I know that the parallel between ‛X exists/doesn’t exist’ and ‛p is true/false’ is a familiar one, but I can’t find a focused discussion of it in the literature — J

Truthmaker theory identifies truth as a relation between what exists (a truthmaker) and a proposition. See: D. M. Armstrong's "Truth and Truthmakers".

Curious to know if K's interpretation [of Aristotle] is mainstream or outlier/revisionist. — J

The difficulty, which also strikes me as a red flag, is that Kimhi provides no bibliography. Therefore it probably goes without saying that he has no clear sources to corroborate his interpretations of Aristotle. I don't see much Aristotelian scholarship being appealed to.

And a weakness is that Kimhi completely ignores the Medieval period. One cannot oppose Frege without an alternative, and the most basic Aristotelian alternative to Frege is the Medieval development of Aristotle. Kimhi may be committing the faux pas of providing a critique without any alternative.

Thank you. I've been trying to get ahold of a reasonably priced copy of the Armstrong book. Now I'll try harder.

The lack of references and biblio is indeed annoying. You have to search through the footnotes. The ones for Greek scholarship (mostly re Aristotle) that I can find in the text are: Charles Kahn (mainstream, right?); Jennifer Hornsby; Jonathan Beere; Michel Crubellier; Lukasiewicz (also mainstream?); Anscombe (not sure how she's regarded now); C.W.A. Whitaker; Benjamin Morison; Walter Leszl; John McDowell; Edward Lee; and I may have missed some. So I think the scholarship is there (minus the Medievals, as you point out), it's just hard to get an overall picture of what Kimhi is relying on.

Re Beere, Kimhi does say, "Both my usage and my understanding of the Aristotelian terminology of capacity and activity are informed by Jonathan Beere's illuminating study, Doing and Being (OUP, 2009)." Do you know Beere's work? Is Kimhi wise to rely on it?

The Kindle version is $21.

Thank you. I know it's ridiculous in 2024 but I'm a child of the previous century and I need paper pages and lead pencils in order to think properly! :smile:

You make me feel like a kid! Well, I guess I am - I'm only 70.

The ones for Greek scholarship (mostly re Aristotle) that I can find in the text are: Charles Kahn (mainstream, right?); Jennifer Hornsby; Jonathan Beere; Michel Crubellier; Lukasiewicz (also mainstream?); Anscombe (not sure how she's regarded now); C.W.A. Whitaker; Benjamin Morison; Walter Leszl; John McDowell; Edward Lee; and I may have missed some. So I think the scholarship is there (minus the Medievals, as you point out), it's just hard to get an overall picture of what Kimhi is relying on. — J

Right, good points. And Kimhi interacts with some of these scholars a great deal, some hardly at all.

Re Beere, Kimhi does say, "Both my usage and my understanding of the Aristotelian terminology of capacity and activity are informed by Jonathan Beere's illuminating study, Doing and Being (OUP, 2009)." Do you know Beere's work? Is Kimhi wise to rely on it? — J

I have never heard of him, but I haven't kept up with Aristotelian scholarship, and what I read is in large part limited to what I am able to access. OUP is of course a good press.

Kimhi does a fair job of noting the ways that he is interacting with the scholars he cites. I think whether his view agrees with the received view depends on the topic at hand. One reason I mention the Medievals is because Aristotle's works are underdeveloped or underdetermined on many of these later issues, and they can therefore be taken and run with in different directions.

Well, as a Relativist, you are "relatively" young then!

Thanks. As I mentioned earlier, at some point I want to quote a few passages from Kimhi interpreting Aristotle and see if you, @Count Timothy von Icarus, and others who know this field agree with him.

- At this point I am guessing that Kimhi is an Aristotelian Wittgenstenian. As I said elsewhere, his index has about 50% more references to Wittgenstein than Aristotle. This will doubtless shape his interpretation of Aristotle. I find that Aristotelians enjoy sometimes engaging Wittgenstein, and although they are often favorable towards him it is also not uncommon to find disagreement. Kimhi seems to interpret each in favor of the other.

Let me add that I think Hanna’s piece is ill-considered and shallow, full of careless reading, and a terrible place to start if you’re interested in Kimhi. — J

That was my feeling also. Although I haven't read Kimhi yet, and added his Thinking and Being high on my reading list alongside Rödl's Self-Consciousness and Objectivity (2018), I've read Rödl's first two books — Self-Consciousness (2007), and Categories of the Temporal (2012 for the English translation) — and greatly enjoyed them. Kimhi's treatment of assertions that self-ascribe beliefs reminded me of Rödl's construal of them as acts of knowledge from spontaneity. When I Googled this I found an unpublished review essay by Owen Boynton that covers and compares both Kinhi's and Rödl's recent books. His review seems much better than Hanna's.

I might not contribute further to this thread before I've read some Kimhi. I just want to add that I found the title of the first chapter of his book hilarious: "The Life of p"

Fantastic, I'll read the Boynton immediately, thanks. It will be good to have an introduction to Rodl as well -- I don't know his work apart from the odd reference.

I liked "Life of p" too but fair warning, it's the only joke in the book.