Insolubilia and the Fallacy Secundum Quid et Simpliciter.

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 o...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Vivarium Vol. 46; no. 2; pp. 175 - 192
Autores principales: Novaes, Catarina Dutilh, Read, Stephen
Formato: Artículo
Publicado: Brill Academic Publishers 2008
Materias:
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=31992009&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: hlh
    uiTerm: 31992009
    longDbName: Humanities International Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        00427543
        C6F
      jtl: Vivarium
      issn: 00427543
      maglogo: Y
    pubinfo:
      dt: 2008
      vid: 46
      iid: 2
      pid: 639
      pub: Brill Academic Publishers
    artinfo:
      ui:
        31992009
        10.1163/004275408X311258
      ppf: 175
      ppct: 17
      formats:
        fmt:
          @attributes:
            type: P
            size: 147KB
      tig:
        atl: Insolubilia and the Fallacy Secundum Quid et Simpliciter.
      aug:
        au:
          Novaes, Catarina Dutilh
          Read, Stephen
        affil:
          University of Amsterdam
          University of St Andrews, UK
      su:
        Bradwardine, Thomas
        Liar paradox
        Invocation
        Revenge
        Prayer
      sug:
        subj:
          Bradwardine, Thomas
          Liar paradox
          Invocation
          Revenge
          Prayer
      keyword:
        Bradwardine
        FALLACY
        INSOLUBILIA
        Spade
      ab: 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.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Article
      src: R
    language: English
    refInfo:
    copyright:
      @attributes:
        flag: Y
      custom: Copyright of Vivarium is the property of Brill Academic Publishers and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
      item: Vivarium
      holder: Brill Academic Publishers
      dt:
        @attributes:
          year: 2008
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N