SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Felsefe Arkivi / 2024 / Sayı: 61

On the Philosophical Roots of the Naïve and Axiomatic Set Theories: Determinatio est Negatio

Naif ve Aksiyomatik Küme Teorilerinin Felsefi Kökenleri Üzerine: Determinatio est Negatio

Osman Gazi Birgül(Manisa Celal Bayar University, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Department of Philosophy)0000-0003-2089-848X
Pages
73–83
Publication Date
2024-12-31
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Ultimately, the study reveals a deep connection between metaphysical principles and the mathematical treatment of paradoxes, emphasizing the ongoing relevance of determinatio est negatio in both domains.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The principle determinatio est negatio—that determination is achieved through negation—has philosophical roots extending back to Plato and Aristotle, and it later influenced early modern thinkers such as Francisco Suárez and Spinoza.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The first demonstrates how the principle of negation functions as a tool for conceptual determination across various philosophical frameworks, and the second demonstrates that the principle plays a key role in the analysis and resolution of the Burali-Forti paradox within the context of the naïve and axiomatic set theories.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Ultimately, the study reveals a deep connection between metaphysical principles and the mathematical treatment of paradoxes, emphasizing the ongoing relevance of determinatio est negatio in both domains.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Determinatio est negatio · Burali-Forti paradoksu · Cantor

Abstract

The principle determinatio est negatio—that determination is achieved through negation—has philosophical roots extending back to Plato and Aristotle, and it later influenced early modern thinkers such as Francisco Suárez and Spinoza. This paper has two aims. The first demonstrates how the principle of negation functions as a tool for conceptual determination across various philosophical frameworks, and the second demonstrates that the principle plays a key role in the analysis and resolution of the Burali-Forti paradox within the context of the naïve and axiomatic set theories. In the first section, the analysis focuses on the evolution of the principle from ancient philosophy to early modern metaphysics, examining Plato’s dialectics, Aristotle’s metaphysical distinctions, Suárez’s scholastic theories, and Spinoza’s monist metaphysics. The second section shifts to mathematics, where determinatio est negatio plays a key role in resolving set-theoretical paradoxes, particularly the Burali-Forti paradox. By exploring Cantor’s solution and its reliance on the distinction between consistent and inconsistent sets, this study demonstrates how this principle is essential for avoiding self-referential inconsistencies. The contributions of Zermelo and von Neumann, who developed axiomatic frameworks to address these paradoxes, further elaborate the philosophical foundations of set theory. Ultimately, the study reveals a deep connection between metaphysical principles and the mathematical treatment of paradoxes, emphasizing the ongoing relevance of determinatio est negatio in both domains.

Özet

Determinatio est negatio ilkesi—yani belirlemenin olumsuzlama yoluyla gerçekleştirildiği anlayışı—Platon ve Aristoteles’e kadar uzanan felsefi köklere sahiptir ve daha sonra Francisco Suárez ve Spinoza gibi erken modern düşünürleri etkilemiştir. Söz konusu ilkeyi analiz eden bu çalışmanın iki amacı vardır. İlki, olumsuzlama ilkesinin çeşitli felsefi sistemler boyunca kavramsal belirleme aracı olarak nasıl işlediğini göstermek; ikincisi ise ilkenin, naif ve aksiyomatik kümeler teorisi bağlamında Burali-Forti paradoksunun analizinde ve çözümünde önemli bir rol oynadığını ortaya koymaktır. İlk bölümde, analiz bu ilkenin antik felsefeden erken modern metafiziğe olan evrimine odaklanmakta ve Platon’un diyalektiği, Aristoteles’in metafiziksel ayrımları, Suárez’in skolastik teorileri ve Spinoza’nın monist metafiziği incelenmektedir. İkinci bölümde ise, determinatio est negatio ilkesinin özellikle Burali-Forti paradoksunu çözmedeki rolü vurgulanarak matematik alanına geçiş yapılmaktadır. Cantor’un çözümü ve tutarlı ve tutarsız kümeler arasındaki ayrımı determinatio est negatio bağlamında incelenerek, bu ilkenin özreferanssal paradokslardan kaçınmada oynadığı önemli rol gösterilmektedir. Zermelo ve von Neumann’ın Burali-Forti paradoksu için geliştirdikleri aksiyomatik çerçeveler, kümeler teorisinin felsefi temellerini daha da aydınlatmaktadır. Sonuç olarak, çalışma, metafizik ilkeler ile paradoksların matematiksel çözümü arasındaki derin bağlantıyı ortaya koyarak determinatio est negatio ilkesinin her iki alandaki devam eden önemini vurgulamaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Birgül, O. G. (2024). On the Philosophical Roots of the Naïve and Axiomatic Set Theories: Determinatio est Negatio. Felsefe Arkivi, Sayı: 61, 73–83. https://doi.org/10.26650/arcp.1559355

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (28)

