Skip to content

Research at St Andrews

Swyneshed, Aristotle and the Rule of Contradictory Pairs

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Roger Swyneshed, in his treatise on insolubles (logical paradoxes), dating from the early 1330s, drew three notorious corollaries from his solution. The third states that there is a contradictory pair of propositions both of which are false. This appears to contradict what Whitaker, in his iconoclastic reading of Aristotle’s De Interpretatione, dubbed “The Rule of Contradictory Pairs” (RCP), which requires that in every such pair, one must be true and the other false. Whitaker argued that, immediately after defining the notion of a contradictory pair, in which one statement affirms what the other denies of the same thing, Aristotle himself gave counterexamples to the rule. This gives some credence to Swyneshed’s claim that his solution to the logical paradoxes is not contrary to Aristotle’s teaching, as many of Swyneshed’s contemporaries claimed. Insolubles are false, he said, because they falsify themselves; and their contradictories are false because they falsely deny that the insoluble itself is false. Swyneshed’s solution depends crucially on the revision he makes to the acount of truth and falsehood, brought out in his first thesis: that a false proposition can signify as it is, or as Paul of Venice, who took up and developed Swyneshed’s solution some sixty years later, puts it, a false proposition can have a true significate. Swyneshed gave a further counterexample to (RCP) when he claimed that some insolubles, like future contingents, are neither true nor false. Dialetheism, the contemporary claim that some propositions are both true and false, is wedded to the Rule, and in consequence divorces denial from the assertion of the contradictory negation. Consequently, Swyneshed’s logical heresy is very different from that found in dialetheism.
Close

Details

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)27-50
Number of pages24
JournalLogica Universalis
Volume14
Issue number1
Early online date4 Feb 2020
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Mar 2020

    Research areas

  • Contradiction, Signification, Liar paradox, Insolubles, Truth, Aristotle, Roger Swyneshed, William Heytesbury, Robert Eland, Ralph Strode, Paul of Venice

Discover related content
Find related publications, people, projects and more using interactive charts.

View graph of relations

Related by author

  1. Denotation, Paradox and Multiple Meanings

    Read, S. L., 7 Jan 2020, Graham Priest on Dialetheism and Paraconsistency. Baskent, C. & Ferguson, T. M. (eds.). Springer, p. 439-454 16 p. (Outstanding Contributions to Logic).

    Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter (peer-reviewed)

  2. Anti-exceptionalism about logic

    Read, S. L., 18 Nov 2019, In : The Australasian Journal of Logic. 16, 7, p. 298-318 6.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

  3. Thomas Bradwardine and Epistemic Paradox

    Read, S. L., 2018, Modern Views of Medieval Logic. Kann, C., Loewe, B., Rode, C. & Uckelman, S. (eds.). Peeters, (Recherches de Théologie et Philosophie Médiévales - Bibliotheca).

    Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

  4. Robert Fland, or Elandus Dialecticus?

    Read, S. & Thakkar, M. N. A., 1 May 2017, In : Mediaeval Studies. 78, p. 167-180

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

  5. General-elimination stability

    Jacinto, B. M. & Read, S. L., Apr 2017, In : Studia Logica. 105, 2, p. 361-405

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Related by journal

  1. Signification, closure and indirect speech reports

    Read, S., Jun 2015, In : Logica Universalis. 9, 2, p. 237-251 15 p.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

ID: 259299902

Top