{"id":581,"date":"2018-02-02T20:59:16","date_gmt":"2018-02-02T20:59:16","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/cful.letras.ulisboa.pt\/lancog\/seminar-series-in-analytic-philosophy-31\/"},"modified":"2018-02-02T20:59:16","modified_gmt":"2018-02-02T20:59:16","slug":"seminar-series-in-analytic-philosophy-31","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cful.letras.ulisboa.pt\/lancog\/seminar-series-in-analytic-philosophy-31\/","title":{"rendered":"Seminar Series in Analytic Philosophy"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Zach Weber<\/p>\n<p>University of Otago<\/p>\n<h6><strong><em>At the Limits of Thought<\/em><\/strong><\/h6>\n<p><strong>26 February 2018, 16:30<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>Faculdade de Letras de Lisboa<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>Room 2.13<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>Abstract:<\/strong> The Inclosure Schema, proposed by Priest, suggests that many famous paradoxes are caused by the collision of &#8220;transcendence&#8221; and &#8220;closure&#8221; at the limits of thought. The Schema is, <em>prima facie<\/em>, a unified and explanatory analysis of the paradoxes of self-reference. Taking this analysis seriously is an important argument for dialetheism (the truth of some contradictions), and with that, a thoroughgoingly paraconsistent logic. But what happens once this program is followed out? That is, what happens when one re-considers the Inclosure Schema from a purely paraconsistent viewpoint? We will look at how the inclosure arguments play out. I will argue that the Inclosure Schema points <strong>outwards<\/strong> \u2013 too far outwards, beyond inconsistency and into absurdity. I will discuss how a reappraisal points <strong>inwards<\/strong> instead: true contradictions are better thought of as local, not &#8220;limit&#8221; phenomena. Dialetheism leads back from the edge of thought, to the inconsistent in the everyday.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Zach Weber University of Otago At the Limits of Thought 26 February 2018, 16:30 Faculdade de Letras de Lisboa Room 2.13 Abstract: The Inclosure Schema, proposed by Priest, suggests that many famous paradoxes are caused by the collision of &#8220;transcendence&#8221; and &#8220;closure&#8221; at the limits of thought. The Schema is, prima facie, a unified and [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"activitypub_content_warning":"","activitypub_content_visibility":"","activitypub_max_image_attachments":4,"activitypub_interaction_policy_quote":"","activitypub_status":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-581","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cful.letras.ulisboa.pt\/lancog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/581","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cful.letras.ulisboa.pt\/lancog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cful.letras.ulisboa.pt\/lancog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cful.letras.ulisboa.pt\/lancog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cful.letras.ulisboa.pt\/lancog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=581"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/cful.letras.ulisboa.pt\/lancog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/581\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cful.letras.ulisboa.pt\/lancog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=581"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cful.letras.ulisboa.pt\/lancog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=581"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cful.letras.ulisboa.pt\/lancog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=581"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}