Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:33:12.126Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pro Buridano; Contra Hazenum

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Ian Hinckfuss
Ian Hinckfuss*
Affiliation:
University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Queensland, Australia, 4067
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Alan Hazen has claimed that Buridan’s theory of truth does not escape semantic paradox.

In this paper, I claim that Buridan's theory is untouched by Hazen's case.My solution to Hazen's paradox requires the recognition of the exceptionability of what I shall call T-Elimination, namely, the principle (to be clarified later) that from a statement that such and such is true, we may deduce such and such. The exceptions are explained by reference to the role of what I shall call the meta-content of a locution, that is, that information conveyed by any locution that tells us what sort of a locution it is intended to be. The exceptionability of T-Elimination turns out to be shared by other well-accepted principles of deduction alsoand for the same reasons.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 21 , Issue 3 , September 1991 , pp. 389 - 398
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See Hazen, Allen ‘Contra Buridanum,’ Canadian Journal of Philosophy 17 (1987) 875-80CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

Buridan’s thoughts on paradox are available in English translation in Hughes, G.E. John Buridan on Self-Reference (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1982).Google Scholar

Other recent work relevant to Buridan’s ideas about truth and falsity include: Donnellan, Keith ‘A Note on the Liar Paradox,’ Philosophical Review 66 (1957) 394-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Parsons, Charles ‘The Liar Paradox,’ Journal of Philosophical Logic 3 (1974) 381-412CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Burge, Tyler ‘Semantical Paradoxes,’ Journal of Philosophy 76 (1979) 169-98CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Barwise, Jon and Etchemendy, John The Liar (Oxford: Oxford University Press 1987)Google Scholar; and Gaifman, H. ‘Operational Pointer Semantics: Solution to Self-Referential Puzzles, I,’ in Vardi, Mosche Y. ed., Proceedings of the Second Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning About Knowledge (Asilomar, CA: Morgan Kaufmann 1988) 43-59Google Scholar.

2 I am indebted to Graham Priest, who brought Buridan’s thoughts on truth and Allen Hazen’s article thereon to my attention and whose discussion with me on these matters has been so helpful. I am indebted also to two anonymous referees of the Canadian Journal of Philosophy for their suggestions in improving this essay.

3 John Buridan on Self-Reference, 2, 18

4 This is to be read: From tokens of the form Tx and #xy lying outside the scope of any discharged assumption, deduce a token equiform with y.

5 Richard Hare’s distinction between the neustic and the phrastic of a locution shares a similar underlying idea. See R.M. Hare, The Language of Morals (Oxford: Oxford University Press 1952). Charles Hamblin has used symbolism to differentiate between different types of locution in his formalization of dialogue in Hamblin, C.L. Fallacies (London: Methuen 1970), ch. 8Google Scholar. This has been followed by other authors in that field, for example: Mackenzie, J.D. ‘Question-Begging in Non-Cumulative Systems,’ Journal of Philosophical Logic 8 (1979) 117-33CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Woods, John and Walton, Douglas ‘Arresting Circles in Formal Dialogue,’ Journal of Philosophic Logic 7 (1978) 73-90Google Scholar and Searle, John R. and Vanderveken, Daniel Foundations of Illocutionary Logic (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1985).Google Scholar

6 See Lewis, David ‘General Semantics,’ Synthese 22 (1970-71) 1-67CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Foundations of Illocutionary Logic, 151

8 Philosophy of Logics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1978), 138