Prior’s paradigm for the study of time and its methodological motivation

Per Hasle, Peter Øhrstrøm

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

102 Downloads (Pure)

Resumé

A. N. Prior’s writings should obviously be studied already for historical reasons. His inventions of modern temporal logic and hybrid logic are clearly important events in the history of logic. But the enduring importance of studying his works also rests on his methodological approach, which remains highly relevant also for systematical reasons. In this paper we argue that Prior’s formulation in the 1950s of a tense-logical paradigm for the study of time should be understood in the light of at least three other principles or perspectives which were manifest already in his studies during the 1940s and further developed in the 1950s: (1) his emphasis on the value of interdisciplinary studies, (2) his reflections on formalisation and (3) his view of the role of symbolic logic in conceptual studies and in the philosophy of science. Our investigation into Prior’s basic tenets and principles makes extensive use of Prior’s Nachlass. It is thereby also exemplified how his correspondence and unpublished papers contain important information for a deeper understanding of Prior’s paradigm for the study of time.
OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftSynthese
Vol/bind193
Udgave nummer11
Sider (fra-til)3401–3416
Antal sider15
ISSN0039-7857
DOI
StatusUdgivet - 2016

Citer dette

@article{f4eb9d07220a4b338bf76548f3d5e486,
title = "Prior’s paradigm for the study of time and its methodological motivation",
abstract = "A. N. Prior’s writings should obviously be studied already for historical reasons. His inventions of modern temporal logic and hybrid logic are clearly important events in the history of logic. But the enduring importance of studying his works also rests on his methodological approach, which remains highly relevant also for systematical reasons. In this paper we argue that Prior’s formulation in the 1950s of a tense-logical paradigm for the study of time should be understood in the light of at least three other principles or perspectives which were manifest already in his studies during the 1940s and further developed in the 1950s: (1) his emphasis on the value of interdisciplinary studies, (2) his reflections on formalisation and (3) his view of the role of symbolic logic in conceptual studies and in the philosophy of science. Our investigation into Prior’s basic tenets and principles makes extensive use of Prior’s Nachlass. It is thereby also exemplified how his correspondence and unpublished papers contain important information for a deeper understanding of Prior’s paradigm for the study of time.",
author = "Per Hasle and Peter {\O}hrstr{\o}m",
year = "2016",
doi = "10.1007/s11229-016-1161-6",
language = "English",
volume = "193",
pages = "3401–3416",
journal = "Synthese",
issn = "0039-7857",
publisher = "Springer",
number = "11",

}

Prior’s paradigm for the study of time and its methodological motivation. / Hasle, Per; Øhrstrøm, Peter.

I: Synthese, Bind 193, Nr. 11, 2016, s. 3401–3416.

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Prior’s paradigm for the study of time and its methodological motivation

AU - Hasle, Per

AU - Øhrstrøm, Peter

PY - 2016

Y1 - 2016

N2 - A. N. Prior’s writings should obviously be studied already for historical reasons. His inventions of modern temporal logic and hybrid logic are clearly important events in the history of logic. But the enduring importance of studying his works also rests on his methodological approach, which remains highly relevant also for systematical reasons. In this paper we argue that Prior’s formulation in the 1950s of a tense-logical paradigm for the study of time should be understood in the light of at least three other principles or perspectives which were manifest already in his studies during the 1940s and further developed in the 1950s: (1) his emphasis on the value of interdisciplinary studies, (2) his reflections on formalisation and (3) his view of the role of symbolic logic in conceptual studies and in the philosophy of science. Our investigation into Prior’s basic tenets and principles makes extensive use of Prior’s Nachlass. It is thereby also exemplified how his correspondence and unpublished papers contain important information for a deeper understanding of Prior’s paradigm for the study of time.

AB - A. N. Prior’s writings should obviously be studied already for historical reasons. His inventions of modern temporal logic and hybrid logic are clearly important events in the history of logic. But the enduring importance of studying his works also rests on his methodological approach, which remains highly relevant also for systematical reasons. In this paper we argue that Prior’s formulation in the 1950s of a tense-logical paradigm for the study of time should be understood in the light of at least three other principles or perspectives which were manifest already in his studies during the 1940s and further developed in the 1950s: (1) his emphasis on the value of interdisciplinary studies, (2) his reflections on formalisation and (3) his view of the role of symbolic logic in conceptual studies and in the philosophy of science. Our investigation into Prior’s basic tenets and principles makes extensive use of Prior’s Nachlass. It is thereby also exemplified how his correspondence and unpublished papers contain important information for a deeper understanding of Prior’s paradigm for the study of time.

U2 - 10.1007/s11229-016-1161-6

DO - 10.1007/s11229-016-1161-6

M3 - Journal article

VL - 193

SP - 3401

EP - 3416

JO - Synthese

JF - Synthese

SN - 0039-7857

IS - 11

ER -