Handbook of the History of Logic: - Fordham University Faculty

More documents

Recommendations

Info

210 Terence Parsons a natural intuition, but it is not clear how this idea can be combined with the fundamental theory. The problem is that ‘eating-thing’ and ‘in Paris’ and ‘apple’ are all independent terms. The first stands for all past eating things, the second for all things that were in Paris, and the third for all things that were apples. And they all can be independently quantified: I ate every apple in Paris, meaning I somepast-time-ate every some-past-time-apple that was some-past-time-in Paris. The issue is how to make this turn into At some past time I then-ate every then-apple that was then-in Paris. This would require some development of the semantics; whether it would be a revision or a refinement is unclear. 5.2.8 Subclauses and Sequence of Tense There is another way in which tenses are coordinated in natural language. This is part of what is informally called “sequence of tense” in grammar. Consider the sentence: Socrates complained that Plato hit him. This seems to have a reading in which the past tense in the subordinate clause (the tense of ‘hit’) is parasitic on the tense of the main clause (the tense of ‘complained ’). On this reading, the sentence alleges that there was a past time at which Socrates made a complaint, and the content of the complaint concerns something that took place prior to the complaining. Not prior to now, but prior to another past time. The medieval semantic account we have of this is that it is true iff Socrates is a present or past thing who is a past complainer of a certain proposition: one that existed in the past and was of the form: Plato hit Socrates A proposition of that past tense form evaluated at a certain time would say that Plato hit Socrates at some time before then (before the time at which it was uttered). So the whole sentence is true iff at some past time Socrates complained, and his complaint was the content of a mental proposition existing then saying in the past tense that Plato hit him. Thus the sequence of tense seems to work out exactly right. The above reading where one takes the past tense in the subordinate clause to be past relative to the past tense in the main clause is sometimes called the “past-under-past” reading. Some sentences with the past tense in both clauses have another reading. For example, this proposition: Socrates thought that Euthyphro was a fool has a natural reading according to which at some time in the past Socrates had a thought whose content was that Euthyphro was then a fool. (The past-underpast reading would say that the content that Euthyphro was previously a fool.) This may be taken care of by stipulating that a past tense in a subordinate clause sometimes behaves semantically as a present tense. That is, the above sentence
The Development of Supposition Theory in the Later 12 th through 14 th Centuries 211 is true iff Socrates at some time in the past thought a mental proposition whose content was that of: Euthyphro is a fool The interaction of tenses in main and subordinate clauses is not well understood. There is some hope of the medieval account doing as well in capturing the semantics of sentences with embedded subclauses as most modern theories. However, this topic was not discussed in detail by medieval writers. 