 citations  
  48.  13
    Makoto Kikuchi, Taishi Kurahashi & Hiroshi Sakai (2012). On Proofs of the Incompleteness Theorems Based on Berry's Paradox by Vopěnka, Chaitin, and Boolos. Mathematical Logic Quarterly 58 (4‐5):307-316.
    By formalizing Berry's paradox, Vopěnka, Chaitin, Boolos and others proved the incompleteness theorems without using the diagonal argument. In this paper, we shall examine these proofs closely and show their relationships. Firstly, we shall show that we can use the diagonal argument for proofs of the incompleteness theorems based on Berry's paradox. Then, we shall show that an extension of Boolos' proof can be considered as a special case of Chaitin's proof by defining a suitable Kolmogorov (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  49.  22
    Helge Rückert (2004). A SOLUTION TO FITCH'S PARADOX OF KNOWABILITY. In S. Rahman J. Symons (ed.), Logic, Epistemology, and the Unity of Science. Kluwer Academic Publisher 351--380.
    There is an argument (first presented by Fitch), which tries to show by formal means that the anti-realistic thesis that every truth might possibly be known, is equivalent to the unacceptable thesis that every truth is actually known (at some time in the past, present or future). First, the argument is presented and some proposals for the solution of Fitch's Paradox are briefly discussed. Then, by using Wehmeier's modal logic with subjunctive marks (S5*), it is shown how the derivation (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   5 citations  
  50.  18
    Carlo Proietti (2012). Intuitionistic Epistemic Logic, Kripke Models and Fitch's Paradox. Journal of Philosophical Logic 41 (5):877-900.
    The present work is motivated by two questions. (1) What should an intuitionistic epistemic logic look like? (2) How should one interpret the knowledge operator in a Kripke-model for it? In what follows we outline an answer to (2) and give a model-theoretic definition of the operator K. This will shed some light also on (1), since it turns out that K, defined as we do, fulfills the properties of a necessity operator for a normal modal logic. The interest of (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
1 — 50 / 1000