DOCSLIB.ORG

Generative Ontology of Vaisesika

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Generative Ontology of Vaisesika Generative Ontology of Vaiśesika Rajesh Tavva1 and Navjyoti Singh2 1,2Center for Exact Humanities, International Institute of Information Technology, Hyderabad, Telangana, India [email protected] and [email protected] Abstract classes/universals, but also particulars. But since the In this paper we present a foundational as well as generative punctuator has a recursive form, complex graphs can be ontology which is graph-based. We use a form called generated from simple graphs, and each of these graphs punctuator which is non-propositional and also non-set- depicts some or other portion of reality at some or other theoretic to build our system – Neo-Vaiśesika Formal level of granularity. Hence we also have an interpreter to Ontology. The idea is to present an ontological language interpret the generated graphs as portions of reality. which is formal. This language is a set of potentially infinite We take Vaiśesika - one of the Indian philosophical sentences (graphs) whose structure is captured by a finite set schools which focuses on foundational ontology – as of (graph) grammar rules. We also have an interpreter to interpret the graphs generated by this grammar and show formalized in [4,5,6,7] as our base, and present generative that the interpretation of a node as belonging to a particular as well as interpretative grammars for it in this paper. This ontological category is based purely on its structure/form paper's focus is not on defending Vaiśesika description of and nothing else to provide a robust example of a formal, reality or the rationale behind its categorial system1. This foundational and generative ontology. paper is already taking them as given and trying to make implicit formal notions of Vaiśesika explicit. The idea is to Keywords. Formal Ontology, Graph Grammar, Generative show the possibility of an ontological language which can Ontology, Punctuator, Generative Grammar, Vaiśesika be formalized and also generated, and then interpreted. In section 1 we present Vaiśesika ontology in brief. In Introduction section 2 we present Neo-Vaiśesika Formal Ontology, the system we built by formalizing Vaiśesika ontology. In this Most, if not all, of the (computational) ontologies built till section, we give formal definitions of Vaiśesika categories now [12] are either built manually or through automatic in terms of three basic punctuators. In section 3 we show methods of category-extraction from text. There is no how Vaiśesika can be seen as a generative ontology. In notion of generation there since there are no repeating section 3.1, we give the generative grammar of our system structures (each category is different and hence different where we give the production rules to generate graphs, and structure). All the foundational ontologies are presented as in section 3.2 we give interpretative rules using which we diagrams/graphs with finite number of nodes (which stand can interpret these generated graphs to label each node for categories/sub-categories) and edges (which stand for with some or other Vaiśesika category. The generated class-subclass or some other relations). In this paper we graph is considered to be valid if there is at least one present a novel concept of Generative Ontology which interpretation, in terms of Vaiśesika categories, of the presumes Grammar of Reality which, in turn, is based on generated graph. The grammar is considered to be sound if the idea of a recursive ontological form called the it generates only valid Vaiśesika graphs. Though a formal punctuator. A punctuator is a form which is present proof of the soundness of this grammar is not achieved yet, between any two entities and enables us to distinguish one we present in section 4 some results which show that the from the other. It is because of this form that we are able to system is promising. The main focus of the paper is to differentiate various categories as well as different present the idea of a generative ontology and one example instances of the same category. Since a punctuator is found of such an ontology. not only between two classes, but also between two We tried to provide examples and explanation of particulars, or between a class and a particular, the graphs abstract concepts wherever possible but due to space which are based on punctuators contain not only constraints we are unable to get into detailed explanation sometimes. An extended version of this paper with Copyright © 2015 for this paper by its authors. Copying permitted examples, diagrams and detailed explanation of various for private and academic purposes. 1. One can refer to [4] and [14] for that. definitions, axioms etc. presented in this paper is available explicate the system below. at [9]. According to F reality is constituted of only entities and punctuators. Here entities refer to all kinds of beings like objects, events, relations and so on. And any two 1. Vaiśesika Ontology beings/entities are considered two, not one, because there is a separator/boundary/vacuum/non-being between them Vaiśesika, as mentioned in introduction, is one of the many 4 Indian philosophical schools, which focuses on which we call punctuator/point . But a punctuator is not foundational ontology. It classifies all entities of reality only a separator but also a connector/link which links two 2 entities. So here non-being is not an all-encompassing into 6 categories : (1) Substance (e.g: material entities like 5 tables, chairs as well as non-material entities like soul, vacuum whose existence Parmenides was denying but space and time) (2) Quality (e.g: color, weight) (3) Action every non-being is a particular in the sense that it rides on a particular pair of entities/beings which it separates as (e.g: rising up, falling down, motion) (4) Universal (e.g: 6 tableness, chairness, redness) (5) Ultimate Differentiator