278. Sara Uckelman on Obligations

This was a wonderful introduction to the "obligations" for me, thank you both. A very different, gymnastic disputation theory as compared to the more straight-up dialectic of the ādāb al-baḥth as it was developing around the same time (14th century), but with so many points of overlap. And the variant games of the obligations would have developed skills immediately applicable to disputations governed by the ādāb al-baḥth. A comparative study of the two traditions (once sufficient analytical studies have been made of their huge bodies of treatises and commentaries--only just beginning for the ādāb al-baḥth), would be richly rewarding for scholars of both, I imagine. Something for the to-do list! :)

You guys didn't play a game!  So disappointing.  I wanted to hear an example of losing track of what you've established, like she mentioned happened to her!

I was totally fascinated by how the order of the assertions alters the correct answer (which convinced me, though I am not a philosopher and really have no idea, that she's on to something with this "dynamic logic" thing) and how counterfactuals don't work in 'classic' obligations but do in the other variety....great stuff.

Very fun episode, it really made me want to try out the game. What a shame that the algorithm your guest mentioned is no longer public, that sounds absolutely brilliant!

Does what is necessary in nature follow the posito?  Or just what is logically necessary.  For example:

"you are a penguin" = true

" you are a bird" = ? 

Now by logical necessity, I haven't established that penguines are birds, so it would be irrelevant.  Thus i would answer false, and then it would logically follow that Penguines are not birds.

But by natural necessity, penguins need to be birds to be a penguin.  Therefore I would answer true.

Either way allows truely irrelivant propositions (like you are in rome) to create further false statements using Or statements.  However, natural necessity seems to make more sense for a medieval gameplay example.  But it also is more likely to spark disputes on if something necessarily follows or not. (like "You are a professor" would spark controversy on if being a human (and therefore not being a penguin) is a necessary requirement of being a professor?)

Great interview! (And cool game actually!)
I was a bit puzzled by something that is not directly... relevant to the subject: You mention "Antichrist exists" as an example of a false proposition, on the same level as "Socrates is a donkey". Was this an actual example used in Medieval Europe? But it seems to have been a common belief back then that the Antichrist would come up some day or other (after all, Luther's idea that the pope is the Antichrist didn't appear out of thin air). So, if medieval logicians take this to be a false proposition, even an obviously false one: would they mean that Antichrist (obviously) doesn't exist YET (because, say, there is no general persecution of Christianity yet)? Or would they actually consider the belief in Antichrist to be a superstition of the common people, which the enlightened elite of the universities obviously rejects?

Looking forward to be freed from my "dubitations" by a relevant answer...