Lorenzo Peña

Graham Priest's book In Contradiction is a bold defense of the existence of true contradictions. Although Priest's case is impressive, and many of his arguments are correct, his approach is not the only one allowing for true contradictions. As against Priest's, there is at least one contradictorialist approach which establishes a link between true contradictions and degrees of truth. All in all, such an alternative is more conservative, closer to mainstream analytical philosophy. The two approaches differ as regards the floodgate problem. Priest espouses a confinement policy banning contradictions except in a few special domains, particularly those of pure semantics and set-theory , whereas the alternative approach admits two negations -- natural or weak negation and strong negation, the latter being classical; accordingly, the alternative approach prohibits any contradiction involving strong negation, thus providing a syntactic test of what contradictions have to be rejected

Three (apparent ) deontic antinomies are discussed: the paradoxes of the watchman and the praiser, as weIl as deontic dilemmas. A paraconsistent deontic logic, Ad, is put forward whose underlying 1st-order calculus is an infinite-valued tensorial logic. Several arguments are offered bearing out be existence of deontic contradictions, while two ways of dealing with conditional obligation paradoxes within the framework of Ad are canvassed. While the aggregation rule and the ought-implies-can principle are upheld, sundry schemata are shown not to obtain which involve iterated deontic operators (most conspicuously: that whatever ought to be obligatory is obligatory; and that it is obligatory that whatever ought to be the case should in fact be the case).

Hay dos tipos de bienes y derechos: de bienestar y de libertad. Los primeros, irrenunciables, acarrean deberes positivos, de dar o hacer. Los derechos de libertad, en cambio, sólo imponen a otros deberes negativos, dejando a su titular libre para ejercerlos o no según quiera. Sostenemos que el derecho a la vida es un derecho de libertad. De ahí se sigue que no es obligatorio aceptar el don de la vida salvo cuando el ordenamiento permite a los progenitores presumir el futuro consentimiento retroactivo del nuevo ser humano por nacer. Cuando las circunstancias hagan irrazonable tal presunción, es ilícita toda acción causal que contribuya a ese nacimiento salvo únicamente la acción voluntaria y libre de la madre de no abortar —por ser ése un derecho suyo. Matizamos nuestra teoría y la articulamos en un enfoque gradualista que da cuenta de la existencia de conflictos jurídicos

The paper examines Beuchot's approach and agrees that there are many coincidences between medieval Aristotelianism and analytical philosophy. Both pursue philosophical inquiry in an argumentative manner. Nowadays analytical philosophy also tends to recognize as genuine such traditional metaphysical problems as were debated by the Scholastics. The paper's only criticism at Beuchot's views concerns analogy and reduplicative as-clauses. It argues that on that issue the cleavage between medieval and analytical philosophy lies in the latter's tending to favor complete equivocality of the word «being». However, an alternative is possible, namely univocism, as implemented in combinatory logics, which while also rejecting reduplicative clauses is free from the ineffableness attendant upon equivocism.