The inconsistency of traditional logic

Australasian Journal of Philosophy 76 (2):152 – 164 (1998)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

It is shown that all those theses of traditional logic which were rejected by Russell in terms of a preferred interpretation of 'all' and 'some', in fact lead to inconsistency in any formal system of traditional logic satisfying certain minimal conditions. Hence, Russell's refutation is ultimately independent of his interpretation. Further, the derivation of each of the refutable theses depends crucially on the Bochenski/Lukasiewicz postulate 'Some _A are _A'. If this postulate is removed, the theses which remain are exactly those which translate into theses of quantification theory

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 90,616

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Replacing truth.Kevin Scharp - 2007 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 50 (6):606 – 621.
Paraconsistency Everywhere.Greg Restall - 2002 - Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 43 (3):147-156.
Nonmonotonic Inconsistency.Charles B. Cross - 2003 - Artificial Intelligence 149 (2):161-178.
The inconsistency of certain formal logic.Haskell B. Curry - 1942 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 7 (3):115-117.
The inconsistency of aristotelian logic?L. Goddard - 2000 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 78 (4):434 – 437.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
22 (#606,933)

6 months
2 (#668,348)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

The inconsistency of aristotelian logic?L. Goddard - 2000 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 78 (4):434 – 437.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references