In the first of the Insolubles in Chapter 8 of his Sophismata, Buridan contends that the inference Omnis propositio est affirmativa; ergo, nulla propositio est negativa (PS) is valid, even though it appeals to the self-reference in the conclusion to show that what we (following Read 2001) call the classical conception of validity (CCV) fails. This requires that we accept that there are good inferences in which a false conclusion follows from true premises. Partially following Hughes’ proposal (1982), we argue (...) that the First Sophism (PS) involves three different notions of validity. Two of them correspond to the ones described by Hughes (1982, 80–86), who calls them Theory A and Theory B. The third one—that will we call Theory C—is not mentioned by Hughes; instead, it is suggested by Buridan himself in the first three arguments in favor of the validity of PS. We show that: a) from what Buridan says in his Theory C it follows that PS is a formal and material consequence, and hence, a valid one. Then we show that: b) the rejection of CCV and the acceptance of Nulla propositio est negativa (NPN) as a (formal) consequence of Omnis propositio est affirmativa (OPA) leads to a paradox that bears similarities with the one put forward by Pseudo Scotus—which has been studied by Read (2001) and is related to Curry’s paradox. However, there are enough differences to merit considering this paradox separately, especially in relation to the so-called validity paradoxes. Interestingly, our work suggests that Buridan was aware of these problems, which explains why he introduced a new criterion for validity, one that is not based on truth-preservation but on what Spade (1988) calls firmness, and Klima (2016) correspondence. (shrink)

P.F. Strawson contributed to many philosophical domains, including the philosophy of language, the history of philosophy, metaphysics, moral philosophy and philosophical methodology. Most of his contributions in these areas have influenced contemporary debates, either because his views are still defended or because they are still considered worthy of detailed responses. His views on the philosophy of logic have been only rarely discussed, however. My aim in this paper is threefold. First, I provide a systematic account of Strawson’s philosophy of logic. (...) I argue that Strawson is an important predecessor of logical expressivism, a contemporary position in the philosophy of logic most notably defended by Robert Brandom. My main focus is on Strawson’s largely-neglected 1982 paper ‘Logical Form and Logical Constants’, which contains his most mature ideas on the topic. Second, while Strawson’s position is of historical and independent philosophical interest, I argue that he leaves many points unclear. Finally, I propose several clarifications of Strawson’s position. (shrink)

La lógica de la Edad Media se presenta a los lógicos contemporáneos, filósofos medievalistas, historiadores y filósofos de la lógica, como un campo tan fascinante como de difícil acceso. Parece demasiado intrincado para casi cualquier investigador de estas áreas encontrar la punta del ovillo que lo conduzca a transitar una presentación ordenada e inteligible de la lógica medieval. Este libro pretende solucionar este problema. Para ello, presenta de manera ordenada y autocontenida los desarrollos lógicos de la parte técnicamente más evolucionada (...) de la lógica de la Edad Media: el siglo XIV. A diferencia de otras presentaciones no evade los hechos históricos y culturales que conforman el panorama de la época ni las cuestiones filosóficas detrás de los desarrollos lógicos, a fin de entender cabalmente las cuestiones técnicas y no desnaturalizar la propuesta medieval. Los primeros tres capítulos se abocan a cuestiones introductorias, históricas y a la genealogía de los tópicos más importantes. El cuarto capítulo está dedicado a la presentación sintáctica del lenguaje de la lógica medieval. El quinto y el sexto a la metateoría de esta lógica. El séptimo explora y presenta la semántica. Los dos últimos nos brindan una reconstrucción racional, en términos del lenguaje simbólico contemporáneo, de la lógica de finales del siglo XIV. (shrink)

The paper reviews some conceptions of logical form in the light of Andrea Iacona’s book Logical Form. I distinguish the following: logical form as schematization of natural language, provided by, for example, Aristotle’s syllogistic; the relevance to logical form of formal languages like those used by Frege and Russell to express and prove mathematical theorems; Russell’s mid-period conception of logical form as the structural cement binding propositions; the conceptions of logical form discussed by Iacona; and logical form regarded as an (...) empirical hypothesis about the psychology of language processing, as in the Discourse Representation Theory tradition. Whereas neither schematization, nor the use of special languages for mathematics, raise general methodological or empirical difficulties, other conceptions of logical form raise at least apparent problems. (shrink)

_ Source: _Volume 56, Issue 3-4, pp 292 - 319 With William of Ockham and John Buridan, Walter Burley is often listed as one of the most significant logicians of the medieval period. Nevertheless, Burley’s contributions to medieval logic have received notably less attention than those of either Ockham or Buridan. To help rectify this situation, the author here provides a comprehensive examination of Burley’s account of consequences, first recounting Burley’s enumeration, organization, and division of consequences, with particular attention to (...) the shift from natural and accidental to formal and material consequence, and then locating Burley’s contribution to the theory of consequences in the context of fourteenth-century work on the subject, detailing its relation to the earliest treatises on consequences, then to Ockham and Buridan. (shrink)

The aim of this paper is to analyse categorical propositions and their oppositional relations in Avicenna’s frame. For Avicenna’s expression and conception of categorical propositions is different from those of the authors who preceded him, due to the various conditions he adds to these categorical propositions. These additions make the oppositional relations richer and give rise to many more figures than a simple square. Our analysis exhibits some of these figures by relating all kinds of quantified propositions in various ways. (...) We thus find many squares of oppositions, several octagons, two hexagons and many complex figures which are different from each other and have specific and original structures, due to the propositions they contain. The hexagons are of Blanché’s kind, but one of them is asymmetric. Some octagons are of Buridan’s kind, but one of them is very unusual and seems to be a reversal of Buridan’s octagon. These octagons can also be replaced by cubes, which are three dimensional figures having the same number of vertices. (shrink)

