不矛盾律与全球宗教哲学

IF 0.5 3区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY
Sophia Pub Date : 2024-02-13 DOI:10.1007/s11841-024-01001-5
{"title":"不矛盾律与全球宗教哲学","authors":"","doi":"10.1007/s11841-024-01001-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Abstract</h3> <p>This article focuses on the applications of philosophical logic in the discipline of philosophy of religion of both ‘Eastern’ and ‘Western’ traditions, in which the problem of apparent ontological contradictions can be found. A number of philosophers have proposed using the work of those non-classical logicians who countenance the violation of the law of non-contradiction (LNC) to address this problem. I discuss (1) whether classical or non-classical account of logic is universal in applying to all true theories, and (2) whether there might be extra-logical considerations which affect what is the correct account of logic for the doctrines in question. With regard to Jc Beall’s application of non-classical (FDE) logic to the doctrine of the Incarnation, I argue using the evidence from the writings of church fathers that the meaning of negation found in the core claims of the doctrine of the Incarnation should not be interpreted in accordance with Beall’s FDE account, and that this extra-logical consideration refutes Beall’s project. Moreover, the FDE’s acceptance of the possibility of statements that are both true and false is contrary to what is allowed by the definition of negation in classical logic; therefore (contrary to Beall), Beall is in fact using a different definition of negation compared with the definition used by the classical account. I develop this point in interaction with contemporary philosophy of religion literature and explain its implications and significance for this discipline.</p>","PeriodicalId":44736,"journal":{"name":"Sophia","volume":"20 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Law of Non-contradiction and Global Philosophy of Religion\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11841-024-01001-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<h3>Abstract</h3> <p>This article focuses on the applications of philosophical logic in the discipline of philosophy of religion of both ‘Eastern’ and ‘Western’ traditions, in which the problem of apparent ontological contradictions can be found. A number of philosophers have proposed using the work of those non-classical logicians who countenance the violation of the law of non-contradiction (LNC) to address this problem. I discuss (1) whether classical or non-classical account of logic is universal in applying to all true theories, and (2) whether there might be extra-logical considerations which affect what is the correct account of logic for the doctrines in question. With regard to Jc Beall’s application of non-classical (FDE) logic to the doctrine of the Incarnation, I argue using the evidence from the writings of church fathers that the meaning of negation found in the core claims of the doctrine of the Incarnation should not be interpreted in accordance with Beall’s FDE account, and that this extra-logical consideration refutes Beall’s project. Moreover, the FDE’s acceptance of the possibility of statements that are both true and false is contrary to what is allowed by the definition of negation in classical logic; therefore (contrary to Beall), Beall is in fact using a different definition of negation compared with the definition used by the classical account. I develop this point in interaction with contemporary philosophy of religion literature and explain its implications and significance for this discipline.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":44736,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sophia\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sophia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11841-024-01001-5\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sophia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11841-024-01001-5","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要 本文重点探讨了哲学逻辑在 "东方 "和 "西方 "传统宗教哲学学科中的应用,其中可以发现明显的本体论矛盾问题。一些哲学家建议利用那些支持违反不矛盾律(LNC)的非经典逻辑学家的著作来解决这一问题。我将讨论:(1) 经典逻辑或非经典逻辑是否普遍适用于所有真正的理论;(2) 是否有逻辑外的考虑因素会影响对有关学说的正确逻辑解释。关于 Jc Beall 将非经典(FDE)逻辑应用于道成肉身的学说,我利用教父们著作中的证据来论证,道成肉身学说核心主张中的否定之否定的含义不应该按照 Beall 的 FDE 解释来解释,这种逻辑外的考虑反驳了 Beall 的计划。此外,FDE 接受了既真又假的语句的可能性,这与经典逻辑中否定的定义所允许的是相反的;因此(与 Beall 相反),Beall 事实上使用了与经典解释所使用的定义不同的否定的定义。我将在与当代宗教哲学文献的互动中阐述这一点,并解释其对这一学科的影响和意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Law of Non-contradiction and Global Philosophy of Religion

Abstract

This article focuses on the applications of philosophical logic in the discipline of philosophy of religion of both ‘Eastern’ and ‘Western’ traditions, in which the problem of apparent ontological contradictions can be found. A number of philosophers have proposed using the work of those non-classical logicians who countenance the violation of the law of non-contradiction (LNC) to address this problem. I discuss (1) whether classical or non-classical account of logic is universal in applying to all true theories, and (2) whether there might be extra-logical considerations which affect what is the correct account of logic for the doctrines in question. With regard to Jc Beall’s application of non-classical (FDE) logic to the doctrine of the Incarnation, I argue using the evidence from the writings of church fathers that the meaning of negation found in the core claims of the doctrine of the Incarnation should not be interpreted in accordance with Beall’s FDE account, and that this extra-logical consideration refutes Beall’s project. Moreover, the FDE’s acceptance of the possibility of statements that are both true and false is contrary to what is allowed by the definition of negation in classical logic; therefore (contrary to Beall), Beall is in fact using a different definition of negation compared with the definition used by the classical account. I develop this point in interaction with contemporary philosophy of religion literature and explain its implications and significance for this discipline.

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
Sophia
Sophia PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
44
期刊介绍: Sophia is now published by Springer. The back files, all the way to Volume 1:1, are available via SpringerLink!   Covers both analytic and continental philosophy of religionConsiders both western and non-western perspectives, including Asian and indigenousIncludes specialist contributions, e.g. on feminist and postcolonial philosophy of religionSince its inception in 1962, Sophia has been devoted to providing a forum for discussions in philosophy and religion, focusing on the interstices between metaphysics and theological thinking. The discussions take cognizance of the wider ambience of the sciences (''natural'' philosophy and human/social sciences), ethical and moral concerns in the public sphere, critical feminist theology and cross-cultural perspectives. Sophia''s cross-cultural and cross-frontier approach is reflected not only in the international composition of its editorial board, but also in its consideration of analytic, continental, Asian and indigenous responses to issues and developments in the field of philosophy of religion.
×
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