well as brings together into contiguity in some relational (located in each ultimate substance (explained below) and context. Our idea of punctuator/point is quite similar to, at differentiates one from the other) and (6) Inherence the same time slightly different from, Leibniz’s idea of (explained below). Notice that there is no category like punctum/point and Brentano’s idea of punctiform/point. Relation in this system because any chain constituting a Leibniz [10] tries to explicate this notion by taking a relational context (section 2) can be abstracted into geometrical example like a line segment. He makes a something called a relation. Out of all the categories listed distinction between potential point (euclidean point) and above inherence (Fig. 2.2) is the most significant one for actual point (non-euclidean point). The line segment, us. It gives stability to reality and is the entity constituting according to Leibniz, is not really made up of euclidean the second most pervasive relation found in reality, the first points, they are not parts of the segments the way smaller being self-linking relation (more about it later). We call the segments are. The euclidean points (lengthless, breadthless relational chain constituted of inherence entity as inherence and heightless points) are only potentially there on the relation, and this inherence relation can be found in all the segment but not actually constituting it. The actual points following cases: (1) Universals inhere in substances, are the boundaries or the endpoints of the segment. These, qualities and actions (2) Qualities and actions inhere in Leibniz also calls as punctums because they punctuate the substances (3) Substances (wholes) inhere in other line segment from its neighbourhood (in one-dimensional substances (their parts) and (4) Ultimate Differentiators space). A potential (euclidean) point can become an actual inhere in ultimate substances. Ultimate substances (US) are (non-euclidean) point if one cuts the line segment, say, into those substances which have no parts and hence cannot be two halves. The midpoint which was there before cutting differentiated from each other3. Examples of USs are time, was only potential, but after cutting it becomes actual. So space, souls and atoms (these are different from those of according to Leibniz a punctum is like a boundary that physics, they are the smallest indivisible units according to separates two entities. Brentano [11] also comes up with a Vaiśesika). Since USs have no parts, each of them has an similar idea and he calls it punctiform or point. He says no ultimate differentiator (UD) inhering in it which continuum can be built up by adding one individual point differentiates it from the rest of the entities. The remaining to another. The point exists as a boundary, as a limit. substances which are not USs are automatically Similarly for us, a point is a boundary between two differentiated from others since they are entities, but not constituting those entities. wholes/mixtures/compounds made up of various USs These both – entity and punctuator – are defined in F in which are already differentiated by UDs. We will try to terms of each other. But the mutual dependency of define all these categories formally using only the idea of definitions ends here. All the other definitions are based on inherence. these primitives only. Definition 2.1: An entity is that which is never punctuated from itself. 2. Neo-Vaiśesika Formal Ontology Definition 2.2: A punctuator pr(x|y) has the form <x|y, R> where x and y are entities punctuated from each other Vaiśesika ontology, due to Kanada [1], Prasastapada [2] in some relational context R. This R refers to all the chains and Udayana [3] has been formalized by Navjyoti [4,5,6,7] of entities (along with punctuators between them) which resulted in Neo-Vaiśesika Formal Ontology. From connecting x and y where each chain looks like C = p(x|e1) now we will refer to this formal system as F for short.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lowe's Eliminativism About Relations and the Analysis Of
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by PhilPapers Lowe’s eliminativism about relations and the analysis of relational inherence Markku Keinänen Tampere University, Finland markku.keinanen[a]tuni.fi https://philpeople.org/profiles/markku-keinanen .[DRAFT, please do not quote] Abstract, Contrary to widely shared opinion in analytic metaphysics, E.J. Lowe argues against the existence of relations in his posthumously published paper There are probably no relations (2016). In this article, I assess Lowe’s eliminativist strategy, which aims to show that all contingent “relational facts” have a monadic foundation in modes characterizing objects. Second, I present two difficult ontological problems supporting eliminativism about relations. Against eliminativism, metaphysicians of science have argued that relations might well be needed in the best a posteriori motivated account of the structure of reality. Finally, I argue that, by analyzing relational inherence, trope theory offers us a completely new approach to relational entities and avoids the hard problems motivating eliminativism. 1. Introduction It has been a widely shared view in analytic metaphysics that we need to postulate relations in order to provide an adequate account of reality. For instance, concrete objects are spatio-temporally related in various ways and the spatio-temporal arrangement of objects is contingent relative to their existence and monadic properties. Here the most straightforward conclusion is that there are additional entities, spatio-temporal relations, which account for objects’ being spatio-temporally related in different ways. Similarly, influential metaphysicians of science have maintained that relations figure among the fundamental constituents of reality according to reasonable interpretation of the best physical theories (Teller 1986, Butterfield 2006).
