By way of conclusion we may add the following three items to A. Maier's and G. Federici-Vescovini's investigations: 1. The Questiones super libris Physicorum in the ms. Cesena, B. Malatestiana S.VIII.5 have been incorrectly attributed to John Buridan. Their real author is Albert of Saxony. 2. The ms. Cesena, B. Malatestiana S.VIII.5 ff. 4ra-4vb contains the Prologue and the tabula questionum of the Questions on De gen. et corr., whereas the ms. Vat. lat. 3097 ff. 103ra-146rb has the (...) complete text. This Prologue and the questions 1 and 3 can also be found in Vat. lat. 2185 ff. 50ra-50vb. This text certainly cannot be considered as another copy of Buridan's well known Questions on De gen. et corr. Neither is it certain that Nicole Oresme is their author, as A. Maier seems to believe. There are indications pointing in the direction of a redaction other than the one known, of Buridan's Questions. In any case this possibility cannot be ruled out by the material that has been presented here. 3. The ms. Cesena, B. Malatestiana S.VIII.5 has at one time had the same owner as the codices Vat. lat. 2159, 2160, 2185 and 3066, and the codices Cesena, B. Malatestiana S.VII.5 and S.VIII.2. This owner was in all probability Bernardus a Campanea of Verona, a physician. (shrink)

This critical edition of Albert of Saxony's _25 Questions on Logic_ treats issues such as the imposition, distribution, signification, and supposition of terms, and the truth and falsity, conversion, contradictoriness and kinds of propositions, together with problems concerning negotiations.

The essay first makes some observations on the general interrelationship between the logical writings of Albert and Buridan. Second, it gives an account of a ‘semantic logical model’ for analyzing complex subject terms in some basic categorical propositions which is defended by Albert of Saxony, and briefly recounts Buridan's criticisms of that model. Finally, the essay maintains that the Albertian model is typically compatible with, and a further development of, what is called by a late-fourteenth century anonymous (...) scholar ‘the English-Rule’ but the ‘determinable/determinate’ grammatical model defended by Buridan is not. (shrink)

Albert of Saxony, master of Arts at Paris from 1351 until 1361/62, has left two commentaries on the Physics of Aristotle. Since he was well aware of the tradition, his writings may serve for an analysis of the transmision of ideas from the ancient and Arabic philosophers into the fourteenth century. In this paper, this is exemplified by the problems of place and space, especially by those of the definition of place and of the immobility of place, of (...) natural place and of the location of the last and outermost sphere. As a result, four modes emerge how an author of the fourteenth century may have been influenced by tradition. Ancient Greek or Pre-Socratic philosophers were mainly known through Aristotle, and thus their opinions were mostly refuted; the same holds true for later ancient or Arabic authors known through the commentaries of Averroes; the influence of the authors of the thirteenth century was present though their texts may not have been directly consulted; and, finally, the contemporary authors were known, but nearly never quoted. Thus, though there was a line of tradition from Aristotle into the fourteenth century, there was also room for proper solutions. (shrink)

Albert of Saxony was a major figure in fourteenth-century logic—one of the most creative and productive periods in the history of logic. He has, however, always been overshadowed by the towering figures of William Ockham and John Buridan, and hence his works are neither edited nor studied as much as they deserve.

Cet article présente la première édition critique des Questions sur les Météorologiques d’Albert de Saxe. L’édition, qui couvre le premier et le début du deuxième livre des Questions, est précédée par une introduction historique et philologique. La première partie de cet article étudie les Questions d’Albert de Saxe dans leurs relations avec d’autres Questions sur les Météorologiques rédigées par des maîtres parisiens du xiv e siècle. La deuxième partie contient les descriptions des manuscrits qui transmettent le texte d’ (...) class='Hi'>Albert et étudie leurs rapports. (shrink)

Albert of Saxony is now recognized as one of the most significant fourteenth-century philosophers—as evidenced, for example, by the entry dedicated to him in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Nevertheless, it is fair to say that his reputation is still somewhat overshadowed by the two giants of fourteenth-century nominalism, William of Ockham and John Buridan. Albert's work is often discussed in the context of more extensive analyses of these two authors, which might be seen as suggesting that (...) the significance of his views is secondary. More importantly, the idea that he was not an original thinker but merely a "follower" of Ockham or Buridan is still widespread.The translation into English of Albert's .. (shrink)

I argue in the essay that the fourteenth-century logicians William Heytesbury and Albert of Saxony developed an argument I call the Socrates-Minus Argument. Their analysis and rejection of it indicates a direction towards a pragmatic resolution to the contemporary Descartes-Minus Argument. Their resolution is similar to the view adopted today by Peter van Inwagen, namely, that “arbitrary undetached parts of physical objects,” like 'all of Socrates except his finger' simply do not exist. I conclude the fourteenth-century approach does (...) not run afoul of Leibniz's law of the Indiscernibility of Identicals, but utilizes a form of Leibniz's Identity of Indiscernibles that, when combined with a weak “anthropic principle,” yield a pragmatic resolution to the Descartes-Minus Argument. (shrink)

The essay develops two major arguments. First, if John Buridan's 'first argument' for the reintroduction of natural supposition is only that the "eternal truth" of a scientific proposition is preserved because subject terms in scientific propositions supposit for all the term's past, present, and future significata indifferently; then Albert of Saxony thinks it is simply ineffective. Only the 'second argument', i.e. the argument for the existence of an 'atemporal copula', adequately performs this task; but is rejected by (...) class='Hi'>Albert. Second, later fourteenth-century criticisms of Buridan's natural supposition, given in certain Notabilia from the anonymous author in, Paris, BnF, lat. 14.716, ff. 40va-41rb, are nothing but an interpolated hodge-podge of criticisms given earlier in the century against various views of Buridan's by Albert of Saxony. It is this fact that makes Albert the real source of late fourteenth-century criticisms of Buridan's view of natural supposition. (shrink)

In this essay I argue that Albert would reject the need for a separate fourth mode of common personal supposition, and that his view of merely confused supposition has not been fully explicated by modern scholars. I first examine the various examples of conjunct descent given by modern scholars from his Perutilis logica , and show that Albert clearly adopts it in resolving the sophistic examples involved. Second, I explicate the view of merely confused supposition that Albert (...) defends in his Sophismata , and then attempt to answer the question: which view of merely confused supposition was his final view, the view articulated in the Perutilis logica or the view in the Sophismata ? I conclude that based upon his Sophismata view of merely confused supposition, Albert came to realize the logical strength his revised theory of personal supposition afforded, and consequently, that he is one of the earliest 14th-century logicians to adopt conjunct terminal descent to resolve various sophisms, a move which gave his theory of personal supposition a logical symmetry having two sorts of propositional descents to singulars, and two sorts of terminal descents to singulars. (shrink)

In the essay I first argue that Albert ofSaxony's defense of perceptual ``directrealism'' is in fact a forerunner of contemporaryforms of ``process reliabilist''epistemologies. Second, I argue that Albert's defenseof perceptual direct realism has aninteresting consequence for his philosophy oflanguage. His semantic notion of `naturalsignification' does not require any semanticintermediary entity called a `concept' or`description', to function as the directsignificatum of written or spoken termsfor them to designate perceptual objects. AlthoughAlbert is inspired by Ockham's mentalact theory, I conclude that (...) Albert seemsto be striking out in a very new direction. (shrink)

The essay casts doubt upon the view that Albert was criticizing or was dependent upon Thomas Manlevelt's logico-philosophical views, and counter argues that it is in fact Manlevelt who knows and cites Albert's views in his recently edited Porphyrian Questions, rather than vice versa. The argument for this conclusion proceeds in two stages. First, it is argued that the brief comment Albert makes about ‘conjunct descent’ in treating the definition of merely confused supposition his Perutilis Logica does (...) not conclusively show that Albert is criticizing the logico-philosophical view of Thomas Manlevelt, as the notion of ‘conjunct descent’ is already present in the work of Heytesbury. Hence, Albert may have been referring to him, since the unique contribution of Thomas Manlevelt to the definition of merely confused personal supposition appears completely unknown to Albert. Second, it is argued that the views in the Porphyrian Questions on the nature of the continuum, quantity, and disposi.. (shrink)

_ Source: _Volume 56, Issue 3-4, pp 272 - 291 This paper offers an analysis of Marsilius of Inghen’s definition of _consequentia_ and of his treatment of logical validity as presented in the first book of his treatise on _Consequentiae_. Comparing Marsilius of Inghen’s, John Buridan’s, and Albert of Saxony’s theories, the author argues that Marsilius’ account is based on a conception of consequence as a relation of entailment among propositions rather than as a type of conditional sentence (...) and, thus, moves the discussion away from the sentential level. Therefore, Marsilius’ theory represents an original and important contribution to fourteenth-century discussions on consequences. (shrink)

Aristotelian cosmology implies the plurality of celestial motion for the process of generation and corruption in the sublunar world. In order to investigate the structure of the cosmos and the degree of dependence of the sublunar on the supralunar region, medieval Latin commentators on Aristotle explored the consequences of the cessation of celestial motion. This paper analyses the position of some philosophers of the fourteenth-century Parisian school, namely Nicole Oresme, John Buridan and Albert of Saxony.

This paper offers an analysis of a hitherto neglected text on insoluble propositions dating from the late XiVth century and puts it into perspective within the context of the contemporary debate concerning semantic paradoxes. The author of the text is the italian logician Peter of Mantua (d. 1399/1400). The treatise is relevant both from a theoretical and from a historical standpoint. By appealing to a distinction between two senses in which propositions are said to be true, it offers an unusual (...) solution to the paradox, but in a traditional spirit that contrasts a number of trends prevailing in the XiVth century. It also counts as a remarkable piece of evidence for the reconstruction of the reception of English logic in italy, as it is inspired by the views of John Wyclif. Three approaches addressing the Liar paradox (Albert of Saxony, William Heytesbury and a version of strong restrictionism) are first criticised by Peter of Mantua, before he presents his own alternative solution. The latter seems to have a prima facie intuitive justification, but is in fact acceptable only on a very restricted understanding, since its generalisation is subject to the so-called revenge problem. (shrink)

This paper inquires into how the new techniques of 14th-century physics, especially the doctrines of the maxima and minima of powers and the latitudes of forms, were applied to the issue of propagation of light. The focus is on several Prague disputed questions, originating between 1377 and 1409, dealing with whether illumination has infinite or finite reach and whether illumination’s intensity remains constant (uniformis) or is rather uniformly decreasing (uniformiter difformis). These questions are contextualised through examination of Oxford, Paris, and (...) Prague sources of the era (John Dumbleton, John Buridan, Nicole Oresme, Albert of Saxony, Henry of Langenstein, John of Holland) to construct a fresh survey of late medieval theories of light. Along the way, the discovery of a hitherto unknown Prague disputation from the 1370s is announced, and new evidence for the dating and Central European dissemination of Jacobus de Sancto Martino’s De latitudinibus formarum and Nicole Oresme’s Questiones super Geometriam is uncovered. (shrink)

In 1922, Aleksander Birkenmajer presented an unknown work of Albert of Saxony, Quaestiones de sphaera, in a manuscript at the Dominicans in Vienna. In 1989, Jürgen Sarnowsky found a second manuscript in Rome. This paper presents a third complete manuscript (BNE Madrid) and an incomplete one (Amploniana Erfurt) of this work. Furthermore, it is argued that an anonymous expositio of Sacrobosco’s treatise can be ascribed to Albert of Saxony. Finally, an anonymous commentary on Albert’s questions (...) in two manuscripts (Munich, Salzburg) is presented. The possibility that this commentary stems from the famous Viennese master John of Gmunden (d. 1442) is considered, but no decisive result could be achieved yet. In an appendix, a complete list of the titles of Albert’s questions is added. (shrink)

Tout au long de la période médiévale, la logique est un instrument privilégié d'acquisition et d'exposition des autres savoirs. Dans cet article, on se propose d'évaluer la portée de son investissement dans le champ de la philosophie naturelle, à partir d'un exemple: celui d'Albert de Saxe . A travers l'étude de la quantité et du mouvement, on voit se mettre en place une approche originale du corps naturel. All along the Medieval period, logic is an instrument for acquisition and (...) exposition of the other fiels of knowing. In this article is proposed an evaluation of the results of its use in natural philosophy, through an example: that of Albert of Saxony . By studing quantity and mouvement, we can see the emergence of an original approach of the natural body. (shrink)

Albert of Saxony was one of the great logicians of the Middle Ages, on a par with William Ockham and John Buridan. The Twenty-Five Disputed Questions on Logic treat of central issues in logic, both then and now, such as the nature of meaning, of universals, of truth, and of tense and modality; and the quality and quantity of propositions, the role of negation, and the relations of contradiction and equivalence between them. Dr. Fitzgerald has studied Albert's (...) work extensively, and previously edited the Twenty-Five Disputed Questions from the original manuscripts. This translation makes available for the first time in English this careful and exemplary examination of logical notions by an outstanding medieval thinker.-Stephen Read, University of St. Andrews. (shrink)

After a brief sketch of the state of Buridan studies, this review article examines the recent study, by Benoît Patar, of a commentary on Aristotle’s Physics that is generally attributed to Albert of Saxony, but which Patar believes to have been authored by John Buridan (the text is preserved in the manuscript Bruges, Stadsbibliotheek 477, fols. 60va–163vb, and was edited by Patar himself in 1999). Patar is utterly convinced that the Bruges Quaestiones represent Buridan’s prima lectura, that is, (...) his first course of lectures on the Physics, which preceded the two other redactions that are traditionally attributed to him. However, there is no textual evidence in support of this assumption, but only speculative circumstantial evidence. The article therefore rejects Patar’s thesis as highly problematic. (shrink)

These selections from Le système du monde, the classic ten-volume history of the physical sciences written by the great French physicist Pierre Duhem (1861-1916), focus on cosmology, Duhem's greatest interest. By reconsidering the work of such Arab and Christian scholars as Averroes, Avicenna, Gregory of Rimini, Albert of Saxony, Nicole Oresme, Duns Scotus, and William of Occam, Duhem demonstrated the sophistication of medieval science and cosmology.

This article contains a case study of some innovative early fourteenth-century conceptions of the temporal structure of substantial change. An important tenet of thirteenth-century scholastic hylomorphism is that substantial change is an instantaneous process. In contrast, three early fourteenth-century Aristotelian commentators, first Walter Burley and then John Buridan and Albert of Saxony, progressively develop a view on which substantial change is linked to temporal duration. This process culminated, in Buridan and Albert of Saxony, with the explicit (...) recognition of the temporally extended nature of some (if not most) instances of substantial change. This article sheds light on this neglected episode in the history of late medieval hylomorphism taking as its point of departure these commentators’ discussions of the issue of minima naturalia, i.e., the issue of the lowest possible limit of any division of substantial forms coming about through the potentially infinite division of the matter they inform. In short: is there a piece of matter so small that no substantial form can possibly inhere in it? (shrink)

These selections from _Le système du monde_, the classic ten-volume history of the physical sciences written by the great French physicist Pierre Duhem, focus on cosmology, Duhem's greatest interest. By reconsidering the work of such Arab and Christian scholars as Averroes, Avicenna, Gregory of Rimini, Albert of Saxony, Nicole Oresme, Duns Scotus, and William of Occam, Duhem demonstrated the sophistication of medieval science and cosmology.

In his commentary on Aristotle’s Physics, John Buridan (c. 1300–1361) presents his well-known rejection of final causality. The main problem he sees with it is that it requires the cause to exist before the effect. Despite this, he retains the terminology of ends. This has led to some difficulty interpreting Buridan’s view. In this article, I argue that one should not misunderstand Buridan’s terminology and think that he still retains some use or explanatory function for final causality in nature. To (...) make this point, I look first at Buridan’s text, but then also at three thinkers who discuss Buridan’s view in detail: Albert of Saxony (d. 1390), Paul of Venice (d. 1429), and Luis Coronel (d. 1531). They all have a very clear idea of what Buridan’s view was and understand that it entails a rejection of final causality, but they also all preserve his distinctive terminology. Paul of Venice especially discusses and criticizes Buridan’s view in detail. Besides confirming my interpretation of the rejection of final causality, this study also shows that the view was extremely influential well into the sixteenth century and attributed to Buridan throughout two centuries. (shrink)

The medieval Islamic solutions to the liar paradox can be categorized into three different families. According to the solutions of the first family, the liar sentences are not well-formed truth-apt sentences. The solutions of the second family are based on a violation of the classical principles of logic (e.g. the principle of non-contradiction). Finally, the solutions of the third family render the liar sentences as simply false without any contradiction. In the Islamic tradition, almost all the well-known solutions of the (...) third family are inspired by the solution proposed by At_īr al-Dīn al-Abharī (d. 1265). Providing a logical analysis of his discussion of the liar paradox, I show that his solution is based on a conception of truth according to which every sentence signifies, usually among other things, its own truth. This makes Abharī’s solution of the same spirit as certain solutions that were later developed in the Latin tradition, in particular by John Buridan (d. 1358) and Albert of Saxony (d. 1390). (shrink)

In this book, a dozen distinguished scholars in the field of the history of philosophy and science investigate aspects of the commentary tradition on Aristotle's De generatione et corruptione, one of the least studied among Aristotle's treatises in natural philosophy. Many famous thinkers such as Johannes Philoponus, Albert the Great, Thomas Aquinas, John Buridan, Nicole Oresme, Francesco Piccolomini, Jacopo Zabarella, and Galileo Galilei wrote commentaries on it. The distinctive feature of the present book is that it approaches this commentary (...) tradition as a coherent whole, thereby ignoring the usual historiographical distinctions between the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, and the seventeenth century. Frans de Haas and Henk Kubbinga address the Greek commentary tradition on De generatione et corruptione. Simone van Riet's essay is devoted to the Latin version of Avicenna's third treatise of his Kitab al Shifa, which discusses Aristotle's De generatione et corruptione. James Otte traces the intricate history of the identification of the Latin translator of Aristotle's treatise as Burgundio of Pisa. The essay by John Murdoch explores the fortuna of atomistic arguments in the Latin commentary tradition. Jurgen Sarnowsky, Henk Braakhuis, and Stefano Caroti examine various themes in the commentaries that were produced by the so-called Buridan School, that is, John Buridan, Albert of Saxony, Nicholas Oresme, and Marsilius of Inghen. The article by Silvia Donati focuses on the influential commentary by the Expositor, Giles of Rome. The final essay, written by Anita Guerrini, tackles Robert Boyle's attitude in the Origin of Forms and Qualities toward such Aristotelian key concepts as forms, matter, qualities, and mixture. These essays are prefaced by a preliminary survey by Hans Thijssen of Aristotle's text, its Latin translations and its Greek, Arabic and Latin commentaries. (shrink)

How coherent is Descartes' conception of vacuum in the Principles? Descartes' arguments attacking the possibility of vacuum are difficult to read and to understand because they reply to several distinct threads of discussion. I separate two strands that have received little careful attention: the scholastic topic of annihilation of space, particularly represented in Albert of Saxony, and the physical arguments concerning vacuum in Galileo that are also continued after the publication of the Principles in Pascal. The distinctness of (...) the two sorts of opponent accounts for Descartes' odd habit of summarily declaring vacuum "contradictory" in some contexts, while providing extended conceptual and physical arguments meant to establish its "impossibility" in others. In several passages late in the Principles, Descartes also considers the physical ramifications of "empty space," including a discussion of the appearance of a star, were an empty space situated at the center of the celestial vortex. I argue that the discussion allows for a sensible conception of space with extension, but without matter, quite adequate to the physical discussions of vacuum among Descartes' contemporaries. (shrink)

Medieval logicians advanced far beyond the logic of Aristotle, and this book shows how far that advance took them in two central areas. Broadie focuses upon the work of some of the great figures of the fourteenth century, including Walter Burley, William Ockham, John Buridan, Albert of Saxony, and Paul of Venice, and deals with their theories of truth conditions and validity conditions. He reveals how much of what seems characteristically twentieth-century logic was familiar long ago. Broadie has (...) extensively revised his text for this second edition, while preserving the character of the first. There are now fuller accounts of supposition, of intentional contexts, and of medieval syllogistic, and the conclusion has been substantially expanded. (shrink)

The first book devoted to a systematic investigation of the logic of the high Middle Ages, this work demonstrates the magnitude of the achievement of medieval logicians. Broadie focuses on the work of some of the great figures of the 14th century, including Walter Burley, William Ockham, John Buridan, Albert of Saxony, and Paul of Venice, and analyzes their theories of truth conditions and valid conditions. Among the topics considered are the medieval exposition of the quantifier shift fallacy, (...) and the rules of valid inference devised to deal with arguments whose premises are not all present-tensed. Revealing how much of what seems characteristically 20th-century logic was actually familiar long ago, Broadie here demonstrates how medieval logic may yet contribute to the solution of 20th-century problems. (shrink)

This article presents for the first time complete descriptions of four codices of the Austrian National Library at Vienna, viz. 1617, 5237, 5248 and 5377. Cod. 1617 is a fragment of Henry Totting of Oyta’s 13 Quaestiones Sententiarum, comprising part of q.7 and qq.8-13 in 198 ff.. The other three manuscripts contain mainly logical texts, e.g., Albert of Saxony’s Sophismata in Cods. 5237 and 5377, his Insolubilia in Cod. 5248, and his Quaestiones Posteriorum in Cod. 5377; 11 of (...) the 12 Tractatus by Peter of Spain in Cod. 5248; an apparently unnoticed copy of Porphyry’s Isagoge translated by Boethius and treatises by Thomas Manlevelt, Richard Billingham and John of Holland along with several anonymous texts in Cod. 5248; a fragment of John Buridan’s Quaestiones breves veteris artis in Cod. 5377. The latter codex has also two interesting sets of anonymous Quaestiones quodlibetales and an erratic leaf with questions on Peri heremeias. Charters or charter-like texts are to be found in Cods. 1617 and 5248 , which may be of value for the prosopography of the fourteenth century. (shrink)

From the author of Quantum Mechanics and Experience, a hugely influential book that challenged key assertions by Niels Bohr and other founders of quantum mechanics, A Guess at the Riddle provides a major metaphysical overhaul of one of physics' most intractable problems-the quest to bridge quantum and classical physics in order to understand the nature of reality.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Journal of the History of Philosophy 39.4 (2001) 587-589 [Access article in PDF] Maarten J. F. M. Hoenen and Paul J. J. M. Bakker, editors. Philosophie und Theologie des ausgehenden Mittelalters: Marsilius von Inghen und das Denken seiner Zeit. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Pp. x + 322. Cloth, $98.00. Albert of Saxony, Nicholas Oresme, and Marsilius of Inghen were among the fourteenth-century Parisian masters of arts who were (...) influenced by Buridan's philosophy and, while continuing as master of arts, simultaneously pursued a degree in theology. Marsilius, born around 1340, was a very popular master in Paris from 1362. In 1366 he began the study of theology. He did not finish his theological studies in Paris, but later at the new university of Heidelberg (1393-4), where he held a chair of theology until his death in 1396.Marsilius wrote a number of treatises on logic, commentaries on Aristotle's works, commentaries on the Bible, a commentary on the Sentences and some tracts on ecclesiastical politics. His works were widely read and he was regarded as a representative of the via moderna and nominalist philosophy in the fifteenth century. Several scholars are currently studying and editing Marsilius's works. The collection of essays Philosophy and Theology in late Middle Ages, edited by Hoenen and Bakker, is a report on this ongoing work. It has been preceded by two similar research reports, Marsilius of Inghen, edited by H. Braakhuis and M. Hoenen (1992), and Marsilius von Inghen, Werk und Wirkung, edited by S. Wielgus (1993). Most of the articles in the present volume deal with special historical and doxographical questions. In this sense the title of the book is somewhat misleading, though the contributions themselves are of high scholarly quality and contain lots of interesting historical details and new research results.The first part involves four papers on late medieval conceptions of the relationship between philosophy and theology. Hoenen describes the increasing separation of theology from logic and philosophy as the context of Marsilius's theological work, using as examples his treatment of the doctrines of divine foreknowledge and creation from nothing. Sigrid Müller argues that those fourteenth-century theologians who were called representatives of nominalistic theology in the fifteenth century, such as William [End Page 587] of Ockham, Gregory of Rimini, and Marsilius Inghen, had a similar view of the relationship between language and reality, though their theological sources and solutions to particular questions varied. Manfred Schulze sheds light on Marsilius's theology by comparing his views on predestination, grace, and the freedom of the will with those of Gregory of Rimini and Gabriel Biel. These papers are preceded by William Courtenay's historically illuminating study of the teachers of theology in Paris during 1362-77.The papers on the relationship between philosophy and theology are learned and useful but somewhat general. What does it mean that philosophy and theology were increasingly separated by authors who after all were keen to make logical and semantic distinctions? Further light might have been shed on this question by concentrating more on the widely discussed controversies about logic and the Trinity which have recently been considered by many scholars. One position was to criticize the special logic of faith and to show that the alleged logical problems in theological doctrines are mainly based on incorrect interpretations of revealed truths. Showing this demanded discussions of logic and semantics in theology, as can also be seen in question nine of the first book of Marsilius of Inghen's Questions on the Sentences.The second part involves papers on specific themes in the works of Marsilius and attempts to identify some anonymous works. Henk Braakhuis deals with Marsilius's view on the question of the different senses of a proposition, which was mentioned in the famous prohibition statute of the Faculty of Arts in Paris in 1340 and was found interesting in many contexts, one of them being Aristotle's theory of sophistic refutations. Braakhuis's paper, which is a valuable contribution to the history of logic, contains... (shrink)

The use of the circle to signify wine was common medieval logicians. The author of this article studies the true sense in which those masters used it, making use of literature and the work of great logicians, such as Albert of Saxony and William of Ockham, to do so.

This essay examines Descartes's conception of vacuum in the World and the Principles, relating that conception specifically to the natural philosophy of Galileo and Albert of Saxony. It is argued that understanding the historical context helps to explain Descartes's different attitudes toward the impossibility of vacua.

We introduce a new understanding of deontic modals that we callobligations as weakest permissions. We argue for its philosophical plausibility, study its expressive power in neighborhood models, provide a complete Hilbert-style axiom system for it and show that it can be extended and applied to practical norms in decision and game theory.

I present some ideas from medieval thinkers concerning sentences which subject term has no reference and as kif those sentences can admit truth values. I present the ideas of William of Ockham, Jean Buridan and Albert of Saxony, from the nominalist side, and Vicente Ferrer exposing the moderate realism. Then we present two New Spain thinkers, Alonso de la Veracruz and Tomas de Mercado.

In this paper we study proofs of some general forms of the Second Incompleteness Theorem. These forms conform to the Feferman format, where the proof predicate is fixed and the representation of the set of axioms varies. We extend the Feferman framework in one important point: we allow the interpretation of number theory to vary.