INDIRECT DEMONSTRATION IN JOHN BURIDAN
Keywords:
John Buridan, Medieval Theories of Consequence, Arguments by reductio ad impossibilem, Modalities, ImpossibilityAbstract
In this article I propose an analysis of John Buridan's approach
to demonstrations by reductio ad impossibilem, or indirect demonstrations. In
distinction to categorical demonstrations, indirect demonstrations involve a
conditional with an impossible antecedent. Central to the article is the problem
of how Buridan’s analysis of indirect demonstrations relates to his notorious
commitment to the ex impossibili quodlibet (EIQ) principle, as spelled out in his
Tractatus de Consequentiis. The first two sections of the article (1-2) describe how
Buridan approaches the inferential principles of indirect demonstrations, placing
them in the context of his theory of logical consequence. In the remaining two
sections (3-4), I investigate some key applications of this form of demonstration
in Buridan’s commentary on the seventh book of Physics. The paper concludes
that the distinction between counterpossibles about absolute impossibilities and
counterpossibles about nomic impossibilities is central for the use of indirect
demonstrations in Buridan’s sense.
References
Literatura primária
ARISTÓTELES. “Physics”. Translated by R. P. Hardie and R. K. Gaye. In: The Complete Works of Aristotle. The Revised Oxford Translation, Volume I, ed. Jonathan Barnes. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995. pp. 315-447.
______. “Posterior Analytics. Posterior Analytics”. Translated and with Commentary by Jonathan Barnes. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993.
______. “Prior Analytics. Aristotle: Prior Analytics”. Translated with Introduction, notes and commentary by Robin Smith. Indianapolis-Cambridge: Hackett, 1989.
AVERROËS. “Aristotelis de Physico audito libri octo cum Averrois Cordubensis variis in eosdem commentariis”. Venice, 1562.
______. “Questions in Physics. Averroes’ Questions in Physics. From the unpublished Sêfer ha-derûšîm ha-tib’îyîm”. Edition and translation by H. T. Goldstein. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1991.
BURIDAN, J. “Expositio et Questiones in Aristotelis De Caelo”. Edited by Benoît Patar. Louvain-Paris: Éditions Peeters, 1996.
______. “Quaestiones in Priorum Analyticorum Aristotelis”. Unpublished edition by Hubert Hubien, n.d.a.
______. “Subtilissime quaestiones super octo libros Physicorum Aristotelis. Diligenter recognite et revise apud magistro Johanne Dullaert de Gandavo”. Frankfurt: Minerva, 1974.
______. “Summulae de Dialectica”. Translated by G. Klima. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001a.
______. “Summulae: De demonstrationibus”. Edited by L. M. De Rijk. Groningen-Haren: Ingenium Publishers, 2001b.
______. “Summulae: De Syllogismis”. Introduction, critical edition and indexes by J. Spruyt. Turnhout: Brepols, 2010.______. “Tractatus de Consequentiis”. Edited by H. Hubien. Leuven: Publications Universitaires, 1976.
______. “Treatise on Consequences”. Translated by S. Read. New York: Fordham University Press, 2015.
______. “Tractatus de Fallaciis”. Edição não publicada, por Johannes Rustenburg. n.d.b.
JOÃO DE JANDUN. “Quaestiones super octo Physicorum Aristotelis”. Venice, 1488.
Literatura secundária
BININI, I. “Medieval theories on the conceivability of the impossible: a survey of impossible positio in ars obligatoria during the 13th-14th centuries”. Noctua. La tradizione filosofica dall’antico al moderno, 3, pp. 1-27, 2022.
BOBZIEN, S. “The development of modus ponens in antiquity: from Aristotle to the 2nd century AD”. Phronesis, 47, 4, pp. 359-394, 2002.
BRENET, J.-B. “John of Jandun”. In: Encyclopedia of Medieval Philosophy. Philosophy between 500-1500, 2nd Edition, ed. Henrik Lagerlund. Dordrecht: Springer Nature, 2020. pp. 626-629.
CIOLA, G. “Marsilius of Inghen on the definition of consequentiae.” Vivarium: A Journal for Medieval and Early Modern Philosophy and Intellectual Life, 56, pp. 272-291, 2018.
CRIMI, M. “Formal and Material Consequences in Ockham and Buridan”. Vivarium: A Journal for Mediaeval and Early Modern Philosophy and Intellectual Life, 56, pp.241-271, 2018.
D’ORS, A. “Ex impossibili quodlibet sequitur (John Buridan)”. In: Argumentationstheorie. Scholastische Forschungen zu den logischen und semantischen Regeln korrekten Folgens, ed. Klaus Jacobi. Leiden-New York: Brill, 1993. pp. 195-212.
DUTILH NOVAES, C. “Medieval Theories of Consequence”. In: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta, Fall 2020 Edition. Disponível em https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2020/entries/consequence-medieval/. EBBESEN, S. “Proof and its limits according to Buridan: Summulae 8”. In: Topics in Latin Philosophy from the 12th-14th Centuries. Collected Essays of Sten Ebbesen, vol. 2, ed. Sten Ebbesen. London-New York: Routledge, 2009. pp. 209-220.
