Argumentation and counterfactual reasoning in Parmenides and Melissus
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2020 |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Revista Archai (Online) |
Texto Completo: | https://periodicos.unb.br/index.php/archai/article/view/29493 |
Resumo: | Parmenides and Melissus employ different deductive styles for their different kinds of argumentation. The former’s poem flows in an interesting sequence of passages: contents foreword, methodological premises, krisis, conclusions and corollaries. The latter, however, organizes an extensive process of deduction to show the characteristics of what is. In both cases, the strength of their argument rests on their deductive form, on the syntactical level of their texts: the formal structure of their reasonings help to identify the features and logical intersections of their thoughts. On the one hand, Parmenides uses modal reasoning, enforcing the employment of the principle of the excluded middle. On the other hand, Melissus radicalizes the use of modal reasoning and employs counterfactual statements in order to develop his doctrine of what is. Despite their differences, both deserve a place in the Stone Age of logic and theory of argumentation due to their common ambition to demonstrate what is. |
id |
UNB-18_9f11f50a42fad0d545cc71024b7a5d91 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:ojs.pkp.sfu.ca:article/29493 |
network_acronym_str |
UNB-18 |
network_name_str |
Revista Archai (Online) |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Argumentation and counterfactual reasoning in Parmenides and MelissusParmenidesMelissusargumentationdemonstrationcounterfactual reasoningParmenides and Melissus employ different deductive styles for their different kinds of argumentation. The former’s poem flows in an interesting sequence of passages: contents foreword, methodological premises, krisis, conclusions and corollaries. The latter, however, organizes an extensive process of deduction to show the characteristics of what is. In both cases, the strength of their argument rests on their deductive form, on the syntactical level of their texts: the formal structure of their reasonings help to identify the features and logical intersections of their thoughts. On the one hand, Parmenides uses modal reasoning, enforcing the employment of the principle of the excluded middle. On the other hand, Melissus radicalizes the use of modal reasoning and employs counterfactual statements in order to develop his doctrine of what is. Despite their differences, both deserve a place in the Stone Age of logic and theory of argumentation due to their common ambition to demonstrate what is.Cátedra UNESCO Archai (Universidade de Brasília); Imprensa da Universidade de Coimbra, Portugal; Annablume Editora, São Paulo, Brasil2020-05-11info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionArticlesArtigosapplication/pdfhttps://periodicos.unb.br/index.php/archai/article/view/2949310.14195/1984-249X_30_4Revista Archai; No. 30 (2020): Archai 30 (2020 [3]); e03004Archai Journal; n. 30 (2020): Archai 30 (2020 [3]); e030041984-249X2179-496010.14195/1984-249X_30reponame:Revista Archai (Online)instname:Universidade de Brasília (UnB)instacron:UNBenghttps://periodicos.unb.br/index.php/archai/article/view/29493/26053Copyright (c) 2020 Flavia Marcacciinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessMarcacci, Flavia2020-06-02T11:46:38Zoai:ojs.pkp.sfu.ca:article/29493Revistahttps://periodicos.unb.br/index.php/archaiPUBhttps://periodicos.unb.br/index.php/archai/oai||archaijournal@unb.br|| cornelli@unb.br1984-249X1984-249Xopendoar:2020-06-02T11:46:38Revista Archai (Online) - Universidade de Brasília (UnB)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Argumentation and counterfactual reasoning in Parmenides and Melissus |
title |
Argumentation and counterfactual reasoning in Parmenides and Melissus |
spellingShingle |
Argumentation and counterfactual reasoning in Parmenides and Melissus Marcacci, Flavia Parmenides Melissus argumentation demonstration counterfactual reasoning |
title_short |
Argumentation and counterfactual reasoning in Parmenides and Melissus |
title_full |
Argumentation and counterfactual reasoning in Parmenides and Melissus |
title_fullStr |
Argumentation and counterfactual reasoning in Parmenides and Melissus |
title_full_unstemmed |
Argumentation and counterfactual reasoning in Parmenides and Melissus |
title_sort |
Argumentation and counterfactual reasoning in Parmenides and Melissus |
author |
Marcacci, Flavia |
author_facet |
Marcacci, Flavia |
author_role |
author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Marcacci, Flavia |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Parmenides Melissus argumentation demonstration counterfactual reasoning |
topic |
Parmenides Melissus argumentation demonstration counterfactual reasoning |
description |
Parmenides and Melissus employ different deductive styles for their different kinds of argumentation. The former’s poem flows in an interesting sequence of passages: contents foreword, methodological premises, krisis, conclusions and corollaries. The latter, however, organizes an extensive process of deduction to show the characteristics of what is. In both cases, the strength of their argument rests on their deductive form, on the syntactical level of their texts: the formal structure of their reasonings help to identify the features and logical intersections of their thoughts. On the one hand, Parmenides uses modal reasoning, enforcing the employment of the principle of the excluded middle. On the other hand, Melissus radicalizes the use of modal reasoning and employs counterfactual statements in order to develop his doctrine of what is. Despite their differences, both deserve a place in the Stone Age of logic and theory of argumentation due to their common ambition to demonstrate what is. |
publishDate |
2020 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2020-05-11 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion Articles Artigos |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://periodicos.unb.br/index.php/archai/article/view/29493 10.14195/1984-249X_30_4 |
url |
https://periodicos.unb.br/index.php/archai/article/view/29493 |
identifier_str_mv |
10.14195/1984-249X_30_4 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
https://periodicos.unb.br/index.php/archai/article/view/29493/26053 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2020 Flavia Marcacci info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2020 Flavia Marcacci |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Cátedra UNESCO Archai (Universidade de Brasília); Imprensa da Universidade de Coimbra, Portugal; Annablume Editora, São Paulo, Brasil |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Cátedra UNESCO Archai (Universidade de Brasília); Imprensa da Universidade de Coimbra, Portugal; Annablume Editora, São Paulo, Brasil |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Revista Archai; No. 30 (2020): Archai 30 (2020 [3]); e03004 Archai Journal; n. 30 (2020): Archai 30 (2020 [3]); e03004 1984-249X 2179-4960 10.14195/1984-249X_30 reponame:Revista Archai (Online) instname:Universidade de Brasília (UnB) instacron:UNB |
instname_str |
Universidade de Brasília (UnB) |
instacron_str |
UNB |
institution |
UNB |
reponame_str |
Revista Archai (Online) |
collection |
Revista Archai (Online) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Revista Archai (Online) - Universidade de Brasília (UnB) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
||archaijournal@unb.br|| cornelli@unb.br |
_version_ |
1798319945484861440 |