The Logic of Impossible Scenarios in Hurtado de Mendoza’s Tractatus de Trinitate

Miroslav Hanke
{"title":"The Logic of Impossible Scenarios in Hurtado de Mendoza’s Tractatus de Trinitate","authors":"Miroslav Hanke","doi":"10.1163/15685349-05904003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Since the late thirteenth century, the counterfactual Filioque debate, i.e., the question whether the Son and the Holy Spirit were distinct persons in the Trinity if the Holy Spirit only proceeded from the Father and not also from the Son, was an interesting context for developing the methodology of extreme thought experiments and the logic of conditionals with impossible antecedents and paradoxes of implication. In the mid-1620s, Puente Hurtado de Mendoza (1578–1641) introduced a strongly critical approach towards the scientific merits of positing certain types of impossible scenarios while joining this traditional debate in his Tractatus de Trinitate. He argued that the counterfactual Filioque problem is (at best) a needless detour and (at worst) either shifts to unreliable discussions of properties of fictional entities or is outright trivial for logical reasons. The present article offers a modern edition of the ninth disputation of Hurtado’s Tractatus de Trinitate and analyses logical and methodological aspects of Hurtado’s position in the counterfactual Filioque debate.","PeriodicalId":43373,"journal":{"name":"VIVARIUM-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR THE PHILOSOPHY AND INTELLECTUAL LIFE OF THE MIDDLE AGES AND RENAISSANCE","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"VIVARIUM-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR THE PHILOSOPHY AND INTELLECTUAL LIFE OF THE MIDDLE AGES AND RENAISSANCE","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15685349-05904003","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"MEDIEVAL & RENAISSANCE STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Since the late thirteenth century, the counterfactual Filioque debate, i.e., the question whether the Son and the Holy Spirit were distinct persons in the Trinity if the Holy Spirit only proceeded from the Father and not also from the Son, was an interesting context for developing the methodology of extreme thought experiments and the logic of conditionals with impossible antecedents and paradoxes of implication. In the mid-1620s, Puente Hurtado de Mendoza (1578–1641) introduced a strongly critical approach towards the scientific merits of positing certain types of impossible scenarios while joining this traditional debate in his Tractatus de Trinitate. He argued that the counterfactual Filioque problem is (at best) a needless detour and (at worst) either shifts to unreliable discussions of properties of fictional entities or is outright trivial for logical reasons. The present article offers a modern edition of the ninth disputation of Hurtado’s Tractatus de Trinitate and analyses logical and methodological aspects of Hurtado’s position in the counterfactual Filioque debate.
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
赫尔塔多·德·门多萨《三位一体论》中不可能场景的逻辑
自十三世纪末以来,反事实的Filioque辩论,即如果圣灵只从父而不是从子而来,那么子和圣灵是否是三位一体中不同的人,是一个有趣的背景,用于发展极端思维实验的方法论和具有不可能的前因和隐含悖论的条件句逻辑。16世纪20年代中期,Puente Hurtado de Mendoza(1578-1641)在他的《三元论》(Tractatus de Trinitate)中加入了这一传统辩论,并对提出某些类型的不可能场景的科学价值提出了强烈的批评。他认为,反事实的电影问题(往好了说)是一条不必要的弯路,(往坏了说)要么转向对虚构实体性质的不可靠讨论,要么由于逻辑原因而变得微不足道。本文提供了赫尔塔多的《三位一体论》第九次争论的现代版本,并分析了赫尔塔多在反事实电影辩论中的立场的逻辑和方法论方面。
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
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
期刊最新文献
After “40 Cases” Avicenna’s Theory of Science: Logic, Metaphysics, Epistemology , by Riccardo Strobino John Wyclif’s Principium Biblicum Revisited The Noblest Complexion Rationality in Perception in Medieval Philosophy , by José Filipe Silva (ed.)
×
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