Philosophical Review 73 (1):91-99 (1964)
|Abstract||Philotheus boehner's "medieval logic" gives the impression that medieval supposition theory and modern quantification theory agree on their interpretation of particular propositions but differ on their interpretation of universal propositions. Matthews shows that this impression is mistaken: they differ on both particular and universal propositions, And the basic reason is that the medievals quantify over terms while modern logicians quantify over variables. (staff)|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Stephen Chak Tornay (1938). Ockham: Studies and Selections. La Salle, Ill.,The Open Court Publishing Company.
Paul Vincent Spade (1974). Ockham's Rule of Supposition: Two Conflicts in His Theory. Vivarium 12 (1):63-73.
Graham Priest & Stephen Read (1977). The Formalization of Ockham's Theory of Supposition. Mind 86 (341):109-113.
Gareth B. Matthews (1997). Two Theories of Supposition? Topoi 16 (1):35-40.
Marilyn McCord Adams (1976). What Does Ockham Mean by `Supposition'? Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 17 (3):375-391.
Alfred J. Freddoso (1979). O-Propositions and Ockham's Theory of Supposition. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 20 (4):741-750.
Paul Vincent Spade (1997). Walter Burley on the Simple Supposition of Singular Terms. Topoi 16 (1):7-13.
Catarina Dutilh Novaes (2008). An Intensional Interpretation of Ockham's Theory of Supposition. Journal of the History of Philosophy 46 (3):pp. 365-393.
Mikko Yrjönsuuri (1997). Supposition and Truth in Ockham's Mental Language. Topoi 16 (1):15-25.
Catarina Dutilh Novaes (2007). Theory of Supposition Vs. Theory of Fallacies in Ockham. Vivarium 45 (s 2-3):343-359.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads10 ( #114,297 of 722,742 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,247 of 722,742 )
How can I increase my downloads?