    [Show full text]
  • Metaphysical and Semantic Implications of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation
    Substance Made Manifest: Metaphysical and Semantic Implications of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation Joshua P. Hochschild Mount St. Mary’s University This paper responds to Bruce Marshall’s use of logic to clarify the metaphysical issues at stake in the doctrine of transubstantiation. While appreciating and agreeing with the general approach of finding connections between logic and metaphysics, on the one hand, and the communal and ecumenical significance of Eucharistic doctrine, on the other, this paper criticizes Marshall’s particular analysis as beholden to a distinctively modern approach to logic, and displaying a typically modern neglect of the notion of substance. The conclusion suggests that distinctively Catholic teaching on transubstantiation is significant today not only for proclaiming a mystery of Christian faith, but also for calling attention to classical categories of reality, categories once considered more natural and common but subsequently obscured by modern philosophical and theological developments. Verbum caro, panem verum verbo carnem efficit: fitque sanguis Christi merum, et si sensus deficit, ad firmandum cor sincerum sola fides sufficit. —St. Thomas Aquinas Pange Lingua Gloriosi Corporis Mysterium 1. The Power of Language As the symposium’s designated philosopher, invited to talk about metaphysics, I confess that I will allow myself to be drawn into technical discussions in terminology Aquinas adopted from the Aristotelian philosophical tradition.1 With that in mind, I wish to make clear that I recognize that Aquinas was a theologian, and perhaps more importantly that he was a poet—a metaphysical poet, in the words of Sertillanges.2 The great literary critic Hugh Kenner, reflecting on the Pange Linga, describes Thomas’s poetic virtuosity as taking language to the very limits of 1 A version of this paper was originally given at the Metaphysics Colloquium of the Institute for Saint Anselm Studies at Saint Anselm College, June 5-6, 2013.
    [Show full text]
  • Some Ways of Being in Plato
    Binghamton University The Open Repository @ Binghamton (The ORB) The Society for Ancient Greek Philosophy Newsletter 12-1991 Some Ways of Being in Plato Allan Silverman The Ohio State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://orb.binghamton.edu/sagp Part of the Ancient History, Greek and Roman through Late Antiquity Commons, Ancient Philosophy Commons, and the History of Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Silverman, Allan, "Some Ways of Being in Plato" (1991). The Society for Ancient Greek Philosophy Newsletter. 200. https://orb.binghamton.edu/sagp/200 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by The Open Repository @ Binghamton (The ORB). It has been accepted for inclusion in The Society for Ancient Greek Philosophy Newsletter by an authorized administrator of The Open Repository @ Binghamton (The ORB). For more information, please contact [email protected]. DRAFT: SOIVÍE W AYS O F BEING IN PLATO, BY ALLAN SILVERM AN; SAGP, NYC/91 A proper assay of Plato's ontology would treat of all the different kinds of things which, according to Plato, are said to be. It would divide those kinds into the primitive and, if there are any, the derived, and then show, where possible, how the latter kind of beings arise from the former. In addition, it might try to explain why Plato stkrts horn the primitives he does, that is, why he thinks them the bestarxai. Finally, perhaps, it would isolate and discuss any meta-principle which Plato relies on, and the very categories of the ontological theory, with the aim of showing how they are to be assimilated to the theory itself.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction
    © Copyright, Princeton University Press. No part of this book may be distributed, posted, or reproduced in any form by digital or mechanical means without prior written permission of the publisher. introduction How ought one to live? I take this question to be the starting point for Plato’s philosophy, his Platonism. No doubt others before him asked it: Soc- rates for one. But it is not the mere posing of the question that makes it so special. Rather, it is the manner in which Plato considers it. In his hands it calls for reflection, and reflection of a certain, increasingly systematic variety. Plato thinks that systematic reflection, what he and we call “philosophy,” shows that this question can be answered. Indeed, philosophical reflection reveals that philosophy itself, the practice of philosophizing, is the answer to the question. From this starting point spring his ethics, epistemology, and metaphysics. For Plato, these domains are interdependent. Plato is rightly honored for his synoptic vision, his power to see systematic connections between different parts of life, science, the arts, and philosophy. If the question is, broadly speaking, part of ethical inquiry, his answer requires the development of much of his metaphysics and epistemology. My aim in this work is to explore Plato’s metaphysics. The book has three parts, modeled on what I believe to be the three key elements of his meta- physics: the Theory of Forms; the account of particulars; and the nature of metaphysical theory itself. At the core of Plato’s entire philosophy is the Theory of Forms. For Plato, Forms are both the goal and the grounds of philosophical inquiry.