Buridan endorsed the principles that any impossible, and a fortiori any self-contradictory, proposition entails each proposition. These principles are usually referred to as ‘Ex impossibili quodlibet’ (EIQ) and ‘Ex contradictione quodlibet’ (ECQ). Buridan further considered the instance ECCQ according to which any proposition follows from the conjunction of two contradictory propositions. Buridan showed how ECCQ can be proven by means the usual laws of conjunction and disjunction. Furthermore, he discovered that EIQ can be derived from ECCQ by means of the (...) principle that if a conclusion q follows from two premises, one of which is necessary, then q follows from the other premise alone. Buridan thought that this principle would be provable; but his proof turned out to be circular since it presupposed EIQ. Nevertheless, EIQ is validated by the definition of a ‘bona consequentia’. Somewhat more exactly, according to Buridan one may distinguish between inferences which are formally valid, ‘materially’ valid, and valid ‘as of now’. It is shown that formally valid inferences satisfy ECQ while ‘materially’ valid inferences satisfy EIQ. Furthermore, inferences which are valid ‘as of now’ satisfy the principle ‘Ex falso quodlibet’ saying that any false proposition ‘as of now’ entails every proposition. (shrink)

This paper scrutinizes the debate over logical pluralism. I hope to make this debate more tractable by addressing the question of motivating data: what would count as strong evidence in favor of logical pluralism? Any research program should be able to answer this question, but when faced with this task, many logical pluralists fall back on brute intuitions. This sets logical pluralism on a weak foundation and makes it seem as if nothing pressing is at stake in the debate. The (...) present paper aims to improve this situation by looking at a promising case study and drawing general lessons about the kind of evidence that would support logical pluralism. I argue that the best motivation for logical pluralism will ultimately be rooted in certain kinds of performative data. (shrink)

A substitutional account of logical validity for formal first‐order languages is developed and defended against competing accounts such as the model‐theoretic definition of validity. Roughly, a substitution instance of a sentence is defined as the result of uniformly substituting nonlogical expressions in the sentence with expressions of the same grammatical category and possibly relativizing quantifiers. In particular, predicate symbols can be replaced with formulae possibly containing additional free variables. A sentence is defined to be logically true iff all its substitution (...) instances are satisfied by all variable assignments. Logical consequence is defined analogously. Satisfaction is taken to be a primitive notion and axiomatized.For every set‐theoretic model in the sense of model theory there exists a corresponding substitutional interpretation in a sense to be specified. Conversely, however, there are substitutional interpretations – in particular the ‘intended’ interpretation – that lack a model‐theoretic counterpart. The substitutional definition of logical validity overcomes the weaknesses of more restrictive accounts of substitutional validity; unlike model‐theoretic logical consequence, the substitutional notion is trivially and provably truth preserving. In Kreisel's squeezing argument the formal notion of substitutional validity naturally slots into the place of intuitive validity. (shrink)

In this paper, I raise the following problem: How does Avicenna define modalities? What oppositional relations are there between modal propositions, whether quantified or not? After giving Avicenna's definitions of possibility, necessity and impossibility, I analyze the modal oppositions as they are stated by him. This leads to the following results: The relations between the singular modal propositions may be represented by means of a hexagon. Those between the quantified propositions may be represented by means of two hexagons that one (...) could relate to each other.This is so because the exact negation of the bilateral possible, i.e. ‘necessary or impossible’ is given and applied to the quantified possible propositions.Avicenna distinguishes between the scopes of modality which can be either external or internal . His formulations are external unlike al-F̄ar̄ab̄;’s ones. However his treatment of modal oppositions remains incomplete because not all the relations between the modal propositi.. (shrink)

Jean Buridan developed his theory of consequence within a semantical framework compatible with what we now call token-based semantics. In his Treatise on Consequences and Sophismata, Buridan showed...

In this paper I examine Avicenna’s conception of the consequence relation. I will consider in particular his categorical and hypothetical logics. I will first analyse his definition of the implication and will show that this relation is not a consequence relation in his frame. Unlike the medieval logicians, he does not distinguish explicitly between material and formal consequences. The arguments discussed in al-Qiyās, where the conclusion is true only in some matters, and would seem close to a material consequence for (...) that reason, are rejected explicitly as not syllogistic. He also rejects the ‘enthymemes’ unless they are complemented by their missing premise and the superfluous premises which, according to him, should promptly be ruled out. It seems then that the consequence relation in his theory is formal. It can be characterized as being ‘productivity in all matters’ or ‘necessary truth preserving’. It is illustrated by some single premise arguments, and above all by all kinds of syllogisms which, in his theory, are more numerous and various than in Aristotle’s one. The syllogism may contain two or more premises, including disjunctive ones. When it is hypothetical, it may lead to several conclusions. The premises may be in conflict, but then, the conclusion is false. He thus rejects the principle according to which ‘anything follows from a contradiction’. But, unlike what some scholars say, he does not admit any connexive principle. In the compound syllogisms, the conclusion follows by steps, each step taking two premises at once. (shrink)