RT Article
T1 Ex impossibili quodlibet sequitur (Angel d’Ors)
JF Vivarium
VO 53
IS 2/4
SP 353
OP 371
A1 Normore, Calvin G. 1948-
LA English
PB Brill
YR 2015
UL https://www.ixtheo.de/Record/1582477361
AB While agreeing with Professor D’Ors’ thesis that the notion of logical consequence cannot be exhaustively characterized (though not with his grounds for it), I depart from Professor d’Ors’ conclusion that the very notion of good consequence is primitive and can only be identified with the (incompletable) set of acceptable rules of inference, and from his conviction that modal notions such as necessity and impossibility are equivocal and gain such clarity as they have by their interaction with rules of inference. Inspired by this picture, Professor d’Ors undertook an examination of a number of medieval attempts to analyze the notion of consequence and tried to show how certain developments in the medieval history of logic made sense in the light of debate over such analyses. This paper examines a small fragment of Professor d’Ors programme and its relation to some aspects of Jean Buridan’s account of the consequence relation.
K1 consequentia : John Buridan : modal notions
DO 10.1163/15685349-12341304