5.3 Modal Propositions 5.3.1 What are modal propositions? Buridan [SD 1.8.2 (67-70)] discusses three kinds of propositions that other writers call “modal”. He considers only one of them to be genuinely modal. Kind 1: Non-modal Propositions containing Modal Words Some ordinary propositions contain modal words as parts of their subjects or predicates. Some examples are: A proposition is possible No proposition is necessary Some necessary proposition is false These are not modal propositions, even though they contain modal words. In each of these cases, the modal word is all or part of the subject or predicate, and thus does not affect the copula. A genuinely modal proposition is one in which the copula changes its mode. If nothing affects the copula, the proposition is by definition not modal. Buridan calls the displayed propositions “assertoric”. They require nothing special in terms of their syntax or their semantics. They just happen to quantify over propositions and contain terms that attribute modal properties. Kind 2: Composite Modal Propositions These are cases in which a modal word applies to an entire proposition. There are two kinds of such cases. In one kind of case, a modal adverb or prepositional phrase is used with scope over the entire sentence, such as: Necessarily every donkey is an animal Possibly, some donkey is grey In the other kind of case, a modal adjective or related word is applied to a whole embedded clause, such as That every donkey is an animal is necessary For some donkey to be grey is possible
Page 1:
Handbook of the History of Logic: M
Page 4 and 5:
4 Medieval Modal Theories and Modal
Page 6 and 7:
viii Preface It remains to be seen
Page 8 and 9:
x Terence Parsons University of Cal
Page 10 and 11:
2 John Marenbon which was new; the
Page 12 and 13:
4 John Marenbon using numbers as pr
Page 14 and 15:
6 John Marenbon excusing himself fo
Page 16 and 17:
8 John Marenbon translation, and he
Page 18 and 19:
10 John Marenbon contemporaries, to
Page 20 and 21:
12 John Marenbon tingent. One way o
Page 22 and 23:
14 John Marenbon in fact exist apar
Page 24 and 25:
16 John Marenbon and those using
Page 26 and 27:
18 John Marenbon inherited, trying
Page 28 and 29:
20 John Marenbon that is to say, th
Page 30 and 31:
22 John Marenbon and other material
Page 32 and 33:
24 John Marenbon manuscripts [Arist
Page 34 and 35:
26 John Marenbon gin shortly after
Page 36 and 37:
28 John Marenbon possibility that t
Page 38 and 39:
30 John Marenbon so it does seem li
Page 40 and 41:
32 John Marenbon of substance or es
Page 42 and 43:
34 John Marenbon it is certainly op
Page 44 and 45:
36 John Marenbon it presents itself
Page 46 and 47:
38 John Marenbon 4 THE DEVELOPMENT
Page 48 and 49:
40 John Marenbon For day and light
Page 50 and 51:
42 John Marenbon not, then, just a
Page 52 and 53:
44 John Marenbon longer perform the
Page 54 and 55:
46 John Marenbon position, but to a
Page 56 and 57:
48 John Marenbon of the relationshi
Page 58 and 59:
50 John Marenbon mother of Christ,
Page 60 and 61:
52 John Marenbon and Boethius’s v
Page 62 and 63:
54 John Marenbon (for w) as a word
Page 64 and 65:
56 John Marenbon and his followers
Page 66 and 67:
58 John Marenbon [Aristotle, 1966]
Page 68 and 69:
60 John Marenbon [Green-Pedersen, 1
Page 70 and 71:
62 John Marenbon [Martin, 1991] C.
Page 73 and 74:
LOGIC AT THE TURN OF THE TWELFTH CE
Page 75 and 76:
Logic at the Turn of the Twelfth Ce
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89:
Page 92 and 93:
84 Ian Wilks question. 2 And second
Page 94 and 95:
86 Ian Wilks are these items corres
Page 96 and 97:
88 Ian Wilks pertain to the form pr
Page 98 and 99:
90 Ian Wilks standings of universal
Page 100 and 101:
92 Ian Wilks one characteristic whi
Page 102 and 103:
94 Ian Wilks understandings they ge
Page 104 and 105:
96 Ian Wilks and further discussion
Page 106 and 107:
98 Ian Wilks mental acts; general t
Page 108 and 109:
100 Ian Wilks 1998a, p. 175]; he ca
Page 110 and 111:
102 Ian Wilks fail to achieve propo
Page 112 and 113:
104 Ian Wilks be something for the
Page 114 and 115:
106 Ian Wilks Whatever philosophica
Page 116 and 117:
108 Ian Wilks Abelard’s preferenc
Page 118 and 119:
110 Ian Wilks to represent the cont
Page 120 and 121:
112 Ian Wilks bial construal of the
Page 122 and 123:
114 Ian Wilks nal plus the three ne
Page 124 and 125:
116 Ian Wilks these persons, and no
Page 126 and 127:
118 Ian Wilks tents in the first fi
Page 128 and 129:
120 Ian Wilks minor which then diff
Page 130 and 131:
122 Ian Wilks supply these criteria
Page 132 and 133:
124 Ian Wilks by this tendency. He
Page 134 and 135:
126 Ian Wilks firm as genuine entai
Page 136 and 137:
128 Ian Wilks between the anteceden
Page 138 and 139:
130 Ian Wilks (extensionally) “eq
Page 140 and 141:
132 Ian Wilks as appropriate for to
Page 142 and 143:
134 Ian Wilks conditions under whic
Page 144 and 145:
136 Ian Wilks am not an animal, I a
Page 146 and 147:
138 Ian Wilks [Abelard, 1970, p. 49
Page 148 and 149:
140 Ian Wilks catalogue of such pat
Page 150 and 151:
142 Ian Wilks itself. The relations
Page 152 and 153:
144 Ian Wilks The problem with this
Page 154 and 155:
146 Ian Wilks Another Abelardian th
Page 156 and 157:
148 Ian Wilks This indeed is the ap
Page 158 and 159:
150 Ian Wilks commonplace in the tw
Page 160 and 161:
152 Ian Wilks BIBLIOGRAPHY “[Abel
Page 162 and 163:
154 Ian Wilks [Green-Pedersen, 1984
Page 164 and 165:
156 Ian Wilks [Rosier-Catach, 1999]
Page 166 and 167:
158 Terence Parsons Medieval author
Page 168 and 169: 160 Terence Parsons “Some categor
Page 170 and 171: 162 Terence Parsons Every A is B co
Page 172 and 173: 164 Terence Parsons true. This may
Page 174 and 175: 166 Terence Parsons Figure 1 (ch 4)
Page 176 and 177: 168 Terence Parsons 1.7 Quantifying
Page 178 and 179: 170 Terence Parsons Every A is B Ev
Page 180 and 181: 172 Terence Parsons In modern logic
Page 182 and 183: 174 Terence Parsons The purpose of
Page 184 and 185: 176 Terence Parsons 2.3 Extending t
Page 186 and 187: 178 Terence Parsons Infinitizing ne
Page 188 and 189: 180 Terence Parsons that is not a m
Page 190 and 191: 182 Terence Parsons rule says that
Page 192 and 193: 184 Terence Parsons The parasitic t
Page 194 and 195: 186 Terence Parsons For example,
Page 196 and 197: 188 Terence Parsons a term in a pro
Page 198 and 199: 190 Terence Parsons signify the sam
Page 200 and 201: 192 Terence Parsons this is what Oc
Page 202 and 203: 194 Terence Parsons example, person
Page 204 and 205: 196 Terence Parsons He continues wi
Page 206 and 207: 198 Terence Parsons Since Sherwood
Page 208 and 209: 200 Terence Parsons William says th
Page 210 and 211: 202 Terence Parsons The term ‘thi
Page 212 and 213: 204 Terence Parsons proposition (fo
Page 214 and 215: 206 Terence Parsons makes no differ
Page 216 and 217: 208 Terence Parsons A bishop was gr
Page 220 and 221: 212 Terence Parsons In both of thes
Page 222 and 223: 214 Terence Parsons The subject is
Page 224 and 225: 216 Terence Parsons I believe that
Page 226 and 227: 218 Terence Parsons neither should
