User Manual Privacy Policy Disclaimer Contact us
  Advanced SearchBrowse




Book Chapter

Does a leaking O-corner save the square?


Seuren,  Pieter A. M.
Language Comprehension Department, MPI for Psycholinguistics, Max Planck Society;

There are no locators available
Fulltext (public)

(Publisher version), 282KB

Supplementary Material (public)
There is no public supplementary material available

Seuren, P. A. M. (2012). Does a leaking O-corner save the square? In J.-Y. Béziau, & D. Jacquette (Eds.), Around and beyond the square of opposition (pp. 129-138). Basel: Springer.

Cite as: http://hdl.handle.net/11858/00-001M-0000-000F-9C3B-3
It has been known at least since Abelard (12th century) that the classic Square of Opposition suffers from so-called undue existential import (UEI) in that this system of predicate logic collapses when the class denoted by the restrictor predicate is empty. It is usually thought that this mistake was made by Aristotle himself, but it has now become clear that this is not so: Aristotle did not have the Conversions but only one-way entailments, which ‘saves’ the Square. The error of UEI was introduced by his later commentators, especially Apuleius and Boethius. Abelard restored Aristotle’s original logic. After Abelard, some 14th- and 15th-century philosophers (mainly Buridan and Ockham) meant to save the Square by declaring the O-corner true when the restrictor class is empty. This ‘leaking O-corner analysis’, or LOCA, was taken up again around 1950 by some American philosopher-logicians, who now have a fairly large following. LOCA does indeed save the Square from logical disaster, but modern analysis shows that this makes it impossible to give a uniform semantic definition of the quantifiers, which thus become ambiguous—an intolerable state of affairs in logic. Klima (Ars Artium, Essays in Philosophical Semantics, Medieval and Modern, Institute of Philosophy, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest, 1988) and Parsons (in Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.standford.edu/entries/square/, 2006; Logica Univers. 2:3–11, 2008) have tried to circumvent this problem by introducing a ‘zero’ element into the ontology, standing for non-existing entities and yielding falsity when used for variable substitution. LOCA, both without and with the zero element, is critically discussed and rejected on internal logical and external ontological grounds.