@ARTICLE{Jadacki_Jacek_„Liar”,
 author={Jadacki, Jacek},
 number={No 1},
 pages={5-45},
 journal={Przegląd Filozoficzny. Nowa Seria},
 howpublished={online},
 publisher={Komitet Nauk Filozoficznych PAN},
 publisher={Wydział Filozofii Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego},
 abstract={There are three traditional formulations of the liar’s antinomy: (1) (A) I lie. (B) If A, then I do not lie. (2) (C) Proposition C is false. (D) If C is false, then C is true. (3) (E) I lie. (F) If E is false, then not‑E is true. The explanation for the alleged antinomiality of these formulations is as follows: Ad (1). A – if it were to be a proposition – it should have the form: I lie (when I say) that p (where ‘p’ is a proposition). Then B should have the form: If I lie (when I say) that p, then I do not lie (when I say) that I do not lie (when I say) that p. Ad (2). C – if it were to be a proposition – it should not contain free variables. Ad (3). F, like A – if it were to be a proposition – it should have the form: I lie (when I say) that p. In the paper, I offer a detailed analysis and careful reconstruction of these versions of antinomial reasoning – using logical tools and taking into account the available historical corpus, especially from the Lvov‑Warsaw School.},
 title={„Liar” at the Lvov‑Warsaw School},
 type={Artykuł},
 URL={http://ochroma.man.poznan.pl/Content/134658/2024-01-PFIL-01.pdf},
 doi={10.24425/pfns.2024.150951},
 keywords={antinomy of the liar, Aristotle’s version, Cicero’s version, Eubulides’ version, Savonarola’s version, Lvov‑Warsaw School},
}