Pavel Florensky’s Theory of Religious Antinomies

Logica Universalis 13 (4):515-540 (2019)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Pavel Florensky (1882–1937), a Russian theologian, philosopher, and mathematician, argued that the religious discourse is essentially contradictory and put forward the idea of the logical theory of antinomies. Recently his views raised interesting discussions among logicians who consider him a forerunner of many non-classical logics. In this paper I discuss four interpretations of Florensky’s views: paraconsistent, L-contradictory, non-monotonic and rhetorical. In conclusion I argue for the integral interpretation which unites these four approaches.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive

    This entry is not archived by us. If you are the author and have permission from the publisher, we recommend that you archive it. Many publishers automatically grant permission to authors to archive pre-prints. By uploading a copy of your work, you will enable us to better index it, making it easier to find.

    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 103,945

External links

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

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2019-11-13

Downloads
34 (#727,040)

6 months
7 (#590,730)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Paweł Rojek
Jagiellonian University

Citations of this work

Analytic patristics.Paweł Rojek - 2025 - Studies in East European Thought 77 (1):51-84.

Add more citations

References found in this work

The Principles of Mathematics.Bertrand Russell - 1903 - Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale 11 (4):11-12.
On the theory of inconsistent formal systems.Newton C. A. Costa - 1972 - Recife,: Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Instituto de Matemática.
On the theory of inconsistent formal systems.Newton C. A. da Costa - 1974 - Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 15 (4):497-510.
A Calculus for Antinomies.F. G. Asenjo - 1966 - Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 16 (1):103-105.

View all 20 references / Add more references