Hegel’s Interpretation of the Liar Paradox

References

• Adorno, T. W. 1966. Negative Dialektik, Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.
   Google Scholar
• Barrio, E. A. and Da Ré, B. 2018. ‘Paraconsistency and its philosophical interpretations’, Australasian Journal of Logic, 15 (2), 151–170.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beall, J. C. (ed.) 2003. Liars and Heaps, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Beall, J. C. 2006a. ‘True, false and paranormal’, Analysis, 66 (290), 102–114.
   Google Scholar
• Beall, J. C. 2006b. ‘Negation’s holiday: aspectival dialetheism’, in D. DeVidi and T. Kenyon (eds.), A Logical Approach to Philosophy, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 169–192.
   Google Scholar
• Beall, J. C. 2007. ‘Prolegomenon to future revenge’, in J. C. Beall (ed.), Revenge of the Liar. New Essays on the Paradox, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–30.
   Google Scholar
• Beall, J. C. 2009. Spandrels of Truth, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Beall, J. C. 2014. ‘End of inclosure’, Mind, 123 (491), 829–849.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beall, J. C. 2021. The Contradictory Christ, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Beall, J. C. and Ficara, E. 2014. ‘Hegelian conjunction, Hegelian contradiction’, typescript.
   Google Scholar
• Beall, J. C., Glanzberg, M. and Ripley, D. 2017. ‘The Liar Paradox’, in E. Zalta (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Winter 2019 Edition, https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2019/entries/liar-paradox/.
   Google Scholar
• Berto, F. 2005. Che cosa è la dialettica Hegeliana?, Padova: Il Poligrafo.
   Google Scholar
• Berto, F. 2007. How to Sell a Contradiction. The Logic and Metaphysics of Inconsistency, London: King’s College.
   Google Scholar
• Berto, F. 2008. ‘Adynaton and Material Exclusion’, Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 86 (2), 165–190.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boger, G. 1993. ‘The logical sense of “paradoxon” in Aristotle’s Sophistical Refutations’, Ancient Philosophy, 13, 55–78.
   Google Scholar
• Bordignon, M. 2014a. ‘Hegel: a dialetheist? Truth and contradiction in Hegel’s logic’, Hegel Bulletin, 40 (2), 198–214.
   Google Scholar
• Bordignon, M. 2014b. Ai limiti della verità. Il problema della contraddizione nella logica di Hegel, Pisa: ETS.
   Google Scholar
• Brandom, R. 2005. ‘Sketch of a program for a critical reading of Hegel. Comparing empirical and logical concepts’, Internationales Jahrbuch des Deutschen Idealismus, 3, 131–161.
   Google Scholar
• Brandom, R. 2014. ‘Some Hegelian ideas of note for contemporary analytic philosophy’, Hegel Bulletin, 35 (1), 1–15.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, M. 2002. Paradoxes from A to Z, London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Cobreros, P., Egré, P., Ripley, D. and van Rooj, R. 2015. ‘Pragmatic interpretations of vague expressions: strongest meaning and non-monotonic consequence’, Journal of Philosophical Logic, 44, 375–393.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cook, R. T. 2013. Paradoxes, Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Croce, B. 1906. Ciò che è vivo e ciò che è morto nella filosofia di Hegel, Roma Bari: Laterza, English translation D. Ainslie, London: Macmillan 1915.
   Google Scholar
• d’Agostini, F. 2003. ‘Pensare con la propria testa. Problemi di filosofia del pensiero in Hegel e Frege’, in N. Vassallo (ed.), La filosofia di Gottlob Frege, Milano: Franco Angeli, pp. 59–94.
   Google Scholar
• d'Agostini, F. 2008a. The Last Fumes. Nihilism and the Nature of Philosophical Concepts, Aurora: The Davies Group Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• d'Agostini, F. 2008b. ‘Hegel’s interpretation of Megarian paradoxes’, in F. d’Agostini, 2008a, pp. 203–223.
   Google Scholar
• d'Agostini, F. 2009. Paradossi, Milano: Carocci.
   Google Scholar
• d'Agostini, F. 2014. ‘Paradoxes and the reality of contradictions’, in E. Ficara (ed.), Contradictions. Logic, History, Actuality, Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 31–52.
