第三人论证

Andrej Zarevic
{"title":"第三人论证","authors":"Andrej Zarevic","doi":"10.2298/theo0604051z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The aim of this paper is to discuss one possible interpretation of Plato's Third Man argument. Plato's theory has been outlined by focusing on those premises usually taken as important for the formulation of the argument. The argument is then brought into connection with the theory of types although it is not assumed that self-predictional sentences in Plato's theory have the same role as in Russell's paradox. Employing the notion of \"well-defined class\", it is pointed out in what respect the argumentation is invalid, i.e. why Plato's theory of ideas needs not to lead to an infinite regress or a paradox of self-predication.","PeriodicalId":374875,"journal":{"name":"Theoria, Beograd","volume":"6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Third man argument\",\"authors\":\"Andrej Zarevic\",\"doi\":\"10.2298/theo0604051z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The aim of this paper is to discuss one possible interpretation of Plato's Third Man argument. Plato's theory has been outlined by focusing on those premises usually taken as important for the formulation of the argument. The argument is then brought into connection with the theory of types although it is not assumed that self-predictional sentences in Plato's theory have the same role as in Russell's paradox. Employing the notion of \\\"well-defined class\\\", it is pointed out in what respect the argumentation is invalid, i.e. why Plato's theory of ideas needs not to lead to an infinite regress or a paradox of self-predication.\",\"PeriodicalId\":374875,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Theoria, Beograd\",\"volume\":\"6 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Theoria, Beograd\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2298/theo0604051z\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Theoria, Beograd","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2298/theo0604051z","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文的目的是讨论柏拉图的第三人论证的一种可能的解释。柏拉图的理论是通过关注那些通常被认为对论证的表述很重要的前提来概述的。这个论证随后就与类型论联系起来了,尽管它并不假定柏拉图理论中的自我预言句与罗素悖论中的句子具有同样的作用。本文利用“定义明确的阶级”的概念,指出论证在什么方面是无效的,即为什么柏拉图的理念论不必导致无限的倒退或自我预言的悖论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Third man argument
The aim of this paper is to discuss one possible interpretation of Plato's Third Man argument. Plato's theory has been outlined by focusing on those premises usually taken as important for the formulation of the argument. The argument is then brought into connection with the theory of types although it is not assumed that self-predictional sentences in Plato's theory have the same role as in Russell's paradox. Employing the notion of "well-defined class", it is pointed out in what respect the argumentation is invalid, i.e. why Plato's theory of ideas needs not to lead to an infinite regress or a paradox of self-predication.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信