Advertisement

Restrictionism: A Medieval Approach Revisited

  • Claude Panaccio
Part of the Logic, Epistemology, and the Unity of Science book series (LEUS, volume 8)

Restrictionism is the doctrine that self-reference is to be banned somehow, at least in some sort of cases. As a solution to the Liar paradox, restrictionism has been popular in the thirteenth and early fourteenth century, and then rapidly lost ground to rival theories such as Bradwar-dine's. The aim of this paper is twofold: (1) to explain what medieval restrictionism amounted to as a matter of historical fact and why it came to be abandoned; (2) to provide a modern reformulation of the approach that still seems promising as a solution to the Liar and related paradoxes.

Keywords

Adhocness Restriction (restrictio) Restrictionism Supposition (suppo-sitio) Ungroundedness 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    [1] Alessio, F. (1971).Lamberto d'Auxerre. Logica (Summa Lamberti). Florence: La Nuova ItaliaGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    [2] Barwise, J. and J. Etchemendy (1987).The Liar. An Essay on Truth and Circularity. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    [3] Beets, F. and M.-A. Gavray eds. (2005).Logique et ontologie. Liège: Éditions de l'Université de LiègeGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    [4] Boehner, P., G. Gál and S. Brown (1974).Guillelmi de Ockham Summa logicae(=Opera PhilosophicaI). St. Bonaventure, NY: The Franciscan InstituteGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    [5] Braakhuis, H.A.G. (1967). “The Second Tract on Insolubilia Found in Paris B. N. Lat. 16–617. An Edition of the Text with an Analysis of its Contents”.Vivarium5, 111–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bradwardine, T. See [38]Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    [7] Burge, T. (1979). “Semantical Paradox”.Journal of Philosophy76, 169–198. Reprinted in [26], 83–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Buridan, J. See [19], Pironet [34]Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Burley, W. See [38]Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Campsall, R. See [50]Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    [11] Chihara, C. (1979). “The Semantic Paradoxes”.The Philosophical Review88, 590–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    [12] Davidson, D. and G. Harman eds. (1972).Semantics of Natural Language(2nd ed.). Dordrecht: ReidelGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    [13] Del Punta, F. (1979).Guillelmi de Ockham Expositio super libros Elenchorum(=Opera PhilosophicaIII). St. Bonaventure, NY: The Franciscan InstituteGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    [14] De Rijk, L.M. (1966). “Some Notes on the Medieval Tract De In-solubilibus, with the Edition of a Tract Dating from the End of the Twelfth Century”.Vivarium4, 83–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    [15] De Rijk, L.M. (1972).Peter of Spain. Tractatus. Assen: Van GorcumGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    [16] Ebbesen, S. et al. (1984).Simon of Faversham. Quaestiones super libro Elenchorum. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval StudiesGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    [17] Ebbesen, S. and P.V. Spade (1988). “More Liars”.Cahiers de l'Institut du Moyen Âge Grec et Latin56, 193–227Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    [18] Gupta, A. (1982). “Truth and Paradox”.Journal of Philosophical Logic11, 1–60. Reprinted in [26], 175–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    [19] Klima, G. (2001).John Buridan. Summulae deDialectica. Engl. transl. New Haven: Yale University PressGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    [20] Koons, R.C. (1992).Paradoxes of Belief and Strategic Rationality. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    [21] Kretzmann, N., A. Kenny and J. Pinborg eds. (1982).The Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    [22] Kripke, S. (1975). “Outline of a Theory of Truth”.The Journal of Philosophy72, 690–716. Reprinted in [26], 53–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lambert of Auxerre. See [1]Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    [24] Loux, M.J. (1974).Ockham's Theory of Terms. Part I of theSumma Logicae. (Engl. transl.). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame PressGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    [25] Mackie, J.L. (1973).Truth, Probability and Paradox. Oxford: ClarendonGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    [26] Martin, R.L. ed. (1984).Recent Essays on Truth and the Liar Paradox. Oxford: ClarendonGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    [27] McGee, V. (1991).Truth, Vagueness, and Paradox. Indianapolis: HackettGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Panaccio, C. (1993). “Solving the Insolubles: Hints from Ockham and Burley”. In [36], 398–410Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Panaccio, C. (2001). “Le Menteur: plaidoyer pour une solution ad hoc”. In [31], 87–105Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Panaccio, C. (2005). “Le paradoxe du menteur et le langage mental: réflexions sur l'approche restrictionniste”. In [3], 57–71Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    [31] Pelletier, Jérôme and Joëlle Proust eds (2001).La normativité.Caen: Presses Universitaires de CaenGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Peter of Ailly. See [46]Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Peter of Spain. See [15]Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    [34] Pironet, F. (2004).Johannes Buridanus. Summulae de practica sophismatum. Groningen: IngeniumGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    [35] Priest, G. (1987).In Contradiction. A Study of the Transconsistent.Dordrecht: Martinus NijhoffGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    [36] Read, S. ed. (1993).Sophisms in Medieval Logic and Grammar.Dordrecht: KluwerGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    [37] Read, S. (2002). “The Liar Paradox from John Buridan back to Thomas Bradwardine”.Vivarium40, 189–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    [38] Roure, M.-L. (1970). “La problématique des propositions insolubles au xiiiesiècle et au début du xive, suivie de l'édition des traitésde W. Shyreswood, W. Burleigh et Th. Bradwardine”.Archives d'histoire doctrinale et littéraire du Moyen Âge 37, 205–326Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Scotus, J.D. See [55]Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    [40] Simmons, K. (1993).Universality and the Liar. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Simon of Faversham. See [16]Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    [42] Soames, S. (1999).Understanding Truth. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    [43] Sorensen, R.A. (1998). “Yablo's Paradox and Kindred Infinite Liars”.Mind107, 137–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    [44] Spade, P.V. (1974). “Ockham on Self-Reference”.Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic15, 298–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    [45] Spade, P.V. (1975).The Mediaeval Liar: A Catalogue of theInsolubilia-Literature. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval StudiesGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    [46] Spade, P.V. (1980).Peter of Ailly. Concepts and Insolubles(Engl. transl.). Dordrecht: ReidelGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Spade, P.V. (1982). “Insolubilia”. In [21], 246–253Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    [48] Spade, P.V. (1987). “Five Early Theories in the MediaevalInsolu-bilia-Literature”.Vivarium25, 24–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    [49] Spade, P.V. (1988).Lies, Language and Logic in the Late Middle Ages. London: Variorum ReprintsGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    [50] Synan, E.A. (1968).The Works of Richard of Campsall. Vol. I:Ques-tiones super Librum Priorum Analeticorum. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval StudiesGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    [51] Tarski, A. (1944). “The Semantic Conception of Truth and the Foundations of Semantics”.Philosophy and Phenomenological Research4, 341–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Tarski, A. (1956a). “The Concept of Truth in Formalized Languages” (Engl. transl.). In [53], 152–278Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    [53] Tarski, A. (1956b).Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Van Fraassen, Bas C. (1972). “Inference and Self-Reference”. In [12], 695–708Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    [55] Wadding, L. (1968).Iohannes Duns Scotus Opera omnia. (Reprint from the 1639 edition). Hildesheim: Georg OlmsGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    William of Ockham. See [4, 13, 24]Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    William of Sherwood (Pseudo-). See [38]Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    [58] Yablo, S. (1993). “Paradox without Self-Reference”.Analysis53, 251–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Claude Panaccio
    • 1
  1. 1.Claude Panaccio University of Quebec at MontrealMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations