It is customarily assumed that paracomplete and paraconsistent solutions to liar paradoxes require a logical system weaker than classical logic. That is, if a logic is not fragile to liar paradoxes, it must be logically weaker than classical logic. Defenders of classical logic argue that the losses of weakening it outweigh the gains. Advocates of paracomplete and paraconsistent solutions disagree. We articulate the notion of fragility with respect to the liar paradox and show that it can be disentangled from logical (...) strength. Strength and resilience to paradox do not force a trade-off with respect to liars: there can be logics which are not weaker than classical logic and are solid to the liar. (shrink)

The present paper is a continuation of [6] and [7]. Thus the content of this paper is the following. At first we establish properties of systems S 2 n and S 2∗ n , where systems S 2 n and S 2∗ n are extensions of Rasiowa-S lupecki’s systems Sn and S ∗ n . Then we shall show that for every cardinal number m there exist a system ST 4 m of propositional calculus and a system SP 4 m (...) of predicate calculus such that the system ST 4 m has exactly m Lindenbaum’s oversystems and the system SP 4 m has exactly m Lindenbaum’s oversystems, where 1 ≤ m ≤ 2 ℵ0. (shrink)

The question that arises in this article is whether we can find elements of phenomenology in Bernard Lonergan’s Trinitarian theology.With help of other Lonergan scholars, I have discovered that modern thinking plays an important role in the theology and philosophy ofthis Jesuit author. Moreover, the terminology of modern philosophy coexists with the terminology of classical and especially Tomisticthought. This article is interested in the elements that Lonergan takes from the modern philosophy and emphasizes the centrality ofHusserlian phenomenology among the other (...) modern authors used by Lonergan. Following the research of the Jesuit thinker, I speakabout two parallel realities coexisting in his Trinitarian theology. Lonergan tries to realize their synthesis, but at the same time healso recognizes their distinctiveness. The most relevant result of this coexistence is obtained through the replacement of the metaphysical differentiation between the level of substance and the level of the three Persons, so that, instead of having the elements of classical theology, Lonergan predicates at the same time that God subsists as well as the Trinitarian Persons subsist. Through this assertion he emphasizes the identity between God’s existence and the existence of the three divine Persons, and eliminates the classical differentiation that might be closer to the danger of subordinating the three Persons to the one God. (shrink)

Economic activity and reflection should be Holotropic, that is aiming at unity, instead of overspecialized approaches. A cosmic awareness is needed, along a radical revision and reformulation of human nature and of reality. In the modern era, the Hylotropic, matter oriented movement prevailed, imposing a coarser materiality and a marked spiritual devolution. This is how it reached this form of economy, based on selfishness, mercantilism and highly pecuniary greedy interest, a highly financialized economy and its dominance over the other social (...) disciplines, over the behaviour and human life in general. It seems we are at the end of such a period and a new holotropic era is to come. (shrink)

Review on Kieran McGroarty, Plotinus on Eudaimonia: A Commentary on Ennead I.4, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2006.

This article explores the main aspects of Aristotle’s scientific method in Meteorology IV. Dispositional properties such as solidifiability or combustibility play a dominant role in Meteor. IV (a) in virtue of their central place in the generic division of homoeomers, based on successive differentiation and multiple differentiae, and (b) in virtue of their role in revealing otherwise undetectable characteristics of uniform materials (composition and physical structure). While Aristotle often starts with accounts of ingredients and their ratio (e.g., solids that contain (...) a significant amount of water are liquefiable), the natural direction of his investigation is from observations regarding dispositional properties and their manifestation to accounts of composition and microstructure. Such passages tend to be easily syllogizable, a feature that—along with the criteria that shape his method of division—argues, I believe, for the compatibility of Meteor. IV with Aristotle’s theory of scientific inquiry. The concluding sections of my article deal more succinctly with reputable opinions and final causation in Meteor. IV.1–11 and with the relation between this treatise and Aristotle’s biological corpus. (shrink)

Tiberiu Popa - Aristotle on Teleology - Journal of the History of Philosophy 45:2 Journal of the History of Philosophy 45.2 323-324 Muse Search Journals This Journal Contents Reviewed by Tiberiu Popa Butler University Monte Ransome Johnson. Aristotle on Teleology. Oxford Aristotle Studies. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2005. Pp. xi + 339 pp. Cloth, $74.00. Teleology is one of the most extensively studied topics in Aristotle's philosophy. It is all the more impressive that Monte Ransome Johnson has been able (...) to put together such a comprehensive, lucid, and often original account of what we would call Aristotle's teleology, or final causation, and what the Stagirite would have called simply "that for the sake of which." Johnson starts.. (shrink)

A potentially illuminating aspect of Aristotle’s study of material properties that has been explored far less systematically and comprehensively than composition is his reliance on structural characteristics that are imperceptibly small, but presumably inferable, if not with certainty, at least with a high degree of confidence. This article is meant to elucidate that aspect and to answer three main questions: What is Aristotle’s general explanatory strategy when it comes to the relation between capacities and microstructures? How does he refine certain (...) elements of his explanations, e.g., with respect to specific subtypes of structures and their interaction with the environment? And to what extent could Aristotle’s appeal to microstructures be relevant to debates in contemporary metaphysics and philosophy of science? (shrink)

The three articles gathered in this forum explore three complementary aspects of Aristotle’s “chemical treatise,” Meteorology IV. The emphasis is on significant ways in which his philosophy of science, metaphysics, and natural philosophy are put into practice in the context of his study of organic and inorganic uniform bodies.

This study aims to clarify the role played by higher order dispositions in the context of the explanatory method in Regimen I and of the approach to dietetics in Regimen as a whole. My main claim is that there are two concomitant directions involved in the inquiry carried out in Chaps 25–36 of Regimen I: there is an inferential and revelatory move from premises about complex dispositions to the ‘invisible’, that is, to the particular composition of one's body ; and (...) there is a causal-explanatory move, based on such inferences, from the powers of elemental varieties and of their combinations to the resulting higher level dispositions. (shrink)

AI can identify images, but cannot understand them as man does. The problem of understanding the iconic signs is the analogy, which cannot be clearly operationalized. Nothing guarantees signification by analogy, because it is neither the necessary effect of a cause, as in the indicative signs, nor the obligatory consequence of a rule, as of symbols. But the analogy is also fundamental to the human condition because our Ego implies the presence of Other. Or, just as the images, the understanding (...) of Other implies the analogy: he is a self like me, but another self than myself, that is, an analogous self. That is, you can understand the behavior of the other's activities and actions, even what he communicates as messages because you interpret them as if it were about yourself. Different from the human being who is an existent, in AI the essence precedes existence. Even if the algorithms of the analogy process will be infinitely perfected, that analogy will miss the interpretation that comes from the life of the existing one. AI knows digital, man understands analog; AI understands from knowledge, man knows from understanding. (shrink)