HUGHES, G. E. “The Modal Logic of John Buridan”. In: Atti del Convegno internazionale di storia della logica: la teorie delle modalita, eds. G. Corsi, C. Magnione e M. Mugnai. Bologna: CLUEB, 1989. pp. 93-111.
JOHNSTON, S. “A Formal Reconstruction of John Buridan’s Modal Syllogism.”History and Philosophy of Logic, 36, 1, pp. 2-17, 2015.
KLIMA, G. “Consequence”. In: The Cambridge Companion to Medieval Logic, ed. Catarina Dutilh Novaes e Stephen Read. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016. pp. 316-341.
______. “John Buridan”. Great Medieval Thinkers. Oxford-New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.
KING, P. “Consequence as Inference: Medieval Proof Theory 1300-1350”. In: Medieval Formal Logic, ed. M. Yrjönsuuri. Dordrecht: Springer, 2001. pp. 117-145.KNUUTTILA, S. Modality. In The Oxford Handbook of Medieval Philosophy, ed. John
Marenbon. Oxford-New York: Oxford University Press, 2012. pp. 312-241.
______. “Necessities in John Buridan’s natural philosophy”. In: The Metaphysics and
Natural Philosophy of John Buridan, eds. J. M. M. H. Thijssen and J. Zupko. Leiden-
Boston-Köln: Brill, 2001. pp. 65-76.
KNUUTTILA, S., KUKKONEN, T. “Thought experiments and indirect proofs in Averroes, Aquinas and Buridan.” In: Thought Experiments in Methodological and Historical Contexts, ed. Katerina Ierodiakonou and Sophie Roux. Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2011. pp. 83-100.
KUKKONEN, T. “‘The impossible, insofar as it is possible:’ Ibn Rushd and Jean Buridan on logic and natural theology”. In: Logik und Theologie: Das Organon im arabischen und im lateinischen Mittelalter, eds. Dominik Perler and Ulrich Rudolph. New York: Brill, 2005. pp. 447-467.
MALINK, M. “Demonstration by reductio ad impossibile in Posterior Analytics I.26. In Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy”, vol. 58, ed. Victor Carston. Oxford University Press, 2020. pp. 91-155.
MARTIN, C. J. “The logic of the nominales, or, the rise and fall of impossible positio.” Vivarium: A Journal for Medieval and Early Modern Philosophy and Intellectual Life, 30, 1, pp. 110-126, 1992.
______. “William’s machine”. The Journal of Philosophy, 83, 1, pp. 564-572, 1986.
______. “The theory of natural consequence”. Vivarium: A Journal for Mediaeval and Early Modern Philosophy and Intellectual Life, 56, 3-4, pp. 340-366, 2018.
______. “Formal consequence in Scotus and Ockham: towards an account of Scotus’ logic”. In: Duns Scot à Paris 1302-2002, actes du colloque de Paris, setembre 2002. Turnhout: Brepols, 2002. pp. 117-150.
NORMORE, C. “Buridanian possibilities”. In: Logic and Language in the Middle Ages. A Volume in Honour of Sten Ebbesen, eds. J. Fink, Heine Hansen, and Ana María Mora-Marquez. Boston-Leiden: Brill, 2013. pp. 389-402.
______. “Ex impossibili quodlibet sequitur (Angel D’Ors)”. Vivarium: A Journal for Mediaeval and Early Modern Philosophy and Intellectual Life, 53, pp. 353-571, 2015.
PERINI-SANTOS, E. “When the inference ‘p is true, therefore p’ fails: John Buridan on the evaluation of propositions”. Vivarium: A Journal for Mediaeval and Early Modern Philosophy and Intellectual Life, 51, 1-14, pp. 411-424, 2013.
READ, S. “Formal and material consequence, disjunctive syllogism and gamma”. In: Argumentationstheorie: Scholastische Forschungen zu den logischen Regeln korrekten Folgens, ed. Klaus Jacobi. Leiden-New York: Brill, pp. 233-59. 1993.
______. “Non-normal propositions in Buridan’s logic”. In: Formal Approaches to Language in Medieval Logic, eds. Laurent Cesalli, Fréderic Goubier and Alain de Libera. Barcelona-Roma: Brepols, 2016. pp. 453-468.
______. “The rule of contradictory pairs, insolubles and validity”. Vivarium: A Journal for Mediaeval and Early Modern Philosophy and Intellectual Life, 58, 4, pp. 275-304,
2020.ROSEN, J., MALINK, M. “A Method of Modal Proof in Aristotle”. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, 42, pp. 179-261, 2012.
SORABJI, R. “Matter, Space and Motion. Theories in Antiquity and their Sequel”.London: Duckworth, 1988.
THOM, P. “Forthcoming. Principles in Buridan’s logic of consequences”. In: John Buridan: Critical Essays, eds. Spencer Johnston and Henrik Lagerlund. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
WARDY, R. “The Chain of Change: A Study of Aristotle’s Physics VII”. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
YJRÖNSUURI. “Duties, rules and interpretations in obligational disputations”. In: Medieval Formal Logic, ed. Mikko Yjrönsuuri. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2001. pp. 3-34.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Revista Kriterion
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
