Paraconsistent vagueness: a positive argument

Paraconsistent approaches have received little attention in the literature on vagueness (at least compared to other proposals). The reason seems to be that many philosophers have found the idea that a contradiction might be true (or that a sentence and its negation might both be true) hard to swallow. Even advocates of paraconsistency on vagueness do not look very convinced when they consider this fact; since they seem to have spent more time arguing that paraconsistent theories are at least as good as their paracomplete counterparts, than giving positive reasons to believe on a particular paraconsistent proposal. But it sometimes happens that the weakness of a theory turns out to be its mayor ally, and this is what (I claim) hap- pens in a particular paraconsistent proposal known as subvaluationism. In order to make room for truth-value gluts subvaluationism needs to endorse a notion of logical consequence that is, in some sense, weaker than standard notions of consequence. But this weakness allows the subvaluationist theory to accommodate higher-order vague- ness in a way that it is not available to other theories of vagueness (such as, for example, its paracomplete counterpart, supervaluationism)

Responsabilidad por el déficit concursal

El objetivo del presente trabajo es analizar la responsabilidad por el déficit concursal tras la reforma operada por el Texto Refundido de la Ley Concursal del 2020. Se realizará un repaso de los antecedentes legales, desde la aprobación de la Ley Concursal 2003 hasta el Texto Refundido pasando por las dos reformas que más han afectado a la materia, la reforma de 2011 y la reforma de 2014. Del mismo modo, se estudiará las posiciones tradicionales que han existido sobre la naturaleza de esta responsabilidad analizando tanto los pronunciamientos de los tribunales como las posiciones de la doctrina. La parte central del trabajo se centrará en el análisis el régimen jurídico de la responsabilidad por el déficit concursal. En primer lugar, se estudiarán los presupuestos necesarios para que entre en juego la responsabilidad concursal; en segundo lugar, se analizará los aspectos objetivos y para terminar los aspectos subjetivos.Departamento de Derecho Mercantil, Derecho del Trabajo e Internacional PrivadoGrado en Derecho y Grado en Administración y Dirección de Empresa

Supervaluationism and the timeless solution to the foreknowledge problem

If God knew I were going to write this paper, was I able to refrain from writing it this morning? One possible response to this question is that God's knowledge does not take place in time and therefore He does not properly fore-know. According to this response, God knows absolutely everything, it's just that He knows everything outside of time. The so-called timeless solution was one of the influential responses to the foreknowledge problem in classical Christian Theology. This solution, however, seemed to lose support in the recent debate. For example, Pike claims that "the doctrine of God's timelessness entered Christian Theology (only) because Platonic thought was stylish at the time" (Pike, 1970, 190) and Hasker (2001) catalogues this as one of the minor solutions to the problem. One possible source for this general attitude towards timelessness is the thought that the very idea of timelessness is incoherent. In this paper I argue that that the timeless solution to the foreknowledge problem is congenial with the supervaluationist theory of branching time and that this formal framework provides, in fact, a precise characterization of the timeless solution to the foreknowledge problem. The views presented in this paper are in line with those of Kretzmann and Stump (1981), Leftow (1991) and De Florio and Frigerio (2015)

(I can’t get no) antisatisfaction

Substructural approaches to paradoxes have attracted much attention from the philosophical community in the last decade. In this paper we focus on two substructural logics, named ST and TS, along with two structural cousins, LP and K3. It is well known that LP and K3 are duals in the sense that an inference is valid in one logic just in case the contrapositive is valid in the other logic. As a consequence of this duality, theories based on either logic are tightly connected since many of the arguments for and objections against one theory reappear in the other theory in dual form. The target of the paper is making explicit in exactly what way, if any, ST and TS are dual to one another. The connection will allow us to gain a more fine-grained understanding of these logics and of the theories based on them. In particular, we will obtain new insights on two questions concerning ST which are being intensively discussed in the current literature: whether ST preserves classical logic and whether it is LP in sheep’s clothing. Explaining in what way ST and TS are duals requires comparing these logics at a metainferential level. We provide to this end a uniform proof theory to decide on valid metainferences for each of the four logics. This proof procedure allows us to show in a very simple way how different properties of inferences (unsatisfiability, supersatisfiability and antivalidity) that behave in very different ways for each logic can be captured in terms of the validity of a metainference

What is a Paraconsistent Logic?

Paraconsistent logics are logical systems that reject the classical principle, usually dubbed Explosion, that a contradiction implies everything. However, the received view about paraconsistency focuses only the inferential version of Explosion, which is concerned with formulae, thereby overlooking other possible accounts. In this paper, we propose to focus, additionally, on a meta-inferential version of Explosion, i.e. which is concerned with inferences or sequents. In doing so, we will offer a new characterization of paraconsistency by means of which a logic is paraconsistent if it invalidates either the inferential or the meta-inferential notion of Explosion. We show the non-triviality of this criterion by discussing a number of logics. On the one hand, logics which validate and invalidate both versions of Explosion, such as classical logic and Asenjo–Priest’s 3-valued logic LP. On the other hand, logics which validate one version of Explosion but not the other, such as the substructural logics TS and ST, introduced by Malinowski and Cobreros, Egré, Ripley and van Rooij, which are obtained via Malinowski’s and Frankowski’s q- and p-matrices, respectively

Supervaluationism and necessarily borderline sentences

The supervaluationist theory of vagueness is committed to a particular notion of logical consequence known as global validity. According to a recent objection, this notion of consequence is more problematic than is usually thought since i) it bears a commitment to some sort of bizarre inferences, ii) this commitment threatens the internal coherence of the theory and iii) we might find counterexamples to classically valid patterns of inference even in the absence of a definitely-operator (or similar device). As a consequence, the supervaluationist theory itself is in trouble. This paper discusses the objection