Prior’s Turn to Medieval Logic

Pub Date : 2022-01-05 DOI:10.1163/15685241-12341498
David Jakobsen
{"title":"Prior’s Turn to Medieval Logic","authors":"David Jakobsen","doi":"10.1163/15685241-12341498","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nThe peculiar aspect of medieval logic, that the truth-value of propositions changes with time, gradually disappeared as Europe exited the Renaissance. In modern logic, it was assumed by W.V.O. Quine that one cannot appreciate modern symbolic logic if one does not take it to be tenseless. A.N. Prior’s invention of tense-logic challenged Quine’s view and can be seen as a turn to medieval logic. However, Prior’s discussion of the philosophical problems related to quantified tense-logic led him to reject essential aspects of medieval logic. This invites an evaluation of Prior’s formalisation of tense-logic as, in part, an argument in favour of the medieval view of propositions. This article argues that Prior’s turn to medieval logic is hampered by his unwillingness to accept essential medieval assumptions regarding facts about objects that do not exist. Furthermore, it is argued that presentists should learn an important lesson from Prior’s struggle with accepting the implications of quantified tense-logic and reject theories that purport to be presentism as unorthodox if they also affirm Quine’s view on ontic commitment. In the widest sense: philosophers who, like Prior, turn to the medieval view of propositions must accept a worldview with facts about individuals that, in principle, do not supervene (present tense) on being, for they do not yet exist.","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15685241-12341498","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The peculiar aspect of medieval logic, that the truth-value of propositions changes with time, gradually disappeared as Europe exited the Renaissance. In modern logic, it was assumed by W.V.O. Quine that one cannot appreciate modern symbolic logic if one does not take it to be tenseless. A.N. Prior’s invention of tense-logic challenged Quine’s view and can be seen as a turn to medieval logic. However, Prior’s discussion of the philosophical problems related to quantified tense-logic led him to reject essential aspects of medieval logic. This invites an evaluation of Prior’s formalisation of tense-logic as, in part, an argument in favour of the medieval view of propositions. This article argues that Prior’s turn to medieval logic is hampered by his unwillingness to accept essential medieval assumptions regarding facts about objects that do not exist. Furthermore, it is argued that presentists should learn an important lesson from Prior’s struggle with accepting the implications of quantified tense-logic and reject theories that purport to be presentism as unorthodox if they also affirm Quine’s view on ontic commitment. In the widest sense: philosophers who, like Prior, turn to the medieval view of propositions must accept a worldview with facts about individuals that, in principle, do not supervene (present tense) on being, for they do not yet exist.
分享
查看原文
普赖尔转向中世纪逻辑
中世纪逻辑的特殊方面,即命题的真值随时间而变化,随着欧洲退出文艺复兴而逐渐消失。在现代逻辑中,W.V.O.奎因认为,如果一个人不认为现代符号逻辑是无时态的,他就不能欣赏现代符号逻辑。普赖尔发明的时态逻辑挑战了蒯因的观点,可以看作是中世纪逻辑的转向。然而,Prior关于量化时态逻辑的哲学问题的讨论导致他拒绝中世纪逻辑的本质方面。这就需要对普赖尔的时态逻辑的形式化进行评估,在某种程度上,这是一种支持中世纪命题观的论证。本文认为,Prior转向中世纪逻辑的阻碍在于他不愿意接受关于不存在的对象的事实的基本中世纪假设。此外,本文还认为,在场论者应该从普赖尔在接受量化时态逻辑的含义方面的斗争中吸取重要的教训,并拒绝那些声称是在场主义的理论,因为它们也肯定了奎因关于本体承诺的观点。从最广泛的意义上说:像普赖尔一样,转向中世纪命题观的哲学家必须接受一种世界观,即关于个人的事实,原则上,不监督(现在时)存在,因为他们还不存在。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信