  1. Aristotle. The Metaphysics. Trans. Hugh Lawson-Tancred. London: Penguin Books, 1998. google scholar
  2. Burali-Forti, Cesare Arzela. “Question on Transfinite Numbers”, in From Frege to Gödel: A Source Book in Mathematical Logic, 1879-1931. ed. Jean van Heijenoort, 105-117. Cambridge and Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1897. google scholar
  3. Bussotti, Paolo & Tapp, Christian. “The influence of Spinoza’s concept of infinity on Cantor’s set theory.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A. 40 (1) (2009), 25-35. google scholar
  4. Cantor, Georg. “Mitteilungen zur Lehre vom Transfiniten”, in Gesammelte Abhandlungen Mathematischen und Philosophischen Inhalts. ed. E. Zermelo, 378-440. Berlin: Julius Springer, 1932. google scholar
  5. Cantor, Georg. Briefe. Eds. Herbert Meschkowski & Winfried Nilson. Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1991. google scholar
  6. Cantor, Georg. Foundations of a General Theory of Manifolds (Grundlagen einer Allgemeinen Mannigfaltigkeitslehre). trans. Uwe Parpart. New York: Campaigner Publications, 1976. google scholar
  7. Copi, Irving M. “The Burali-Forti Paradox.” Philosophy of Science 25 (4) (1958): 281-286. google scholar
  8. Friedman, Joel I. “Was Spinoza fooled by the ontological argument?.” Philosophia 11 (3-4) (1982): 307-344. google scholar
  9. Halper, Edward C. One and Many in Aristotle’s Metaphysics. Las Vegas: Parmenides Publishing, 2009. google scholar
  10. Hauser, Karl. “Cantor’s Concept of Set in the Light of Plato’s Philebus.” The Review of Metaphysics 63 (4) (2005): 783-805. google scholar
  11. Heinemann, Friedrich Heinrich. “The Meaning of Negation.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 44 (1943): 127-152. google scholar
  12. Hellman, Geoffrey. “On the significance of the Burali-Forti paradox.” Analysis 71 (4) (2011): 631-637. google scholar
  13. Jane, Ignacio. “The Role of the Absolute Infinite in Cantor’s Conception of Set.” Erkenntnis 42 (3) (1995): 375-402. google scholar
  14. Menzel, Christopher. “CANTOR AND THE BURALI-FORTIPARADOX.” The Monist 67 (1) (1984): 92-107. google scholar
  15. Mesquita, Antonio Pedro. “Plato’s Eleaticism in the Sophist: The Doctrine of Non-Being.” In Plato’s Sophist Revisited. Eds. Beatriz Bossi & Thomas M. Robinson, 175-187. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2013. google scholar
  16. Newstead, Anne. “Cantor on Infinity in Nature, Number, and the Divine Mind.” American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 83 (4) (2009): 533-553. google scholar
  17. Plato. “Sophist.” In Theaetetus and Sophist. Ed. & trans. Christopher Rowe, 99-179. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015. google scholar
  18. Plato. Philebus. Trans. C. B. Gosling. London: Oxford University Press, 1975. google scholar
  19. Plotinus. The Enneads. Eds. Lloyd P. Gerson & et al., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018. google scholar
  20. Proclus. Elements of Theology. Trans. E. R. Dodds. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971. google scholar
  21. Rosser, Barkley. “The Burali-Forti Paradox.” The Journal of Symbolic Logic 7 (1) (1942): 1-17. google scholar
  22. Spinoza, Baruch. “Ethics.” In Spinoza Complete Works. Ed. Michael L. Morgan, trans. Samuel Shirley, 213-283. Indianapolis: Hackett, 2002a. google scholar
  23. Spinoza, Baruch. “Letters.” In Spinoza Complete Works. Ed. Michael L. Morgan, trans. Samuel Shirley, 755-961. Indianapolis: Hackett, 2002b. google scholar
  24. Stauffer, Lester. “Spinoza, Cantor, and infinity.” Southern Philosophical Studies 15 (1993): 74-81. google scholar
  25. Suarez, Francisco. Metaphysical Disputations III & IV. Trans. Shane Duarte. Washington: The Catholic University of America Press, 2023. google scholar
  26. Tapp, Christian. “On Some Philosophical Aspects of the BackgroundtoGeorg Cantor’s Theory of Sets.” Philosophia Scientia 5 (2005): 157-173. Thomas-Bolduc, Alasdair R. “Cantor, God, and Inconsistent Multiplicities.” Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 44 (57) (2016): 133-146. google scholar
  27. Von Neumann, John. “An Axiomatization of Set Theory.” In From Frege to Gödel: A Source Book in Mathematical Logic, 1879-1931. Ed. I. Jean van Heijenoort, 393-414. Cambridge and Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1925. google scholar
  28. Zermelo, Ernst. “Investigations in the foundations of Set Theory.” In From Frege to Gödel: A Source Book in Mathematical Logic, 1879-1931. Ed. I. Jean van Heijenoort, 183-189. Cambridge and Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1908. google scholar