Search results for 'master argument' (try it on Scholar)

1000+ found
Sort by:
  1. Tomasz Jarmużek & Andrzej Pietruszczak (2009). The Tense Logic for Master Argument in Prior's Reconstruction. Studia Logica 92 (1):85 - 108.score: 240.0
    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 (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Charles Pigden (2010). Comments on 'Hume's Master Argument'. In , Hume on Is and Ought. Palgrave Macmillan. 128-142.score: 240.0
    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  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Peter K. Schotch & Gillman Payette (2011). Worlds and Times: NS and the Master Argument. Synthese 181 (2):295 - 315.score: 210.0
    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 (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Sam Coleman, Chalmers's Master Argument and Type Bb Physicalism.score: 180.0
    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.
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Andre Gallois (1974). Berkeley's Master Argument. Philosophical Review 83 (1):55-69.score: 180.0
    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.
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Zoltan Gendler Szabo (2005). Sententialism and Berkeley's Master Argument. Philosophical Quarterly 55 (220):462 - 474.score: 180.0
    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 (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Harry Ide (1992). Chrysippus's Response to Diodorus's Master Argument. History and Philosophy of Logic 13 (2):133-148.score: 180.0
    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)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Daniele Bertini (2007). Berkeley and Gentile: A Reading of Berkeley's Master Argument. Idealistic Studies 37 (1):43-50.score: 180.0
    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)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Michael J. White (1980). Diodorus' “MasterArgument: A Semantic Interpretation. [REVIEW] Erkenntnis 15 (1):65 - 72.score: 180.0
    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 (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. R. McKirahan (1979). Diodorus and Prior and the Master Argument. Synthese 42 (2):223 - 253.score: 180.0
    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)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Lars Gundersen (2003). The Master Argument and Branching Time. Logic and Logical Philosophy 5:49-60.score: 180.0
    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)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Sven Walter (2008). The Supervenience Argument, Overdetermination, and Causal Drainage: Assessing Kim's Master Argument. Philosophical Psychology 21 (5):673 – 696.score: 156.0
    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)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Tomis Kapitan (2002). A Master Argument for Incompatibilism? In Robert H. Kane (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Free Will. Oxford University Press. 127--157.score: 156.0
    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 (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. F. A. Muller (2008). In Defence of Constructive Empiricism: Maxwell's Master Argument and Aberrant Theories. [REVIEW] Journal for General Philosophy of Science 39 (1):131 - 156.score: 156.0
    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 (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. Greg Ray (2004). Williamson's Master Argument on Vagueness. Synthese 138 (2):175 - 206.score: 156.0
    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)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. John Sutula (1976). Diodorus and the “Master Argument”. Southern Journal of Philosophy 14 (3):323-343.score: 156.0
    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)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. 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.score: 152.0
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. Ludger Jansen (2011). The Master Argument of Diodorus Cronus. In Michael Bruce & Steven Barbone (eds.), Just the Arguments: 100 of the Most Important Arguments in Western Philosophy. Wiley-Blackwell.score: 152.0
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. Thomas M. Crisp & Ted A. Warfield (2001). Kim's Master Argument. [REVIEW] Noûs 35 (2):304–316.score: 150.0
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. Richard Gaskin (1995). The Sea Battle and the Master Argument: Aristotle and Diodorus Cronus on the Metaphysics of the Future. W. De Gruyter.score: 150.0
    Preliminaries: Terminology and Notation We may make a distinction between temporally definite and temporally indefinite sentences. ...
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. 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.score: 150.0
  22. Roger Gibson (1995). A Note on Boghossian's Master Argument. In Contents. Atascadero: Ridgeview. 222-226.score: 150.0
  23. Frederick Seymour Michael (1976). What Is the Master Argument of Diodorus Cronus? American Philosophical Quarterly 13 (3):229 - 235.score: 150.0
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. Nicholas Rescher (1966). A Version of the "Master Argument" of Diodorus. Journal of Philosophy 63 (15):438-445.score: 150.0
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. ByZoltán Gendler Szabó (2005). Sententialism and Berkeley's Master Argument. Philosophical Quarterly 55 (220):462–474.score: 150.0
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. Anthony Brueckner (1992). The Anti‐Realist's Master Argument. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 17 (1):214-223.score: 150.0
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  27. Thomas M. Crisp & Ted A. Warfield (2001). Review: Kim's Master Argument. [REVIEW] Noûs 35 (2):304 - 316.score: 150.0
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  28. Richard L. Purtill (1973). The Master Argument. Apeiron 7 (1):31 - 36.score: 150.0
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  29. Janice Thomas (2006). The Solipsism Trap, the So-Called Master Argument, and the Pleasant Mistake. History of Philosophy Quarterly 23 (4):339 - 355.score: 150.0
