Verneinen als Absprechen bei Aristoteles oder: Muß man Aristoteles durch die Russellsche Brille lesen?

Ulrich Pardey
{"title":"Verneinen als Absprechen bei Aristoteles oder: Muß man Aristoteles durch die Russellsche Brille lesen?","authors":"Ulrich Pardey","doi":"10.1075/BPJAM.5.03PAR","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Two counter-examples stand against the Aristotelian thesis of De interpretatione 6 that negation principally means denial: Neither can the negation of general propositions be understood as denial, nor is this possible in the case of propositions whose grammatical subject is an empty singular term. While the first counter-example can be ea­sily refuted through the analysis which Aristotle gives of general propositions in De interpretatione 7, the second counter-example seems to be able to invoke Categoriae 10. According to the usual view of Categoriae 10, Aristotle himself delivers examples for negations which cannot be understood as denials. The present essay holds this interpretation to be incorrect, and attempts to show with reference to indexical propositions and an Aristotelian two-term concept of truth that even these negations are to be understood as denials. Specifically, it is argued that this errant interpretation relies upon a reading of the Aristotelian text through a Russellian lens.","PeriodicalId":148050,"journal":{"name":"Bochumer Philosophisches Jahrbuch Fur Antike Und Mittelalter","volume":"67 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"17","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bochumer Philosophisches Jahrbuch Fur Antike Und Mittelalter","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1075/BPJAM.5.03PAR","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 17

Abstract

Two counter-examples stand against the Aristotelian thesis of De interpretatione 6 that negation principally means denial: Neither can the negation of general propositions be understood as denial, nor is this possible in the case of propositions whose grammatical subject is an empty singular term. While the first counter-example can be ea­sily refuted through the analysis which Aristotle gives of general propositions in De interpretatione 7, the second counter-example seems to be able to invoke Categoriae 10. According to the usual view of Categoriae 10, Aristotle himself delivers examples for negations which cannot be understood as denials. The present essay holds this interpretation to be incorrect, and attempts to show with reference to indexical propositions and an Aristotelian two-term concept of truth that even these negations are to be understood as denials. Specifically, it is argued that this errant interpretation relies upon a reading of the Aristotelian text through a Russellian lens.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
否认亚里士多德眼中的一致,或者:人们必须通过亚里士多德的眼镜来读吗?
对于亚里士多德在《解释论》中所说的否定主要是指否认,有两个反例:一般命题的否定既不能被理解为否认,而且对于那些语法主语是空洞的单一名词的命题,也不能被理解为否认。第一个反例可以很容易地通过亚里士多德在《解释论》第7章中对一般命题的分析来反驳,而第二个反例似乎可以援引范畴10。根据范畴10的通常观点,亚里士多德自己提供了否定的例子,这些否定不能被理解为否认。目前的文章认为这种解释是不正确的,并试图表明参考索引命题和亚里士多德的两项真理概念,即使这些否定也要被理解为否认。具体来说,有人认为这种错误的解释依赖于通过罗素的视角解读亚里士多德的文本。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Die Chaldäischen Orakel in proklos philosophie Kritik über Leeten (2019): Redepraxis als Lebenspraxis. Die diskursive Kultur der antiken Ethik Kritik über Hengelbrock (2018): Zeit und Freizeit: Seneca, Epistulae morales Proclus armeniacus “Mirum est si intellectus noster omnem scientiam accipiens ex phantasmate”
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1