   Google Scholar
• d'Agostini, F. 2021. ‘Conjunctive paraconsistency’, Synthese, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-021-03096-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• d'Agostini, F. and Ficara, E. 2020. ‘The blushing Liar’, Philosophia. International Journal of Philosophy, 21 (2), 252–266.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diogenes Laertius. 2018. Lives of the Eminent Philosophers, J. Miller (ed.), P. Mensch (transl.), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dummett, M. 1993. The Seas of Language, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Düsing, K. 1990. ‘Formen der Dialektik bei Plato und Hegel’, in M. Riedel (ed.), Hegel und die antike Dialektik, Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp, pp. 169–191.
   Google Scholar
• Düsing, K. 2012. Aufhebung der Tradition im dialektischen Denken, München: Fink.
   Google Scholar
• Dutilh Novaes, C. 2020. The Roots of Deduction, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Estrada Gonzales, L. 2017. ‘Impossible worlds and the intensional sense of “and”’, Argumenta, 2 (2), 227–240.
   Google Scholar
• Ficara, E. 2013. ‘Dialectic and dialetheism’, History and Philosophy of Logic, 34 (1), 35–52.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ficara, E. 2015. ‘Contrariety and contradiction. Hegel and the Berliner Aristotelismus’, Hegel-Studien, 49, 39–56.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ficara, E. 2018. ‘Hegel and the consequentia mirabilis’, History and Philosophy of Logic, 39, 357–368.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ficara, E. 2021. The Form of Truth. Hegel’s Philosophical Logic, Berlin: De Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Field, H. 2005. ‘Is the Liar both true and false?’, in J. C. Beall and B. Armour-Garb (eds.), Deflationism and Paradox, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 23–40.
   Google Scholar
• Field, H. 2008. Saving Truth from Paradox, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fine, K. and Jago, M. 2019. ‘Logic for exact entailment’, Review of Symbolic Logic, 12 (3), 536–556.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gadamer, H.-G. 1976. Hegel’s Dialectics. Five Hermeneutical Studies, New Haven: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goldstein, L. 2000. ‘A unified solution to some paradoxes’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 100 (1), 53–74.
   Google Scholar
• Goldstein, L. 2006. ‘Fibonacci, Yablo, and the Cassationist approach to paradox’, Mind, 115 (460), 867–889.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Havas, K. 1981. ‘Some remarks on an attempt at formalizing dialectical logic’, Studies in Soviet Thought, 22 (4), 257–264.
   Google Scholar
• Havas, K. 1983. Thought, Language and Reality in Logic, Budapest: Akadémiai Kiado (references are to the 1992 English translation).
   Google Scholar
• Hegel, G. W. F. 1892ff. Lectures on the History of Philosophy, E. Haldane and F. Simson (transl.), London: Kegan Paul.
   Google Scholar
• Hegel, G. W. F. 1969ff. Werke in zwanzig Bänden. Theorie Werkausgabe, New edition on the basis of the Works of 1832–1845 edited by Eva Moldenhauer and Karl Markus Michel, Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.
   Google Scholar
• Hegel, G. W. F. 1969. Hegel’s Science of Logic, A. Miller (transl.), New York: Humanity Books.
   Google Scholar
• Hintikka, J. 2007. Socratic Epistemology. Explorations of Knowledge-Seeking by Questioning, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Humberstone, L. 2011. The Connectives, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jago, M. 2018. What Truth Is, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jaśkowski, S. 1948. ‘Propositional calculus for contradictory deductive systems’, Engl. Tr. in Studia Logica, 24 (1969), 143–157.
   Google Scholar
• Jaśkowski, S. 1999. ‘On the discussive conjunction in the propositional calculus for inconsistent deductive systems’, Logic and Logical Philosophy, 7, 57–59.
   Google Scholar
• Joachim, H. 1906. The Nature of Truth, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kabay, P. 2010. On the Plenitude of Truth: A Defence of Trivialism, Saarbrücken: Lambert Academic Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Koch, A. F., Oberauer, A. and Utz, K. (eds.) 2003. Der Begriff als die Wahrheit. Zum Anspruch der Hegelschen ‘Subjektiven Logik’, Paderborn: Schöningh.
