Mario Mignucci

Biographic Data

ID5639773
NAMEMario Mignucci
GIVEN NAMESMario
FAMILY NAMEMignucci
SIGNATUREMIGNUCCI M
AFFILIATIONS1University of Padua
VERIFIEDNo
TOTAL WORKS8
TOTAL CITATIONS7
AUTHOR COUNT8
EDITOR COUNT0
FIRST PUBLICATION YEAR1986
LATEST PUBLICATION YEAR2007
H-INDEX2

  • Aristotle on the Existential Import of Propositions

    Mario MignucciARTICLEPhronesis2007

  • Parts, Quantification and Aristotelian Predication

    Mario Mignucci, Sherwood J B SugdenARTICLEThe Monist2000

    Journal Article Parts, Quantification and Aristotelian Predication Get access Mario Mignucci Mario Mignucci King's College, London Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic PubMed Google Scholar The Monist, Volume 83, Issue 1, 1 January 2000, Pages 3–21, https://doi.org/10.5840/monist20008311 Published: 16 December 2014

  • The Liar Paradox and the Stoics

    Mario MignucciCHAPTERTopics in stoic philosophy1999

    The external history of the ancient versions of the Liar paradox is easily traced. We know that it was probably invented by Eubulides,1 and a version of it may have been known by Aristotle.2 A development of Aristotle’s view can be found in the anonymous commentary on the Sophistical Refutations traditionally ascribed to Alexander of Aphrodisias.3 But it is surely Chrysippus the philosopher who dedicated more efforts in ancient times to solve the…

  • Logic

    Open AccessJonathan Barnes, Susanne Bobzien et al.CHAPTERThe Cambridge history of…1999

    Late antiquity learned two logics: categorical syllogistic and hypothetical syllogistic. Categorical syllogistic studies categorical arguments. An argument is categorical if all its components (its premisses and its conclusion) are categorical propositions. A proposition is categorical if it 'says one thing of one thing' – or better, if it is simple in the sense of not containing two or more propositions as components. Hypothetical syllogistic st…

  • Ammonius on Future Contingent Propositions

    Mario MignucciCHAPTERRationality in Greek thought1996

    Aristotle‘s De interpretatione chapter 9 is a crucial text well known to scholars, and I would not like to be trapped in a discussion of its complexities. My aim is more modest and commensurate with my capacities: to consider, on its own, Ammonius’ solution to the problem of future contingent propositions, without feeling commit ted to evaluate his view as an interpretation of Aristotle. The problems raised by future contingent propositions are m…

  • XII—The Stoic Analysis of the Sorites

    Mario MignucciARTICLEProceedings of the Aristotelian…1993Cited by: 5

    Journal Article XII—The Stoic Analysis of the Sorites Get access Mario Mignucci Mario Mignucci Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Volume 93, Issue 1, 1 June 1993, Pages 231–246, https://doi.org/10.1093/aristotelian/93.1.231 Published: 09 September 2015

  • Plato’s “Third Man” Arguments in the Parmenides

    Mario MignucciARTICLEArchiv für Geschichte der…1990

    Examen de la structure de l'argument du troisieme homme chez Platon, dans le « Parmenide ». L'A. compare la structure de l'argument dans Parm. 132 A7-B2 et Parm. 132C12-133A7. (Il appelle l'argument dans ce deuxieme passage « argument de ressemblance ».) L'A. discute la place exacte de ces deux arguments dans la critique platonicienne de la theorie des formes

  • Aristotle's Definitions of Relatives in Cat. 7

    Mario MignucciARTICLEPhronesis1986Cited by: 2References: 1

    The important point for the interpretation of these passages is to establish t6 [iEi0ov and To 6LUaXWTLOv refer to, since we have to count as relatives depends on this question. An obvious answer to it is to take To ttEitov and lo btnkaOLov as meaning what is and what is double, as Ackrill in his translation suggests. Then the sense of the first example given in (B) would be that an object a which is larger than an object b is called it is, i.e. …