Journal of the History of Philosophy 46 (3):pp. 365-393 (2008)
|Abstract||According to a widespread view in medieval scholarship, theories of supposition are the medieval counterparts of theories of reference, and are thus essentially extensional theories. I propose an alternative interpretation: theories of supposition are theories of properties of terms, but whose aim is to allow for the interpretation of sentences. This holds especially of Ockham’s supposition theory, which is the main object of analysis in this paper. In particular, I argue for my intensional interpretation of his theory on the basis of two key-phrases in his Summa Logicae: ‘denotatur’ and ‘propositio est distinguenda’. Finally, I offer a reconstruction of his theory as a set of instructions to be carried out in order to generate the possible readings of (certain) sentences.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Calvin G. Normore (1997). Material Supposition and the Mental Language of Ockham's Summa Logicae. Topoi 16 (1).
Terence Parsons (1997). Supposition as Quantification Versus Supposition as Global Quantificational Effect. Topoi 16 (1).
Terence Parsons (1994). Anaphoric Pronouns in Very Late Medieval Supposition Theory. Linguistics and Philosophy 17 (5):429 - 445.
Gareth B. Matthews (1997). Two Theories of Supposition? Topoi 16 (1).
David Barnett (2009). The Myth of the Categorical Counterfactual. Philosophical Studies 144 (2):281 - 296.
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 downloads20 ( #61,609 of 550,917 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,425 of 550,917 )
How can I increase my downloads?