   Google Scholar
• Lesher, J. 2002. ‘Parmenidean elenchos’, in G. Scott (ed.), Does Socrates Have a Method?, University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, pp. 19–35.
   Google Scholar
• Lewis, D. K. 1982. ‘Logic for equivocators’, reprinted in D. K. Lewis (ed.), Papers in Philosophical Logic, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998, pp. 97–110.
   Google Scholar
• Lycan, W. G. 2010. ‘What, exactly, is a paradox?’, Analysis, 70 (4), 615–622.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mares, E. 2004. Relevant Logic. A Philosophical Interpretation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mares, E. 2012. ‘Relevance and conjunction’, Journal of Logic and Computation, 22, 7–21.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marsili, N. 2018. ‘Truth and assertion: rules versus norms’, Analysis, 78 (4), 638–648.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin, B. 2014. The logical and philosophical foundations for the possibility of true contradictions, Doctoral dissertation, University College, London.
   Google Scholar
• Miolli, G. 2016. Il pensiero della cosa. Wahrheit hegeliana e Identity Theory of Truth, Trento: Verifiche.
   Google Scholar
• Moss, G. 2020. Hegel’s Foundation-free Metaphysics. The Logic of Singularity, New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Nuzzo, A. 2010. Hegel and the Analytic Tradition, New York: Continuum.
   Google Scholar
• Nuzzo, A. 2011. ‘Truth and refutation in Hegel’s Begriffslogik’, in E. Ficara (ed.), Die Begründung der Philosophie im Deutschen Idealismus, Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann, pp. 91–105.
   Google Scholar
• Olin, D. 2003. Paradox, Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Paseau, A. C. 2013. ‘An exact measure of paradox’, Analysis, 73 (1), 17–26.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peckhaus, V. 2000. ‘Paradoxes in Göttingen’, in G. Link (ed.), One Hundred Years of Russell’s Paradox, Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 501–516.
   Google Scholar
• Pinkard, T. 2003. ‘Objektivität und Wahrheit innerhalb einer subjektiven Logik’, in A. F. Koch, A. Oberauer and K. Utz (eds.), Der Begriff als die Wahrheit. Zum Anspruch der Hegelschen ‘Subjektiven Logik’, Paderborn: Schöningh, pp. 119–134.
   Google Scholar
• Pöggeler, O. 1981. ‘Schillers Antagonismus und Hegels Dialektik’, in W. Becker and W. Essler (eds.), Konzepte der Dialektik, Frankfurt a.M.: Klostermann, pp. 42–45.
   Google Scholar
• Pöggeler, O. 1990. ‘Die Ausbildung der spekulativen Dialektik in Hegels Begegnung mit der Antike’, in M. Riedel (ed.), Hegel und die antike Dialektik, Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp, pp. 42–64.
   Google Scholar
• Priest, G. 1979. ‘The logic of paradox’, Journal of Philosophical Logic, 8 (1), 219–241.
   Google Scholar
• Priest, G. 1987. In Contradiction, Oxford: Oxford University Press, new edition 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Priest, G. 1989. ‘Dialectic and dialetheic’, Science and Society, 53 (4), 388–415.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Priest, G. 1995. Beyond the Limits of Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Priest, G. 2006. Doubt Truth To Be a Liar, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Priest, G. 2007. ‘Paraconsistency and dialetheism’, in D. Gabbay and J. Woods (eds.), The Many Valued and Non Monotonic Turn in Logic, vol. 8 of Handbook of the History of Logic, Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 129–204.
   Google Scholar
• Priest, G. 2013. ‘Fusion and confusion’, Topoi, 34 (1), 55–61.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Priest, G. 2019. ‘Kant’s excessive tenderness for things in the world, and Hegel’s dialetheism’, in S. Lapointe (ed.), Logic from Kant to Russell: Laying the Foundations for Analytic Philosophy, London: Routledge, pp. 56–72.
   Google Scholar
• Priest, G. ‘The logic of dialectic’, unpublished typescript.
   Google Scholar
• Priest, G. and Berto, F. 2008. ‘Dialetheism’, in E. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Winter 2008 Edition, https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2008/entries/dialetheism/.
