Making a history of the principle of inertia, as of any other principle or concept, is a complex but still possible operation. In this work it has been chosen to make a back story which seemed the most natural way for a reconstruction. On the way back, it has been decided to stop at the 6th century CE with the contribution of Ioannes Philoponus. The principle he stated, although very different from the modern one, is certainly associated with it. Going (...) back in time it is still possible and of course one could proceed to the origins of the homo sapiens who perhaps posed the problem of why a club thrown with his hand could go so far from him. But the similarities that one can find with the modern principle are very vague, too perhaps. Without going so far one could see an embryonic idea of the principle of inertia in the atomistic theory of Democritus in the 5th century BCE. The motion of atoms whirling with no apparent reason can suggest the idea that a body can also move with no reason. But the transition from the atom, a metaphysical being, to the body, an empirical being, is far from immediate. (shrink)

The essay first makes some observations on the general interrelationship between the logical writings of Albert and Buridan. Second, it gives an account of a ‘semantic logical model’ for analyzing complex subject terms in some basic categorical propositions which is defended by Albert of Saxony, and briefly recounts Buridan's criticisms of that model. Finally, the essay maintains that the Albertian model is typically compatible with, and a further development of, what is called by a late-fourteenth century anonymous scholar ‘the English-Rule’ (...) but the ‘determinable/determinate’ grammatical model defended by Buridan is not. (shrink)

According to most contemporary philosophers, the Indiscernibility of Identicals is obviously true. We might therefore expect earlier philosophers to endorse it. But I will use a puzzle about identity over time to argue that Descartes would reject it.

In logic, Aristotelian diagrams are almost always assumed to be closed under negation, and are thus highly symmetric in nature. In linguistics, by contrast, these diagrams are used to study lexicalization, which is notoriously not closed under negation, thus yielding more asymmetric diagrams. This paper studies the interplay between logical symmetry and linguistic asymmetry in Aristotelian diagrams. I discuss two major symmetric Aristotelian diagrams, viz. the square and the hexagon of opposition, and show how linguistic considerations yield various asymmetric versions (...) of these diagrams. I then discuss a pentagon of opposition, which occupies an uneasy position between the square and the hexagon. Although this pentagon belongs neither to the symmetric realm of logic nor to the asymmetric realm of linguistics, it occurs several times in the literature. The oldest known occurrence can be found in the cosmological work of the 14th-century author Nicole Oresme. (shrink)