Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    This restriction to a limited set of words is arbitrary g... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→The scholastic square of contraries is an inadequate classification of statements.

    This restriction to a limited set of words is arbitrary given the richer resources of Latin.

    Philosophy of Language
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Philosophy of Language

    Connections

    1 topic

    Modality & Possibility2 linked

    Related

    A proper logical analysis must account for the full range of ways propositions c...

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Philosophy of Language
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    The scholastic square of contraries is an inadequate classification of statement...
    The square of contraries restricts itself to a fourfold classification combining...

    Similar

    Annotations are therefore typically restricted to the senses of a few ...79%Domain restriction, a context-sensitivity phenomenon, can emulate the ...79%Principles (4) and (5) as currently stated restrict meaning and though...76%Ontological commitments of each side are to be judged relative to the ...76%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: lorenzo-valla
    View source passageHide passage
    This approach is also evident in Valla’s analysis of the proposition of which a syllogism or argument consists. Propositions are traditionally divided according to quantity (universal of particular) and to quality (affirmative and negative). Quantity and quality are indicated by words that are called signa (markers, signs): “all,” “any,” “not,” “no one,” and so forth. In Book II of the Repastinatio, Valla considers a much wider range of words than the medieval logicians, who had mainly worked wi

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective