Abstract

Why did Ockham subscribe to a theory of mental language and not just to some form of intentional realism? This paper attempts to answer this question by reconstructing the crucial elements of this theory in its historical context and by analyzing Ockham's motivation for developing this theory. First, it will be argued that 'mere' intentional realism is not able to explain the productivity and systematicity of our thinking. Second, it will be shown that Ockham, proceeding like J. Fodor in contemporary debates, tried to overcome these shortcomings by insisting on the syntactic dimension of our thinking. Third, it will be pointed out that Ockham's entire argumentation is based upon some implicit rationalist assumptions.