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  30. Jaakko Hintikka (1964). Aristotle and the "Master Argument" of Diodorus. American Philosophical Quarterly 1 (2):101 - 114.score: 150.0
  31. Herbert Guerry (1967). Rescher's Master Argument. Journal of Philosophy 64 (10):310-312.score: 150.0
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  32. Richard Bosley (1996). Jules Vuillemin, Necessity or Contingency: The Master Argument and Its Philosophical Solutions Reviewed By. Philosophy in Review 16 (4):299-301.score: 150.0
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  33. Nicholas Denyer (forthcoming). Diodorus Cronus: Modality, the Master Argument and Formalisation. Humana. Mente. This Volume.score: 150.0
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  34. N. Denyer (1999). The Master Argument of Diodorus Chronus: A Near Miss. Logical Analysis and History of Philosophy 2:239-252.score: 150.0
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  35. Tomasz Jarmuzek (2009). Master Argument Vs. Sea-Fight Tomorrow1. Bulletin of the Section of Logic 38 (3/4):205-214.score: 150.0
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  36. Unto Remes (1971). Review: Nicholas Rescher, A Version of the "Master Argument" of Diodorus; Herbert Guerry, Rescher's Master Argument. [REVIEW] Journal of Symbolic Logic 36 (3):518-519.score: 150.0
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  37. Kazimierz Trzesicki (1987). Is Discreteness of Time Necessary for Diodorean Master Argument. Bulletin of the Section of Logic 16 (3):125-131.score: 150.0
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  38. Seiki Akama, Tetsuya Murai & Sadaaki Miyamoto (2011). A Three-Valued Modal Tense Logic for the Master Argument. Logique Et Analyse 213:19-30.score: 150.0
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  39. Ronald J. Butler (1967). Review: Jaakko Hintikka, Aristotle and the "Master Argument" of Diodorus. [REVIEW] Journal of Symbolic Logic 32 (3):402-402.score: 150.0
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  40. John F. Fox (2010). Quine's Master Argument. Logique Et Analyse 212:429-447.score: 150.0
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  41. Richard Gaskin (1999). Tense Logic and the Master Argument. Logical Analysis and History of Philosophy 2:203-224.score: 150.0
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  42. 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.score: 150.0
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  43. 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.score: 150.0
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  44. Michael J. White (1999). The Lessons of Prior's Master Argument. Logical Analysis and History of Philosophy 2:225-238.score: 150.0
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  45. Luca Malatesti (2011). Thinking about phenomenal concepts. Synthesis Philosophica 26 (2):391-402.score: 90.0
    Frank Jackson’s knowledge argument and different conceivability arguments, advanced by Saul Kripke, David Chalmers and Joseph Levine, conclude that consciousness involves non-physical properties or properties that cannot be reductively accounted for in physical terms. Some physicalists have replied to these objections by means of different versions of the phenomenal concept strategy. David Chalmers has responded with the master argument, a reasoning that, if successful, would undermine any reasonable version of the phenomenal concept strategy. In this paper, I (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  46. Susanne Bobzien (1999). Logic: The Megarics. In Keimpe Algra & et al (eds.), The Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy. Cambridge University Press.score: 90.0
    ABSTRACT: Summary presentation of the surviving logic theories of Philo the Dialectician (aka Philo of Megara) and Diodorus Cronus, including some general remarks on propositional logical elements in their logic, a presentation of their theories of the conditional and a presentation of their modal theories, including a brief suggestion for a solution of the Master Argument.
    Translate to English
    | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  47. Jennifer Smalligan Marusic (2009). Comments on Michael Jacovides “How Berkeley Corrupted His Capacity to Conceive”. Philosophia 37 (3):431-436.score: 90.0
    The manuscript includes comments on Michael Jacovides’s paper, “How Berkeley Corrupted His Capacity to Conceive.” The paper and comments were delivered at the conference “Meaning and Modern Empiricism” held at Virginia Tech in April 2008. I consider Jacovides’s treatment of Berkeley’s Resemblance Argument and his interpretation of the Master Argument. In particular, I distinguish several ways of understanding the disagreement between Jacovides and Kenneth Winkler over the right way to read the Master Argument.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  48. Michael Jacovides (2009). Remarks on Smalligan Marusic's Comments. Philosophia 37 (3):437-439.score: 90.0
    The author defends attributing to Berkeley the thesis that we can't conceive of extension in a mind-independent body against criticism from Smalligan Marusic. The author also specifies the resemblance requirements that Berkeley places on conceivability, concedes that the principle that ideas can only be like other ideas is not, strictly speaking, a premise in the Master Argument, and clarifies his views on the relation between possibility and conceivability.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  49. Jack Reynolds (2009). The Master-Slave Dialectic and the 'Sado-Masochistic Entity': Some Objections. Angelaki: Journal of the Theoretical Humanities 14 (3):11-25.score: 66.0
    Hegel’s famous analyses of the ‘master-slave dialectic’, and the more general struggle for recognition which it is a part of, have been remarkably influential throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Bound up with the dominance of this idea, however, has been a corresponding treatment of sadism and masochism as complicit projects that are mutually necessary for one another in a manner that is structurally isomorphic with the way in which master and slave depend on one another. In clinical (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
1 — 50 / 1000