Ernesto Perini-Santos

For John Buridan, truth-bearers are assertions. This fact explains why the inference ‘p is true, therefore p’ may fail. On the one hand, the tense of the verb plus the time of utterance do not determine the time about which a sentence is intended to be true: the intention of the speaker is needed. On the other hand, since the meaning of vocal and written words is conventional, it may seem that they can be used with different meanings on each side of the inference. While the antecedent may talk about a situation different from the present one, this doesn’t make it the actual situation of utterance, and the words have meanings only in the actual situation of use. Although such situations are different, in both of them we are asked to see the importance of identifying features of which the disquotational schema doesn’t keep track and that can only be specified in the context of use.

The solution John Buridan offers for the Paradox of the Liar has not been correctly placed within the framework of his philosophy of language. More precisely, there are two important points of the Buridanian philosophy of language that are crucial to the correct understanding of his solution to the Liar paradox that are either misrepresented or ignored in some important accounts of his theory. The first point is that the Aristotelian formula, ` propositio est vera quia qualitercumque significat in rebus significatis ita est ', once amended, is a correct way to talk about the truth of a sentence. The second one is that he has a double indexing theory of truth: a sentence is true in a time about a time, and such times should be distinguished in the account of the truth-conditions of sentences. These two claims are connected in an important way: the Aristotelian formula indicates the time about which a sentence is true. Some interpreters of the Buridanian solution to the paradox, following the lead of Herzberger, have missed these points and have been led to postulate truth-values gaps, or surrogates of truth-value gaps, when there is nothing of this sort in his theory. I argue against this tradition of interpretation of Buridan and propose an interpretation of his solution to the Liar

Agostinho é um filósofo medieval ou um filósofo antigo? Alguns autores defendem que ele é um filósofo medieval porque desempenhou um papel central na absorção da filosofia grega num quadro teórico cristão. Sua importância na constituição do pensamento cristão é sem dúvida enorme, mas não fornece um bom argumento para uma tese sobre a periodização em história da filosofia. Agostinho é um filósofo antigo porque pertence ao mundo antigo, não ao mundo medieval, e esta fronteira histórica corresponde à queda do Império Romano do Ocidente. Os fatos que parecem sustentar ambas as respostas são bem conhecidos, o que deve ser ajustado, portanto, é a pergunta: o que explica modificações amplas pelas quais a filosofia passou ao longo tempo? Os mecanismos envolvidos nessas modificações podem ser compreendidos uma vez que vemos a filosofia como parte da cultura, e parece claro haver uma ruptura muito importante entre os séculos V e XI. Mais interessante do que saber em que período classificar Agostinho é podermos colocar perguntas mais explicativas sobre essas mudanças: como tradições filosóficas nascem e morrem? Minha proposta é utilizar o modelo da epidemiologia da cultura, de Dan Sperber, para responder esta pergunta. Is Augustine a medieval or an ancient philosopher? Some authors advogate that he is a medieval philosopher because he played a crucial role in the absorption of Greek Philosophy into the Christian theorethical framework. While this is certainly true, it does not give us a proper way to understand the periodization of the history of philosophy. Augustine is an ancient philosopher because he belongs to the ancient world, and not to the medieval world, and the frontier is roughly established by the fall of Western Roman Empire. The facts that seem to ground both answers are well known, we should therefore have a better grasp of the question: what explains the large changes of philosophy along its history? These changes may be better understood once we see philosophy as part of the culture, and it seems clear that there are huge cultural differences between the 5th and the 11th centuries. More interesting than classifying Augustine as a medieval or as an ancient author, however, is asking better questions concerning the history of philosophy: how do philosophical traditions born and die? My proposal is to use Dan Sperber's model on the epidemiology of culture to answer this question

According to several late medieval logicians, the use the universal quantifier ‘omnis’ creates the requirement that the sentence refers to at least three items—the principle of sufficientia appellatorum. The commitment is such that, when the quota is not fulfilled, one has to import the missing items from the realm of the nonexistent. While the central argument for this principle, whose origin is Aristotle’s De Caelo, stems from the contrast between unrestricted universal quantifiers and binary quantifiers, the discussion is often mixed with another issue, concerning the requirement of a plurality of referents for universals. In this paper, we try to distinguish those different issues and map the reactions of xiii th authors to the principle of sufficientia appellatorum