Chateaubriand on the slingshot arguments

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Ruffino, Marco
Data de Publicação: 2016
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: por
Título da fonte: Manuscrito (Online)
Texto Completo: https://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/manuscrito/article/view/8644281
Resumo: The purpose of this paper is to discuss Chateaubriand’s criticism of the so-called slingshot arguments, particularly of those versions proposed by Church (1956) and by Gödel (1944). I concentrate on two critical points made by Chateaubriand, and argue that they are not decisive against these versions of the slingshot. I also discuss Chateaubriand’s hybrid theory of definite descriptions and argue that, despite its intrinsic interest, it cannot avoid the conclusion of the slingshot.
id UNICAMP-17_d5cbee630177ee06590da1ded8b7866b
oai_identifier_str oai:ojs.periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br:article/8644281
network_acronym_str UNICAMP-17
network_name_str Manuscrito (Online)
repository_id_str
spelling Chateaubriand on the slingshot argumentsChateaubriand. Church. Gödel. Slingshot. Definite descriptionsThe purpose of this paper is to discuss Chateaubriand’s criticism of the so-called slingshot arguments, particularly of those versions proposed by Church (1956) and by Gödel (1944). I concentrate on two critical points made by Chateaubriand, and argue that they are not decisive against these versions of the slingshot. I also discuss Chateaubriand’s hybrid theory of definite descriptions and argue that, despite its intrinsic interest, it cannot avoid the conclusion of the slingshot.Universidade Estadual de Campinas2016-03-16info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/manuscrito/article/view/8644281Manuscrito: Revista Internacional de Filosofia; v. 27 n. 1 (2004): Jan./Jun.; 201-209Manuscrito: International Journal of Philosophy; Vol. 27 No. 1 (2004): Jan./Jun.; 201-209Manuscrito: Revista Internacional de Filosofía; Vol. 27 Núm. 1 (2004): Jan./Jun.; 201-2092317-630Xreponame:Manuscrito (Online)instname:Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)instacron:UNICAMPporhttps://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/manuscrito/article/view/8644281/11708Copyright (c) 2016 Manuscritoinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessRuffino, Marco2016-03-16T15:49:02Zoai:ojs.periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br:article/8644281Revistahttps://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/manuscritoPUBhttps://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/manuscrito/oaimwrigley@cle.unicamp.br|| dascal@spinoza.tau.ac.il||publicacoes@cle.unicamp.br2317-630X0100-6045opendoar:2016-03-16T15:49:02Manuscrito (Online) - Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Chateaubriand on the slingshot arguments
title Chateaubriand on the slingshot arguments
spellingShingle Chateaubriand on the slingshot arguments
Ruffino, Marco
Chateaubriand. Church. Gödel. Slingshot. Definite descriptions
title_short Chateaubriand on the slingshot arguments
title_full Chateaubriand on the slingshot arguments
title_fullStr Chateaubriand on the slingshot arguments
title_full_unstemmed Chateaubriand on the slingshot arguments
title_sort Chateaubriand on the slingshot arguments
author Ruffino, Marco
author_facet Ruffino, Marco
author_role author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Ruffino, Marco
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Chateaubriand. Church. Gödel. Slingshot. Definite descriptions
topic Chateaubriand. Church. Gödel. Slingshot. Definite descriptions
description The purpose of this paper is to discuss Chateaubriand’s criticism of the so-called slingshot arguments, particularly of those versions proposed by Church (1956) and by Gödel (1944). I concentrate on two critical points made by Chateaubriand, and argue that they are not decisive against these versions of the slingshot. I also discuss Chateaubriand’s hybrid theory of definite descriptions and argue that, despite its intrinsic interest, it cannot avoid the conclusion of the slingshot.
publishDate 2016
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2016-03-16
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/manuscrito/article/view/8644281
url https://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/manuscrito/article/view/8644281
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv por
language por
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv https://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/manuscrito/article/view/8644281/11708
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv Copyright (c) 2016 Manuscrito
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv Copyright (c) 2016 Manuscrito
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Universidade Estadual de Campinas
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Universidade Estadual de Campinas
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Manuscrito: Revista Internacional de Filosofia; v. 27 n. 1 (2004): Jan./Jun.; 201-209
Manuscrito: International Journal of Philosophy; Vol. 27 No. 1 (2004): Jan./Jun.; 201-209
Manuscrito: Revista Internacional de Filosofía; Vol. 27 Núm. 1 (2004): Jan./Jun.; 201-209
2317-630X
reponame:Manuscrito (Online)
instname:Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)
instacron:UNICAMP
instname_str Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)
instacron_str UNICAMP
institution UNICAMP
reponame_str Manuscrito (Online)
collection Manuscrito (Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Manuscrito (Online) - Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv mwrigley@cle.unicamp.br|| dascal@spinoza.tau.ac.il||publicacoes@cle.unicamp.br
_version_ 1800216566175891456

Registros relacionados