This special issue is related to the 6th World Congress on the Square of Opposition which took place at the Orthodox Academy of Crete in November 2018. In this introductory paper we explain the context of the event and the topics discussed.

1. This paper addresses the development of mutual relations between two sets of ideas in scholastic logic. First, consider the following statements: (1) It is impossible to encounter a chimera.(2)...

The Oxford Calculator Roger Swyneshed put forward three provocative claims in his treatise on insolubles, written in the early 1330s, of which the second states that there is a formally valid inference with true premises and false conclusion. His example deployed the Liar paradox as the conclusion of the inference: ‘The conclusion of this inference is false, so this conclusion is false’. His account of insolubles supported his claim that the conclusion is false, and so the premise, referring to the (...) conclusion, would seem to be true. But what is his account of validity that can allow true premises to lead to a false conclusion? This article considers Roger’s own account, as well as that of Paul of Venice, writing some sixty years later, whose account of the truth and falsehood of insolubles followed Roger’s closely. Paul endorsed Roger’s three claims. But their accounts of validity were different. The question is whether these accounts are coherent and support Paul’s claim in his Logica Magna that he endorsed all the normal rules of inference. (shrink)

In his Quadratura, Paul of Venice considers a sophism involving time and tense which appears to show that there is a valid inference which is also invalid. Consider this inference concerning some proposition A : A will signify only that everything true will be false, so A will be false. Call this inference B. A and B are the basis of an insoluble-that is, a Liar-like paradox. Like the sequence of statements in Yablo's paradox, B looks ahead to a moment (...) when A will be false, yet that moment may never come. In the Quadratura, Paul follows the solution to insolubles found in the collection of elementary treatises known as the Logica Oxoniensis, which posits an implicit assertion of its own truth in insolubles like B. However, in the treatise on insolubles in his Logica Magna, Paul develops and endorses a different solution that takes insolubles at face value. We consider how both types of solution apply to A and B : on both, B is valid. But on one, B has true premises and false conclusion, and contradictories can be false together; on the other (following the Logica Oxoniensis), the counterexample is rejected. (shrink)

In Formale Logik, published in 1956, J. M. Bocheński presented his first proposal for the solution to the liar paradox, which he related to Paul of Venice's argumentation from Logica Magna. A formalized version of this solution was then presented in Formalisierung einer scholastischen Lösung der Paradoxie des ‘Lügners’ in 1959. The historical references of the resulting formalism turn out to be closer to Albert de Saxon's argument and the later solution by John Buridan. Bocheński did not pose the question (...) of the consistency of his theory. The case was taken up by B. Sobociński in his private letter to Bocheński from 12 August 1954. Sobociński used a smart translation of the language of Bocheński's theory into the classical propositional language with the notions of truth and falsehood inverted. The translation preserves the structure of the formalized solution. We explore Sobociński's idea and reconstruct his original proof. (shrink)