    [Show full text]
  • Aristotle on the Separation of Species-Form
    Animus 4 (1999) www.swgc.mun.ca/animus Aristotle On The Separation Of Species-Form Kyle A. Fraser "Whereas Plato separates the Formal cause from its materiate participants, and posits a One over the Many, Aristotle insists that the universal species-form must reside in its singular members." This is the kind of simplistic and formulaic account of the difference between the Platonic and Aristotelian metaphysics that one might expect to discover in any standard textbook on the history of philosophy. For the purposes of a general introduction to the subject it is perhaps adequate; but for the serious scholar it represents, at best, only one side of the truth. Separation ( chwrismos ) for Aristotle, as for Plato, is one of the chief attributes of the primary substance. Aristotle does not reject the idea of separate forms; he clarifies and develops it, so as to purge it of certain paradoxical implications which are attendent upon its more traditional formulations. This paper is an exploration of two central aspects of the Aristotelian development of the Platonic concept of separation: (1) Aristotle, we will argue, reinterprets the Platonic separation as a noetic separation, a separation in definition ( twi logwi chwriston ), thus circumventing the various paradoxes connected with the idea of a quasi- physical separation from sensibles. Commentators, anxious to avoid Platonizing implications, have misconstrued this idea of definitional separation as a merely conceptual separation, akin to the conceptual separation of the objects of mathematics. Aristotle's real meaning, however, is that the species-forms are grounded in an objective and eternal thinking, viz.
    [Show full text]
  • Contemporary Hylomorphism Andrew Bailey, Shane Maxwell Wilkins
    Contemporary Hylomorphism Andrew Bailey, Shane Maxwell Wilkins LAST MODIFIED: 22 FEBRUARY 2018 DOI: 10.1093/OBO/9780195396577-0363 Introduction Aristotle famously held that objects are comprised of matter and form. That is the central doctrine of hylomorphism (sometimes rendered “hylemorphism”—hyle, matter; morphe, form), and the view has become a live topic of inquiry today. Contemporary proponents of the doctrine include Jeffrey Brower, Kit Fine, David Hershenov, Mark Johnston, Kathrin Koslicki, Anna Marmodoro, Michael Rea, and Patrick Toner, among others. In the wake of these contemporary hylomorphic theories the doctrine has seen application to various topics within mainstream analytic metaphysics. Here, appeals to form and matter are used to shed light on problems about ontology, personal identity, philosophy of mind, and philosophy of religion. The current entry documents this resurgence of interest in hylomorphism, the ways it has been applied, and its reception. Historical Primary Sources Aristotle presents key arguments for hylomorphism in two places. In Aristotle 1984a, Aristotle provides an argument for hylomorphism, we call the Argument from Change, which attempts to show that the existence of form and matter are the preconditions for explaining change. In the latter, Aristotle 1984b, Aristotle offers a second argument we call The Regress Argument, which argues for the existence of forms as necessary to explain the difference between genuine unified wholes and mere congeries of parts. Aristotle. “Physics.” In The Complete Works of Aristotle. Vol. 1. Edited by Jonathan Barnes, 315–446. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1984a. In Book 1.7–8, Aristotle argues that we must posit form and matter to explain change.