Page 228 and 229: 220 Terence Parsons 6.3 I promise y
Page 230 and 231: 222 Terence Parsons 7 MODES OF SUPP
Page 232 and 233: 224 Terence Parsons that result due
Page 234 and 235: 226 Terence Parsons Personal suppos
Page 236 and 237: 228 Terence Parsons supposition whe
Page 238 and 239: 230 Terence Parsons the predicates
Page 240 and 241: 232 Terence Parsons 7.4 Locality Sh
Page 242 and 243: 234 Terence Parsons [D] a distribut
Page 244 and 245: 236 Terence Parsons sally. But a un
Page 246 and 247: 238 Terence Parsons 7.6 Rules of In
Page 248 and 249: 240 Terence Parsons The premise is
Page 250 and 251: 242 Terence Parsons is similar to a
Page 252 and 253: 244 Terence Parsons Every donkey is
Page 254 and 255: 246 Terence Parsons one may descend
Page 256 and 257: 248 Terence Parsons mode of supposi
Page 258 and 259: 250 Terence Parsons above, allowed
Page 260 and 261: 252 Terence Parsons if the term is
Page 262 and 263: 254 Terence Parsons 8.5 Modes cause
Page 264 and 265: 256 Terence Parsons understand ‘t
Page 266 and 267: 258 Terence Parsons The reverse pri
Page 268 and 269:
260 Terence Parsons mode of supposi
Page 270 and 271:
262 Terence Parsons to formulate a
Page 272 and 273:
264 Terence Parsons some P can alwa
Page 274 and 275:
266 Terence Parsons Still other aut
Page 276 and 277:
268 Terence Parsons Determinate: Ex
Page 278 and 279:
270 Terence Parsons DEFAULT: A main
Page 280 and 281:
272 Terence Parsons Change every ma
Page 282 and 283:
274 Terence Parsons other modes can
Page 284 and 285:
276 Terence Parsons Therefore, ‘d
Page 286 and 287:
278 Terence Parsons [Dineen, 1990]
Page 288 and 289:
280 Terence Parsons [Spade, 1988] P
Page 290 and 291:
282 Henrik Lagerlund and references
Page 292 and 293:
284 Henrik Lagerlund never very con
Page 294 and 295:
286 Henrik Lagerlund present in Al-
Page 296 and 297:
288 Henrik Lagerlund term is hence
Page 298 and 299:
290 Henrik Lagerlund He notes furth
Page 300 and 301:
292 Henrik Lagerlund (3.1.21) ‘Ev
Page 302 and 303:
294 Henrik Lagerlund These five dif
Page 304 and 305:
296 Henrik Lagerlund There are thre
Page 306 and 307:
298 Henrik Lagerlund There is also
Page 308 and 309:
300 Henrik Lagerlund about differen
Page 310 and 311:
302 Henrik Lagerlund Such propositi
Page 312 and 313:
304 Henrik Lagerlund He says that a
Page 314 and 315:
306 Henrik Lagerlund matter. If the
Page 316 and 317:
308 Henrik Lagerlund from the early
Page 318 and 319:
310 Henrik Lagerlund Kilwardby. Nec
Page 320 and 321:
312 Henrik Lagerlund Instead Boethi
Page 322 and 323:
314 Henrik Lagerlund way that one l
Page 324 and 325:
316 Henrik Lagerlund This definitio
Page 326 and 327:
318 Henrik Lagerlund natural (or ne
Page 328 and 329:
320 Henrik Lagerlund would make the
Page 330 and 331:
322 Henrik Lagerlund On Predicables
Page 332 and 333:
324 Henrik Lagerlund of their predi
Page 334 and 335:
326 Henrik Lagerlund nowadays sort
Page 336 and 337:
328 Henrik Lagerlund III. Every B i
Page 338 and 339:
330 Henrik Lagerlund XIV. Every B i
Page 340 and 341:
332 Henrik Lagerlund the conclusion
Page 342 and 343:
334 Henrik Lagerlund (1) Differenti
Page 344 and 345:
336 Henrik Lagerlund On Supposition
Page 346 and 347:
338 Henrik Lagerlund On Fallacies T
Page 348 and 349:
340 Henrik Lagerlund (5) ‘Both’
Page 350 and 351:
342 Henrik Lagerlund substance ‘S
Page 352 and 353:
344 Henrik Lagerlund [Averroes, 196
Page 354 and 355:
346 Henrik Lagerlund [Patterson, 19
Page 356 and 357:
348 Ria van der Lecq signification.
Page 358 and 359:
350 Ria van der Lecq intellectus (c
Page 360 and 361:
352 Ria van der Lecq the mind, extr
Page 362 and 363:
354 Ria van der Lecq everyone, they
Page 364 and 365:
356 Ria van der Lecq other words, t
Page 366 and 367:
358 Ria van der Lecq term represent
Page 368 and 369:
360 Ria van der Lecq nature of a sp
Page 370 and 371:
362 Ria van der Lecq about men in t
Page 372 and 373:
364 Ria van der Lecq The second opi
Page 374 and 375:
366 Ria van der Lecq Both refer to
Page 376 and 377:
368 Ria van der Lecq first mode tha
Page 378 and 379:
370 Ria van der Lecq that is not th
Page 380 and 381:
372 Ria van der Lecq the second hal
Page 382 and 383:
374 Ria van der Lecq ‘second inte
Page 384 and 385:
376 Ria van der Lecq the intellect
Page 386 and 387:
378 Ria van der Lecq or ‘horsenes
Page 388 and 389:
380 Ria van der Lecq that are real
Page 390 and 391:
382 Ria van der Lecq it. 176 And wh
Page 392 and 393:
384 Ria van der Lecq significance.
Page 394 and 395:
386 Ria van der Lecq [Bacon, 1988]
Page 396 and 397:
388 Ria van der Lecq [Rosier, 1983]
Page 398 and 399:
390 Gyula Klima relations between l
Page 400 and 401:
392 Gyula Klima regarded as attempt
Page 402 and 403:
394 Gyula Klima . . . it is essenti
Page 404 and 405:
396 Gyula Klima are supposed to be
Page 406 and 407:
398 Gyula Klima m at t, namely, the
Page 408 and 409:
400 Gyula Klima stead, representing
Page 410 and 411:
402 Gyula Klima it is a substantial
Page 412 and 413:
404 Gyula Klima of various ontologi
Page 414 and 415:
406 Gyula Klima committed to positi
Page 416 and 417:
408 Gyula Klima terance and knowing
Page 418 and 419:
410 Gyula Klima does not have to me
Page 420 and 421:
412 Gyula Klima namely, those to wh
Page 422 and 423:
414 Gyula Klima Concepts and mental
Page 424 and 425:
416 Gyula Klima signify all their s
Page 426 and 427:
418 Gyula Klima provided they are n
Page 428 and 429:
420 Gyula Klima So, when we say tha
Page 430 and 431:
422 Gyula Klima context, the condit
Page 432 and 433:
424 Gyula Klima semantic closure (i
Page 434 and 435:
426 Gyula Klima a given situation i
Page 436 and 437:
428 Gyula Klima This simple modific
Page 438 and 439:
430 Gyula Klima in which the object
Page 441 and 442:
LOGICINTHE14 th CENTURY AFTER OCKHA
Page 443 and 444:
Logic in the 14 th Century after Oc
Page 445 and 446:
1.2 A survey of the traditions Logi
Page 447 and 448:
Page 449 and 450:
Page 451 and 452:
elsewhere, in particular in Italy.
Page 453 and 454:
Page 455 and 456:
Page 457 and 458:
Page 459 and 460:
Page 461 and 462:
Page 463 and 464:
Page 465 and 466:
Page 467 and 468:
Page 469 and 470:
Page 471 and 472:
Some A is B (1) Every A is B (3) Lo
Page 473 and 474:
Page 475 and 476:
it is still by and large murky terr
Page 477 and 478:
Page 479 and 480:
Page 481 and 482:
Page 483 and 484:
Page 485 and 486:
Page 487 and 488:
Page 489 and 490:
Page 491 and 492:
Page 493 and 494:
Page 495 and 496:
Page 497 and 498:
Page 499 and 500:
Page 501 and 502:
Page 503 and 504:
Page 505 and 506:
Page 507 and 508:
Page 509 and 510:
Page 511 and 512:
Page 513 and 514:
MEDIEVAL MODAL THEORIES AND MODAL L
Page 515 and 516:
Medieval Modal Theories and Modal L
Page 517 and 518:
Page 519 and 520:
Page 521 and 522:
Page 523 and 524:
Page 525 and 526:
Page 527 and 528:
Page 529 and 530:
Page 531 and 532:
Page 533 and 534:
Page 535 and 536:
Page 537 and 538:
1.7 Essentialist Assumptions Mediev
Page 539 and 540:
Page 541 and 542:
Page 543 and 544:
(10) Ex(Fx & ♦(Fx & Gx)) (11) Ex(
Page 545 and 546:
Page 547 and 548:
Page 549 and 550:
Page 551 and 552:
Page 553 and 554:
Page 555 and 556:
Page 557 and 558:
Page 559 and 560:
Page 561 and 562:
Page 563 and 564:
Page 565 and 566:
Page 567 and 568:
Page 569 and 570:
Page 571 and 572:
Page 573 and 574:
Page 575 and 576:
(31) (p → Oq) & − L(p → q). M
Page 577 and 578:
Page 579 and 580:
Page 581 and 582:
Page 583 and 584:
Page 585 and 586:
Page 587 and 588:
TREATMENTS OF THE PARADOXES OF SELF
Page 589 and 590:
Treatments of the Paradoxes of Self
Page 591 and 592:
Page 593 and 594:
Page 595 and 596:
Page 597 and 598:
Page 599 and 600:
Page 601 and 602:
Proof. Treatments of the Paradoxes
Page 603 and 604:
Page 605 and 606:
Page 607 and 608:
Page 609 and 610:
Page 611 and 612:
Page 613 and 614:
Page 615 and 616:
Page 617 and 618:
DEVELOPMENTS IN THE FIFTEENTH AND S
Page 619 and 620:
Developments in the Fifteenth and S
Page 621 and 622:
Page 623 and 624:
Page 625 and 626:
Page 627 and 628:
Page 629 and 630:
Page 631 and 632:
Page 633 and 634:
Page 635 and 636:
Page 637 and 638:
Page 639 and 640:
Page 641 and 642:
Page 643 and 644:
Page 645 and 646:
Page 647 and 648:
Page 649 and 650:
Page 651:
Page 654 and 655:
646 Petr Dvoˇrák 2 CARAMUEL’S L
Page 656 and 657:
648 Petr Dvoˇrák ter characterist
Page 658 and 659:
650 Petr Dvoˇrák ad extra as some
Page 660 and 661:
652 Petr Dvoˇrák equivalences (wh
Page 662 and 663:
654 Petr Dvoˇrák the two provided
Page 664 and 665:
656 Petr Dvoˇrák that of arectisa
Page 666 and 667:
658 Petr Dvoˇrák view of relation
Page 668 and 669:
660 Petr Dvoˇrák In dealing with
Page 670 and 671:
662 Petr Dvoˇrák As has been said
Page 672 and 673:
664 Petr Dvoˇrák Things, which ar
Page 675 and 676:
PORT ROYAL: THE STIRRINGS OF MODERN
Page 677 and 678:
Port Royal: The Stirrings of Modern
Page 679 and 680:
Page 681 and 682:
Page 683 and 684:
Page 685 and 686:
Page 687 and 688:
Page 689 and 690:
Page 691 and 692:
Page 693 and 694:
Page 695 and 696:
Page 697 and 698:
Page 699 and 700:
Page 701 and 702:
Page 703 and 704:
Page 705 and 706:
Page 707:
Page 710 and 711:
702 appellata, 416 appellation, 188
Page 712 and 713:
704 Cassiodorus, 1, 2, 5, 22, 25 In
Page 714 and 715:
706 determinate modality, 114 deter
Page 716 and 717:
708 clear and distinct, 671 identir
Page 718 and 719:
710 material essence realism, 86 Ma
Page 720 and 721:
712 antiqua responsio, 440 nova res
Page 722 and 723:
714 484, 552-556, 559 pseudo-Scotus
Page 724 and 725:
716 narrow distributive, 267-276 pe
Page 726:
718 Wyclif, J., 441, 442, 450, 452,
show all

Handbook of the History of Logic: - Fordham University Faculty

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?