The fundamental problem of Christology is the apparent contradiction of Christ as recorded at Chalcedon. Christ is human and Christ is divine. Being divine entails being immutable. Being human entails being mutable. Were Christ two different persons there’d be no apparent contradiction. But Chalcedon rules as much out. Were Christ only partly human or only partly divine there’d be no apparent contradiction. But Chalcedon rules as much out. Were the very meaning of ‘mutable’ and/or ‘immutable’ other than what they are, (...) there’d be no apparent contradiction. But the meaning is what it is, and changing the meaning of our terms to avoid the apparent contradiction of Christ is an apparent flight from reality. What, in the end, is the explanation of the apparent contradiction of Christ? Theologians and philosophers have long advanced many consistency-seeking answers, all of which increase the metaphysical or semantical complexity of the otherwise strikingly simple but radical core of Christianity’s GodMan. In this paper, I put the simplest explanation on the theological table: namely, Christ appears to be contradictory because Christ is contradictory. This explanation may sound complicated to the many who are steeped in the mainstream account of logic according to which logic precludes the possibility of true contradictions. But the mainstream account of logic can and should be rejected. Ridding theology of the dogma of mainstream logic illuminates the simple though striking explanation of the apparent contradiction of Christ — namely, that Christ is a contradictory being. Just as the simplest explanation to the apparent roundness of the earth has earned due acceptance, so too should the simplest explanation of the apparent contradiction of Christ. (shrink)

Three leading philosopher-logicians present a clear and concise overview of formal theories of truth, explaining key logical techniques. Truth is as central topic in philosophy: formal theories study the connections between truth and logic, including the intriguing challenges presented by paradoxes like the Liar.

This paper presents a simple but, by my lights, effective argument for a subclassical account of logic—an account according to which logical consequence is (properly) weaker than the standard, so‐called classical account. Alas, the vast bulk of the paper is setup. Because of the many conflicting uses of ‘logic’ the paper begins, following a disclaimer on logic and inference, by fixing the sense of ‘logic’ in question, and then proceeds to rehearse both the target subclassical account of logic and its (...) well‐known relative (viz., classical logic). With background in place the simple argument—which takes up less than five pages—is advanced. My hope is that the minimal presentation will help to get ‘the simple argument’ plainly on the table, and that subsequent debate can move us forward. (shrink)

This paper advances and defends a new solution to the so-called fundamental problem in christology (the problem being the apparent contradiction entailed by the christian doctrine of divine incarnation).

Traditional monotheism appears to many to involve contradiction in basic 'omni' properties (e.g. omnipotence and too-heavy stones, etc.). A glut-theoretic account of such problems treats them as gluts (dual to familiar truth-value gaps): 'omnipotence' is both true of and false of God. Many philosophers, glut theorists and otherwise, acknowledge that such a glut-theoretic account of at least some traditional omni-god problems is natural, at least in the abstract. But what about the problem of evil? The unanimous view even among glut (...) theorists (including myself until now) has long been clear: gluts have nothing to offer in response to the problem of evil even if they are involved in true theology elsewhere. This paper refutes said view by advancing a simple glut-theoretic response to the target problem of evil on the assumption that gluts are involved in the theology elsewhere (notably, at 'omnipotent' or 'omniscient' or both). (shrink)

Las reflexiones recogidas en este volumen constituyeron, en su mayor parte, el contenido del Seminario de Semántica celebrado en la Universidad de Oviedo, y uno de los textos ("Léxico y cognición: ¿hay términos de base?") formó parte del programa de conferencias de Año Europeo de las Lenguas. Conforme al espíritu de esas jornadas centradas en la pluralidad lingüística, esta publicación se hace simultáneamente en dos lenguas: español y francés. Aunque se tomen como referencia aspectos concretos de dos lenguas concretas, la (...) española y la francesa, los problemas que aquí se suscitan son de índole general, ya que afectan, y de manera crucial, a todas las lenguas. (shrink)

In "Semantic paradoxes and abductive methodology", Williamson presents a new Quinean argument based on central ingredients of common pragmatism about theory choice (including logical theory, as is common). What makes it new is that, in addition to avoiding Quine's unfortunate charge of mere terminological squabble, Williamson's argument explicitly rejects at least for purposes of the argument Quine's key conservatism premise. In this paper I do two things. First, I argue that Williamson's new Quinean argument implicitly relies on Quine's conservatism principle. (...) Second, by way of answering his charges against nonclassical logic I directly defend a particular subclassical account of logical consequence. (shrink)

Consequence is at the heart of logic; an account of consequence, of what follows from what, offers a vital tool in the evaluation of arguments. Since philosophy itself proceeds by way of argument and inference, a clear view of what logical consequence amounts to is of central importance to the whole discipline. In this book JC Beall and Greg Restall present and defend what thay call logical pluralism, the view that there is more than one genuine deductive consequence relation, a (...) position which has profound implications for many linguists as well as for philosophers. We should not search for one true logic, since there are many. (shrink)

1. In both Benedetto Croce's and Hegel's own terminology, dialectics can be understood as dottrina degli opposti (the doctrine of the opposites – Lehre der Gegensätze).1 In the dialectical process,...

A very common twofold view in contemporary philosophy is that classical logic is the correct view of logical consequence and that possibility conforms to classical logic in the sense that ‘possible worlds’ — whatever else they may be — are closed under classical logic. These two views are assumed in this paper. My aim in this paper is to show that a very natural ‘paraconsistent’ consequence relation is involved in the given view of possible worlds and logical consequence.

This paper presents, in a more general setting, a simple approach to ‘relevant restricted generalizations’ advanced in previous work. After reviewing some desiderata for restricted generalizations, I present the target route towards achieving the desiderata. An objection to the approach, due to David Ripley, is presented, followed by three brief replies, one from a dialetheic perspective and the others more general.

This book argues that the standard (orthodox) doctrine of incarnation (of "God enfleshed") is best understood along glut-theoretic lines: the incarnate God is a contradictory being. Example: because God, the Christ figure is all-knowing; but because human, ignorant. And so on. Standard theological theory in the tradition recognizes the apparent contradiction in its core doctrines; Beall argues that the appearance should be accepted as veridical.

A very natural and philosophically important subclassical logic is FDE. This account of logical consequence can be seen as going beyond the standard two-valued account to a four-valued account. A natural question arises: What account of logical consequence arises from considering further combinations of such values? A partial answer was given by Priest in 2014; Shramko and Wansing had also given a partial result some years earlier, although in a different context. In this note we generalize Priest’s result to show (...) that even if one considers ordinal-many combinations of the previous values, for any ordinal, the resulting consequence relation remains FDE. (shrink)

Book Information Algebraic Methods in Philosophical Logic. By J. Michael Dunn and Gary Hardegree. Clarendon Press. Oxford. 2001. Pp. xv + 470. 60.50.

In this paper I advance and defend a very simple position according to which logic is subclassical but is weaker than the leading subclassical-logic views have it.

This chapter contains sections titled: Nature: Two Conceptions of Truth Background on Logic and Paradox Nature and Logic And Now Revenge References.

In this paper, we distinguish two versions of Curry's paradox: c-Curry, the standard conditional-Curry paradox, and v-Curry, a validity-involving version of Curry's paradox that isn’t automatically solved by solving c-curry. A unified treatment of curry paradox thus calls for a unified treatment of both c-Curry and v-Curry. If, as is often thought, c-Curry paradox is to be solved via non-classical logic, then v-Curry may require a lesson about the structure—indeed, the substructure—of the validity relation itself.