    [Show full text]
  • Aristotelian Nonsubstantial Particulars
    Aristotelian Nonsubstantial Particulars Abstract The paper discusses the two main interpretations of Aristotle’s notion of nonsubstantial particulars, on the basis of the definition of inherence stated in his Categories. According to the first interpreatation, nonsubstantial particulars should be understood as non-recurring particular qualities (attributes). The second interpretation has been proposed as a way to avoid an incoherence in Aristotle’s ontological system which those who endorse the first interpretation would have to accept; according to it nonsubstantial particulars should be understood as most determinate universals, that is, maximally determinate, but recurring qualities (attributes). I propose a reading of the definition that supports the first interpretation and does not lead to incoherence. In this paper I will discuss some issues related to what Aristotle called ‘nonsubstantial particulars’, and which we can intuitively think of as either qualitative property instances or fully determinate (i.e. non-determinable) properties (or universals). One of the issues that generated controversy with respect to the plausible interpretation of the way Aristotle tried to elaborate a coherent picture of his metaphysics is precisely that of nonsubstantial particulars as defined in the Categories. There are two main interpretive contenders in this respect: a “received view” that interprets nonsubstantial particulars as individuals, i.e. as numerically distinct, non-recurring, though qualitatively identical, particular qualities, and an alternative interpretation, which takes Aristotle as giving an account of nonsubstantial particulars as determinate but recurring qualities, that is, some most fully determinate universals. In this paper I shall offer arguments for both interpretations and try to show that while the traditional interpretation is not more supported by the Aristotelian text than the alternative view, still, it is does not lead to the incoherence the defenders of the alternative view suggested.
    [Show full text]
  • 12 Substances S
    12 Substances s. marc cohen Aristotle divides “the things that there are” or “beings” (ta onta) into a number of dif- ferent categories. He is not always consistent about how many categories there are (ten in Categories 1b25 and Topics I.9 103b20, seven in Physics V.1 225b5 and Metaphysics K.12 1068a8), but the one he always lists first and regards as the most fundamental is the category of substance (ousia). “Substance,” the conventional English rendering of Aristotle’s word ousia, is in fact misleading, suggesting as it does a kind of stuff. The English term “substance” entered the philosophical vernacular as a translation of the Latin substantia, which was itself an inadequate attempt to translate Aristotle. What “substance” and substantia both miss is the connection of the word ousia to the verb “to be” (einai). A better rendition might be “reality” or “fundamental being,” but “substance” is deeply entrenched in the philosophical literature and will be used here. A good gloss would be to say that ousiai are the “ontologically basic entities” (Loux 1991: 2). The Categories In the Categories, Aristotle further distinguishes between primary and secondary sub- stances, and quickly makes it clear that primary substances are ontologically basic: “if the primary substances did not exist it would be impossible for any of the other things to exist” (2b5). By “the other things” Aristotle means the secondary substances as well as the items in all the other categories – qualities, quantities, relatives, etc. As examples of primary substances Aristotle gives “the individual man” (ho tis anthrôpos) and “the individual horse” (ho tis hippos) (2a13–14).
    [Show full text]
  • A Trope Theoretical Analysis of Relational Inherence
    A Trope Theoretical Analysis of Relational Inherence MARKKU KEINÄNEN 1. Introduction Trope bundle theories of substance (e.g. Williams 1953; Campbell 1990; Maurin 2002; Keinänen 2011, Keinänen & Hakkarainen 2010, 2014; Giberman 2014) aim to construct objects and all other entities by means of aggregates of tropes. Tropes are thin particular natures like a particular –e charge or a particular roundness in some location. Thus, tropes are themselves concrete in the sense of having some specific spa- tial or spatio-temporal location. In trope theories, objects and all other particulars are constructed as mereological sums of tropes that fulfil certain conditions. For instance, objects are identified with mereological sums of mutually co-located (“concurrent” or “compresent”) tropes (cf. Williams 1953; Campbell 1990). The thin nature of a trope is contrasted with the thick nature of the object constituted by distinct tropes. 1 It has been customary to consider tropes as particularized qualities or particular properties of objects (cf. Armstrong 1989, Allen 2016). The standard ways to pick out and identify tropes as properties of objects (like the redness of some rose) have provided support to this intuitive conception.2 Never- theless, being a particular property is a primitive category 1 In Williams’ and Campbell’s classical trope theories, tropes are also con- sidered as “abstract” in the sense of having capability of being co-located with other tropes, Fisher (2018, sec.1). 2 As does Lowe (2003), we have distinguished between individuation in the epistemic sense (i.e., picking out an entity in our thought) and indi- viduation in the metaphysical sense.
