Manuel Dahlquist

La lógica de la Edad Media se presenta a los lógicos contemporáneos, filósofos medievalistas, historiadores y filósofos de la lógica, como un campo tan fascinante como de difícil acceso. Parece demasiado intrincado para casi cualquier investigador de estas áreas encontrar la punta del ovillo que lo conduzca a transitar una presentación ordenada e inteligible de la lógica medieval. Este libro pretende solucionar este problema. Para ello, presenta de manera ordenada y autocontenida los desarrollos lógicos de la parte técnicamente más evolucionada de la lógica de la Edad Media: el siglo XIV. A diferencia de otras presentaciones no evade los hechos históricos y culturales que conforman el panorama de la época ni las cuestiones filosóficas detrás de los desarrollos lógicos, a fin de entender cabalmente las cuestiones técnicas y no desnaturalizar la propuesta medieval. Los primeros tres capítulos se abocan a cuestiones introductorias, históricas y a la genealogía de los tópicos más importantes. El cuarto capítulo está dedicado a la presentación sintáctica del lenguaje de la lógica medieval. El quinto y el sexto a la metateoría de esta lógica. El séptimo explora y presenta la semántica. Los dos últimos nos brindan una reconstrucción racional, en términos del lenguaje simbólico contemporáneo, de la lógica de finales del siglo XIV.

In the first of the Insolubles in Chapter 8 of his Sophismata, Buridan contends that the inference Omnis propositio est affirmativa; ergo, nulla propositio est negativa (PS) is valid, even though it appeals to the self-reference in the conclusion to show that what we (following Read 2001) call the classical conception of validity (CCV) fails. This requires that we accept that there are good inferences in which a false conclusion follows from true premises. Partially following Hughes’ proposal (1982), we argue that the First Sophism (PS) involves three different notions of validity. Two of them correspond to the ones described by Hughes (1982, 80–86), who calls them Theory A and Theory B. The third one—that will we call Theory C—is not mentioned by Hughes; instead, it is suggested by Buridan himself in the first three arguments in favor of the validity of PS. We show that: a) from what Buridan says in his Theory C it follows that PS is a formal and material consequence, and hence, a valid one. Then we show that: b) the rejection of CCV and the acceptance of Nulla propositio est negativa (NPN) as a (formal) consequence of Omnis propositio est affirmativa (OPA) leads to a paradox that bears similarities with the one put forward by Pseudo Scotus—which has been studied by Read (2001) and is related to Curry’s paradox. However, there are enough differences to merit considering this paradox separately, especially in relation to the so-called validity paradoxes. Interestingly, our work suggests that Buridan was aware of these problems, which explains why he introduced a new criterion for validity, one that is not based on truth-preservation but on what Spade (1988) calls firmness, and Klima (2016) correspondence.