This article is intended to examine the structure and scope of the argumentation drawn in Metaphysics Γ 4, 1006a18-b34. As we shall see, though this passage does not bring a complete proof of the Principle of Non-Contradiction, it corresponds to its first step, which consists in determining the conditions of meaning necessary for discourse. That passage encloses in nuce the reasons which underlie Aristotelian conviction con- cerning the conventional nature of names and also brings to light the way this conven- (...) tional nature of names must be understood according to Aristotle. (shrink)

Leibniz não raro é lembrado por seu obstinado empenho na tarefa de tentar construir uma linguagem apta a exprimir com perfeição os raciocínios humanos, linguagem a que dá o nome de Characteristica. Esta obstinação deve-se fundamentalmente à sua convição de que o progresso do conhecimento, bem como sua certeza, dependem de um amparo dos símbolos materializados a registrar fielmente os passos dos raciocínios. Neste estudo, pretende-se examinar as razões que conduziram o filósofo a esta convição à luz dos argumentos que (...) dirige contra o intuicionismo cartesiano, vale dizer, contra a tese de que os critérios de clareza e de distinção encerrariam, em última instância, as condições originárias suficientes da certeza. (shrink)

The aim of this article is to identify some elements of Leibniz's criticism of Hobbes which could shed some light on the reasons that conduced Leibniz to adopt his intentional conception of truth. More specifically, I will try to identify some conclusions that Leibniz draws concerning the Hobbesian conception of truth, and then, to identify, on the basis of those conclusions, what Leibniz thought to be the way of preventing the errors he ascribes to Hobbes.

This paper is intended to examine the distinction made by Leibniz in Generales Inquisitiones de Analysi Notionum et Veritatum between essential and existential propositions, in order to shed some light on the nature of the analogies that Leibniz proposes between the logical problem of contingency and the geometrical problem of the continuum.

This paper is intended to examine Leibniz's Principle of Continuity, as well as the conditions of its application in leibnizian infinitesimal calculus, in the light of some aspects of formal language developed by Leibniz. It aims at evaluating whether, and to what extent, that principle can be justified on the basis of the logic of Leibniz.

This article is intended to examine specific passages from the section of Metaphysics IV 3-4 to be found between 1005a19-1006b34 in the light of the discussions made by Aristotle in the Prior Analytics. The aim is to understand better the argumentative strategies directed at proving the Principle of Non-Contradiction adopted in the above- mentioned section, based on the logic structured by Aristotle.