(in Polish) The Liar and other Logical Paradoxes from Antiquity to the Middle Ages 3800-LOP26-S
The seminar aims to discuss the history of one of the most famous logical themes of all time, namely
logical antinomies, known in the Latin Middle Ages as the insolubilia. The best-known example of an
insolubile is the Liar Paradox. The sentence “I am lying” apparently always leads to contradiction and
thus threatens the principle of bivalence, as shown by proof by cases. Is the sentence “I am lying” true
or false? If one assumes it is true, then what is said is a lie, and thus the sentence is false, which
contradicts the premise (i.e., that the sentence is true). If one posits that the sentence is false, then the
one who claims to be lying is telling the truth, and thus the sentence is true, which contradicts the
premise (i.e., that the sentence is false). The course centers on the earliest discussions of the problem,
spanning from antiquity to the fourteenth century. Particular attention will be given to the period
when logic’s development was particularly intense, namely to the turn of the 12 th century.
The main goals of the course are the following:
- studying the earliest known discussions of logical antinomies;
- understanding the argumentative strategies employed to solve paradoxes;
- following the link between the ancient and medieval discussions of the Liar-type paradoxes;
- examining the contexts in which such discussions were placed;
- understanding the significance of the antinomies for early-scholastic logic, philosophy, and
theology;
- interpreting the early-scholastic arguments from a contemporary perspective and linking them to
modern developments.
Course coordinators
Type of course
Learning outcomes
Acquired knowledge:
K_W02 – the student knows and understands, at an advanced level, research methods and
argumentative strategies concerning Liar‑type paradoxes, and is familiar with methods of
interpreting philosophical texts within classical logic;
K_W04 – the student knows basic philosophical and logical terminology in English at B2+ level;
K_W07 – the student has an in‑depth knowledge of the current state of research in the history of
logical paradoxes;
K_W37 – the student has an advanced knowledge of the properties of language from the perspective
of philosophical analysis.
For doctoral students:
WG_01 – PhD student knows and understands, at a level enabling the revision of existing paradigms,
the global scholarly output covering theoretical foundations and the specific topic of the history of
logical antinomies.
Acquired skills:
K_U01 – the student is able to interpret philosophical texts, commenting on and critically comparing
theses drawn from different texts;
K_U03 – the student is able to analyse complex philosophical arguments, identify their constituent
theses and assumptions, and determine the logical and argumentative relations between them;
K_U19 – the student is able to abstract argumentative elements from spoken or written discourse,
analyse them using informal methods, and identify possible flaws;
K_U22 – the student is able to assess the strength of an argument and its rhetorical role, in particular
its persuasive or potentially manipulative function.
For doctoral students:
UW_02 – PhD student is able to carry out a critical analysis and evaluation of research results in the
field of the history of logic;
UK_03 – PhD student is able to participate in scholarly discourse within the field of the history of
logic.
Acquired social competences:
K_K01 – the student is ready to identify and reflect on their own knowledge and skills;
K_K02 – the student is ready to formulate precise questions aimed at deepening their understanding
of a given topic or identifying missing elements in a line of reasoning;
K_K06 – the student is ready to accept new ideas and, if necessary, revise their position in light of
available evidence and arguments;
K_K08 – the student is ready to participate in activities aimed at preserving the philosophical
heritage.
For doctoral students:
KK_01 – PhD student is prepared to undertake an independent and critical assessment of scholarly
achievements within the history of logic.
Assessment criteria
Active participation in classes. A written examination in the form of open‑ended questions based on
excerpts from texts selected from those discussed during the course.
Number of allowed absences per semester: 2
Bibliography
Dyskusja będzie toczyć się wokół udostępnionych studentom fragmentów klasycznych tekstów w
angielskim tłumaczeniu. Udostępnione zostaną fragmenty m.in. następujących dzieł:
The discussion will revolve around excerpts from classical texts made available to students in
English translation. Excerpts from, among others, the following works will be provided:
Diogenes Laertius, “Vitae philosophorum” (Lives of the Philosophers), 2 volumes, (Oxford Classical
Texts), H.S. Long (ed.), Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964.
Aristoteles, “Peri hermeneias” (De Interpretatione) and “Sophistici Elenchi”.
Cicero, “Academica priora siue Lucullus”, ed. O. Plasberg, Teubner, Leipzig 1922.
Hieronymus, “Tractatus sive homiliae in Psalmos”, ed. G. Morin, Brepols, Turnhout 1958 (CCL 78).
Adam of Balsham, “Ars Disserendi”, ed. L. Minio-Paluello, Edizioni di storia e letteratura, Roma
1956.
“Ars Meliduna”, MS Oxford, Bodleian Library, Digby 174.
Alexander Neckam, “De naturis rerum”, ed. T. Wright, Longman – Green, London 1863.
Anonymous, “Insolubilia”, MS Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, CLM 14458, ff. 39rb-40ra.
Anonymous, “Insolubilia”, MS Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, lat. 11412, ff. 88ra-91va.
Anonymous, “Insolubilia”, MS Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, lat. 16617, ff. 46v-50r and 50v-54v.
Stephen Langton, “Quaestiones theologiae”, Liber III, Volume 3, ed. M. Bieniak – A. Nannini, The
British Academy – Oxford University Press, Oxford 2024.
Thomas Bradwardine, “Insolubilia”, ed. and trans. S. Read, Peeters, Leuven 2010.
Walter Segrave, “Insolubles”, ed. B. Bartocci and S. Read, Open Book Publishers, Cambridge (UK)
2024.
Główne opracowania:
The main studies:
A. Alwishah and D. Sanson, “The Early Arabic Liar: the Liar Paradox in the Islamic World from the
Mid-Ninth to the Mid-Thirteenth Centuries CE”, <<Vivarium>> 47 (2009), 97–127.
M.G. Beall and E. Ripley, “Liar Paradox”, <<The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy>> (Winter
2023 ed.), ed. E. Zalta and U. Nodelman (https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2023/entries/liar-
paradox/).
C. Dutilh Novaes, “A Comparative Taxonomy of Medieval and Modern Approaches to Liar
Sentences”, <<History and Philosophy of Logic>>, 29.3 (2008), 227–261.
L. Goldstein, “Truth-Bearers and the Liar: A Reply to Alan Weir”, <<Analysis>> 61.2 (2001), 115-
126.
A.N. Prior, “Epimenides the Cretan”, <<The Journal of Symbolic Logic>>, 23.3 (1958), 261–266.
R. A. Sorensen, “A Brief History of Paradox”, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2003.
P. V. Spade and S. Read, “Insolubles”, <<The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy>> (Winter 2025
ed.), ed. E. Zalta, https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2025/entries/insolubles/