Editing Insolubilia

{{Short description|Variations on the liar paradox}}
{{italic title}}
In the [[Middle Ages]], variations on the [[liar paradox]] were studied under the name of '''''insolubilia''''' ("insolubles").

==Overview==
Although the liar paradox was well known in [[Ancient history|antiquity]], interest seems to have lapsed until the twelfth century, when it appears to have been reinvented independently of ancient authors. Medieval interest may have been inspired by a passage in the ''[[Sophistical Refutations]]'' of [[Aristotle]]. Although the ''Sophistical Refutations'' are consistently cited by medieval logicians from the earliest ''insolubilia'' literature, medieval studies of ''insolubilia'' go well beyond Aristotle. Other ancient sources which could suggest the liar paradox, including [[Augustine of Hippo|Saint Augustine]], [[Cicero]], and the quotation of [[Epimenides]] appearing in the [[Epistle to Titus]], were not cited in discussions of ''insolubilia''.

[[Adam of Balsham]] mentioned, in passing, some paradoxical statements (dated to 1132), but he did not dwell on the difficulties raised by these statements. [[Alexander Neckham]], writing later in the twelfth century, explicitly recognized the paradoxical nature of ''insolubilia'', but did not attempt to resolve the inconsistent implications of the paradox. The first resolution was given by an anonymous author at the end of the twelfth or beginning of the thirteenth century. There was an established literature on the topic by about 1320, when [[Thomas Bradwardine]] prefaced his own discussion of ''insolubilia'' with nine views then current. Interest in ''insolubilia'' continued throughout the fourteenth century, especially by [[Jean Buridan]].<ref>[[George Edward Hughes|Hughes, G.E.]] (1982). ''John Buridan on Self-Reference: Chapter Eight of Buridan's Sophismata.'' An edition and translation with an introduction, and philosophical commentary. Cambridge/London/New York: Cambridge University Press, {{ISBN|0-521-28864-9}}.</ref>

The medieval ''insolubilia'' literature seems to treat these paradoxes as difficult but not truly "insoluble", and, though interesting and meriting investigation, not central to the study of logic. This may be contrasted with modern studies of [[list of self–referential paradoxes|self-referential paradoxes]] such as [[Russell's paradox]], in which  the problems are seen as fundamentally insoluble, and central to the foundations of logic.

==References==
{{Reflist}}

==Bibliography==
[[Thomas Bradwardine]], ''Insolubilia'' (Insolubles), Latin text and English translation by Stephen Read, Leuven, Peeters Editions (Dallas Medieval Texts and Translations, 10), 2010.

==External links==
*{{cite SEP |url-id=insolubles |title=Insolubles |last=Spade |first=Paul Vincent}}

[[Category:History of logic]]
[[Category:Paradoxes]]