    [Show full text]
  • Aristotle's Concept of Matter and Odern Concepts of Matter
    PATRICK SUPPES ARISTOTLE’S CONCEPT OF MATTER AND ODERN CONCEPTS OF MATTER” 1. INTRODUCTION In this paper P want to analyze in some detail Aristotle’s concept of matter. I do so not simply as a matter of historical scholarship,but in the ir interest of defending the correctness both scientifically and philosophically of what I would call the central doctrine. The elusiveness of Aristotle’s detailed remarks on the concept of matter is notorious, and I shall not take it as my task to attempt to square my account with every passage that can be citedin the major works.1 shall give references where theyare ropriate. In some cases I shall assert featuresof his doc- trine that are not p erly documented in the text, but that I think are features of his con of matter that are pretty generally accepted. I also am not concerned to defend the details of all of his explicit beliefs. For example, what he hasto say about the sun and the earth and the nature of circular motion is clearly falsein detail. I am surethat if he had been presented modern astronomical evidence, especially astrophysi- cal evidenceabout the swirling chaosof low density matter in outer space, he would have changed his ews. Errors in detail of this kind seem to me to beof no importance. T basic doctrine, it seems to me, is correct. oreover, I want to claim that it is correct in a strong sense : it can be s a basis for interpreting the results of modern science. Defenders totle’s concept sf matter have been too defensive about the place owledge about the nature of matter, as that term is ordinarily used by physicists.
    [Show full text]
  • Soul As Structure: Plato and Aristotle on the Harmonia Theory
    SOUL AS STRUCTURE: PLATO AND ARISTOTLE ON THE HARMONIA THEORY A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Douglas Justin Young January 2007 © 2007 Douglas Justin Young ALL RIGHTS RESERVED SOUL AS STRUCTURE: PLATO AND ARISTOTLE ON THE HARMONIA THEORY Douglas Justin Young, Ph. D. Cornell University 2007 We are conscious beings who think, understand, feel and perceive. We are also material beings composed out of ordinary material stuff. Determining the pre- cise connections between the psychological and the material remains problemat- ic. The harmonia theory is one of the first attempts to frame this as a problem about composite objects. The theory itself is simple: the soul is the harmonia of the material parts of the body. But what a harmonia is and what the theory amounts to are matters of much dispute. I argue that a harmonia is best un- derstood as the structure of the body’s material parts. Plato introduces the theory in the Phaedo, and Aristotle mentions it in On the Soul. In both instances it is roundly criticized. Given that Plato thinks the soul is independent of the body, it is not surprising that he rejects the harmonia theory. However, he has been described as “extraordinarily obtuse” for arguing against the view, since doing so seems to undermine his arguments for a tripar- tite soul. Aristotle’s rejection has been thought equally perplexing, since his own positive view (that the soul is the form of a living body) looks very much like a version of the harmonia theory.
    [Show full text]
  • Predication Theory: Classical Vs Modern
    IGNACIO ANGELELLI PREDICATION THEORY: CLASSICAL VS MODERN Abstract This essay aims, first, at describing the conflict between the theory of predication (classical, Aristotelian) prevailing in philosophy until the end of the 19th century, and the theory arisen with the new logic (modern, Fregean). Three features characterize the pre- Fregean period: 1) conflation of predication and subordination (extensionally: membership and class-inclusion), 2) conflation of identity and predication, 3) the view of quantificational phrases (e.g. "some men") as denoting phrases. A possible fourth feature is suggested by the consideration of the so-called Locke's "general triangle". Most of the paper is devoted to the first feature, also called the "principal" one, stated by Aristotle. Frege seems to be the first, in 1884, to reject the first feature; he also rejected, not less vehemently, the second and the third features. Fregean predication theory became standard, and just taken for granted in the subsequent developments of logic as well as in the mainstream of philosophy. The second aim of this paper is to evaluate— relative to the notion of predication submitted in section 1 — the conflict between the two traditions, and to determine if both are somehow right, or one is right and the other wrong. The main result is that the Fregean revolution in predication theory is, at least with regard to the first and second features of the classical view, a clarification that would probably be welcomed by the classical authors themselves (pace Hintikka's "logic of being").1 1 Part of the material included in this essay was presented as a "Bradley Medieval Lecture", Boston College, 1996, and in seminars at the Universidad Nacional de La Plata, Argentina, 1998, and Universidad Católica de Chile, 2003.
    [Show full text]