   Google Scholar
• Priest, G. and Routley, R. 1984. On Paraconsistency, Department of Philosophy, Canberra: University of Western Australia (reprint of the 1983 version).
   Google Scholar
• Puntel, L. 2005. ‘Hegels wahrheitskonzeption: Kritische Rekonstruktion und eine “analytische” Alternative’, Internationales Jahrbuch des deutschen Idealismus, 3, 208–242.
   Google Scholar
• Quine, W. V. O. 1962. Ways of Paradoxes and Other Essays, New York: Random House.
   Google Scholar
• Ramirez, E. 2017. ‘The many faces of antiphasis’ paper held at ‘The Philosophy of Contra-Classical Logics’ Conference, UNAM, 4 Sept. 2017, forthcoming.
   Google Scholar
• Read, S. 1988. Relevant Logic. A Philosophical Examination of Inference, London: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Rescher, N. 2001. Paradoxes: Their Roots, Range, and Resolutions, Chicago: Open Court.
   Google Scholar
• Rescher, N. and Manor, R. 1970–71. ‘On inference from inconsistent premises’, Theory and Decision, 1, 179–217.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riedel, M. (ed.) 1990. Hegel und die antike Dialektik, Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.
   Google Scholar
• Ripley, D. 2015. ‘Paraconsistent logic’, Journal of Philosophical Logic, 44 (6), 771–780.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodriguez-Pereyra, G. 2006. ‘Truthmaking, entailment, and the conjunction thesis’, Mind, 115, 957–982.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodriguez-Pereyra, G. 2009. ‘The disjunction and conjunction theses’, Mind, 118 (470), 428–442.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenkranz, K. 1868. Hegel als Nationalphilosoph, Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot, references are to the 1965 edition (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft).
   Google Scholar
• Sainsbury, M. 1987. Paradoxes, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (third edition 2009).
   Google Scholar
• Saul, J. 2012. Lying, Misleading and What is Said. An Exploration in Philosophy of Language and Ethics, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schäfer, R. 2001. Die Dialektik und ihre besonderen Formen in Hegels Logik, Hamburg: Meiner.
   Google Scholar
• Scharp, K. 2013. Replacing Truth, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schein, B. 2017. And. Conjunction Reduction Redux, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schick, S. 2010. Contradictio est regula veri. Die Grundsätze des Denkens in der formalen, transzendentalen und spekulativen Logik, Hamburg: Meiner.
   Google Scholar
• Schiffer, S. 2003. The Things We Mean, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schnädelbach, H. 1993. Hegels Lehre von der Wahrheit, Berlin: Antrittsvorlesung vom 26. Mai 1993 an der Humboldt Universität zu Berlin.
   Google Scholar
• Simmons, K. 1993. Universality and the Liar, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sorensen, R. 2003. A Brief History of the Paradox, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sorensen, R. A. 2018. ‘Epistemic paradoxes’, in E. N. Zalta (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2018/entries/epistemic-paradoxes/.
   Google Scholar
• Stekeler-Weithofer, P. 1992. Hegels Analytische Philosophie. Die Wissenschaft der Logik als kritische Theorie der Bedeutung, Paderborn: Schöningh.
   Google Scholar
• Tarski, A. 1933. Pojcie prawdy w jzykach nauk dedukcyjnych, Warsaw: Nakładem Towarzystwa Naukowego Warszawskiego, Engl. translation by J.H. Woodger, ‘The Concept of Truth in Formalized Languages’, in A. Tarski, Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics, Indianapolis: Hackett, pp. 152–278.
   Google Scholar
• Tarski, A. 1944. ‘The Semantic Conception of Truth: And the Foundations of Semantics’, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 4, 341–376.
   Google Scholar
• Varzi, A. 2004. ‘Conjunction and contradiction’, in G. Priest, J. C. Beall and B. Armour-Garb (eds.), The Law of Non-Contradiction. New Philosophical Essays, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 93–110.
   Google Scholar
• Vieweg, K. 2019. Hegel. Der Philosoph der Freiheit, München: Beck.
   Google Scholar
• Wetter, G. 1958. Dialectical Materialism, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
   Google Scholar