• PhilPapers
  • PhilPeople
  • PhilArchive
  • PhilEvents
  • PhilJobs
  • Sign in
PhilPeople
 
  • Sign in
  • News Feed
  • Find Philosophers
  • Departments
  • Radar
  • Help
 
profile-cover
Drag to reposition
profile picture

Michael Wedin

University of California, Davis
  •  Home
  •  Publications
    70
    • Most Recent
    • Most Downloaded
    • Topics
  •  News and Updates
    24

 More details
  • University of California, Davis
    Department of Philosophy
    Unknown
Davis, California, United States of America
Areas of Specialization
Ancient Greek and Roman Philosophy
Areas of Interest
Metaphysics
Logic and Philosophy of Logic
  • All publications (70)
  •  327
    Aristotle on the Firmness of the Principle of Non-Contradiction
    Phronesis 49 (3): 225-265. 2004.
    In "Metaphysics" Gamma 3 Aristotle declares that the philosopher investigates things that are qua things that are and that he therefore should be able to state the firmest principles of everything. The firmest principle of all is identified as the principle of non-contradiction (PNC). The main focus of Gamma 3 is Aristotle's proof for this identification. This paper begins with remarks about Aristotle's notion of the firmness of a principle and then offers an analysis of the firmness proof for P…Read more
    In "Metaphysics" Gamma 3 Aristotle declares that the philosopher investigates things that are qua things that are and that he therefore should be able to state the firmest principles of everything. The firmest principle of all is identified as the principle of non-contradiction (PNC). The main focus of Gamma 3 is Aristotle's proof for this identification. This paper begins with remarks about Aristotle's notion of the firmness of a principle and then offers an analysis of the firmness proof for PNC. It focuses on some key assumptions of the proof and on the range and force of the proof. Aristotle closes Gamma 3 with the claim that PNC is ultimate in the sense that all other principles somehow rest on it. This, rather controversial, claim is given a defensible reading and shown to be central to the chapter's effort to establish PNC as the firmest principle of all. As such it completes the firmness proof and is not simply an appended remark
    AristotleAristotle: Metaphysics
  •  97
    PARTisanship in Metaphysics Z (review)
    Ancient Philosophy 11 (2): 361-385. 1991.
    AristotleClassics
  •  177
    Aristotle's theory of substance: the Categories and Metaphysics Zeta
    Oxford University Press. 2000.
    Michael Wedin argues against the prevailing notion that Aristotle's views on the nature of reality are fundamentally inconsistent. According to Wedin's new interpretation, the difference between the early theory of the Categories and the later theory of the Metaphysics reflects the fact that Aristotle is engaged in quite different projects in the two works--the earlier focusing on ontology, and the later on explanation.
    AristotleSubstance
  • Human Nature and Natural Knowledge. Essays Presented to Marjorie Grene on the Occasion of Her Seventy-Fifth Birthday
    with A. Donogan and An Perovich
    Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science 89 3-381. 1986.
    Science, Logic, and MathematicsPhilosophy of BiologyPhilosophy of Biology, Miscellaneous
  •  3
    Tracking Aristotle's noûs
    In Michael Durrant (ed.), Aristotle's De Anima in Focus, Routledge. 2015.
    Aristotle: Active/Passive Intellect
  •  201
    Negation and Quantification in Aristotle
    History and Philosophy of Logic 11 (2): 131-150. 1990.
    Two main claims are defended. The first is that negative categorical statements are not to be accorded existential import insofar as they figure in the square of opposition. Against Kneale and others, it is argued that Aristotle formulates his o statements, for example, precisely to avoid existential commitment. This frees Aristotle's square from a recent charge of inconsistency. The second claim is that the logic proper provides much thinner evidence than has been supposed for what appears to b…Read more
    Two main claims are defended. The first is that negative categorical statements are not to be accorded existential import insofar as they figure in the square of opposition. Against Kneale and others, it is argued that Aristotle formulates his o statements, for example, precisely to avoid existential commitment. This frees Aristotle's square from a recent charge of inconsistency. The second claim is that the logic proper provides much thinner evidence than has been supposed for what appears to be the received view, that is, for the view that insofar as they occur in syllogistic negative categoricals have existential import. At most there is a single piece of evidence in favor of the view?a special case of echthesis or the setting out of a case in proof
    Ancient Greek and Roman LogicAristotleAristotelian LogicQuantification and Ontology
  •  178
    Aristotle on the Existential Import of Singular Sentences
    Phronesis 23 (2): 179-196. 1978.
    Aristotle
  •  3
    Some logical problems in Metaphysics gamma
    Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 19 113-62. 2000.
    Classical Greek PhilosophyAncient Greek and Roman MetaphysicsAristotle: MetaphysicsAristotle: Metaph…Read more
    Classical Greek PhilosophyAncient Greek and Roman MetaphysicsAristotle: MetaphysicsAristotle: Metaphysics Gamma
  •  180
    Content and cause in the aristotelian mind
    Southern Journal of Philosophy 31 (S1): 49-105. 1993.
    Aristotle
  •  2
    Animadversions on Burnyeat's Theaetetus: On the Logic of the Exquisite Argument
    Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 29 171-191. 2005.
    Plato: Theaetetus
  • Prev.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Next
PhilPeople logo

On this site

  • Find a philosopher
  • Find a department
  • The Radar
  • Index of professional philosophers
  • Index of departments
  • Help
  • Acknowledgments
  • Careers
  • Contact us
  • Terms and conditions

Brought to you by

  • The PhilPapers Foundation
  • The American Philosophical Association
  • Centre for Digital Philosophy, Western University
PhilPeople is currently in Beta Sponsored by the PhilPapers Foundation and the American Philosophical Association
Feedback