The semantics of propositions

doi:10.1017/CHOL9780521226059.012

10 - The semantics of propositions

from IV - Logic in the high middle ages: semantic theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 March 2008

Edited by

Jan Pinborg and

Get access

Summary

Terms and propositions

Separate treatments of the semantics of terms and the semantics of propositions are justified by the Aristotelian distinction between two levels of speech and thought (Categories 1a16, 2a4; De interpretatione 16a10): the level of names and verbs and the thoughts corresponding to them, which do not yet involve any combination (symplokē, complexio) that makes the notions of truth and falsity applicable, and the level of expressions and thoughts formed by a kind of combination that has to do with truth and falsity. Just as Aristotle had made the applicability of the notions of truth and falsity the criterion for the relevant kind of combination, the medieval semantics of complex units of speech and thought (complexa) concentrated on sentences that are used for making statements and are thus either true or false – the sort of sentences with which logic is primarily concerned. A combination of words that is used to make known something that is either true or false (oratio verum falsumve significans) was called an enuntiatio or propositio. The Latin word ‘propositio’ practically always designates a declarative sentence; accordingly, in this chapter ‘proposition’ is used in this medieval sense and never in the modern sense of that which is expressed by a declarative sentence. Most medievals were aware of a distinction between a complexio in the sense of mere predication, without any assertive (or other) force, and a complexio which is accompanied by an act of judging or asserting that it is so.

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy
From the Rediscovery of Aristotle to the Disintegration of Scholasticism, 1100–1600
, pp. 197 - 210

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CHOL9780521226059.012 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Albert, Saxony (1497b). Quaestiones super Analytica posteriora, VeniceGoogle Scholar

Augustine, (1845a). In johannis evangelium tractatus, PL 35Google Scholar

Boethius, (1978). Boethius's De topicis differentiis, tr. Stump, Eleonore, with introduction, commentary, and supplementary essays, Cornell University PressGoogle Scholar

Bonaventure, (1882-1902a). Commentarius in quattuor libros Sententiarum Petri Lomhardi (Operaomnia, I-IV),Collegium S. BonaventuraeGoogle Scholar

Bonaventure, (1882–1902). Opera omnia (10 vols.). Collegium S. BonaventuraeGoogle Scholar

Chenu, M.-D. (1934). ‘Contribution á l'histoire du traité de la foi. Commentaire historique de IIa IIae q. 1, a. 2’ in Mélanges Thomistes, publicés par les Dominicains de la province de France à I'occasion du VIe centenaire de la canonisation de Saint Thomas d'Aquin (18 juillet 1323), Bibliothèque Thomiste III, Le Saulchoir, 1923, 2e édition, J. Vrin, 1934Google Scholar

Courtenay, William J. (1971). ‘A revised text of Robert Holcot's quodlibetal dispute on whether God is able to know more than he knows’, Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 53:.CrossRef Google Scholar

Eckermann, Willigis (1972). Der Physikkomentar Hugolins von Orvieto OESA, De GruyterGoogle Scholar

Elie, Hubert (1937). Le complexe significabile, J. VrinGoogle Scholar

GÁL, Gedeon (1977). ‘adam of wodeham's question on the “complexe significabile” as the immediate object of scientific knowledge’, franciscan studies 37:.CrossRef Google Scholar

Gregory, Rimini (1522). Super primum et secundum Sententiarum, Venice (Reprinted The Franciscan Institute 1955)Google Scholar

John, Buridan (1588). In Metaphysicam Aristotelis Quaestiones, Paris (Reprinted Minerva 1964).Google Scholar

John, Capreolus (1900–8). Defensiones theologiae divi Thomae Aquinatis, ed. Paban, C. and PÈGues, T., Cattier (Reprinted Minerva 1967)Google Scholar

Marsilius, Inghen (1501). Questiones Marsilii super quattuor libros Sententiarum, Strasburg (Reprinted Minerva 1966)Google Scholar

Marsilius, Inghen (1516). Quaestiones super libros Priorum Analyticorum, Venice (Reprinted Minerva 1968)Google Scholar

NeufchÂTeau, André (1514). In primum librum Sententiarum, ParisGoogle Scholar

Nuchelmans, Gabriel (1973). Theories of the Proposition: Ancient and Medieval Conceptions of the Bearers of Truth and Falsity (North-Holland Linguistic Series, 8), North-HollandGoogle Scholar

Paul, Venice (1499). Logica magna, VeniceGoogle Scholar

Peter, Abelard (1970a). Dialectica, ed. Rijk, L. M. (Wijsgerige teksten en studies, 1) (2nd ed.), Van GorcumGoogle Scholar

Peter, Tartaretus (1514a). Expositio in Summulas Petri Hispani, BasleGoogle Scholar

Peter, Tartaretus (1514b). In Perihermenias, BasleGoogle Scholar

Peter, Ailly (1490). Quaestiones super libros Sententiarum cum quibusdam in fine adiunctis, Strasburg (Reprinted Minerva 1968)Google Scholar

Peter, Tarantasia (1652). In quattuor libros Sententiarum commentaria, Toulouse (Reprinted Gregg Press 1964)Google Scholar

Rijk, L. M. ed. (1962–7). Logica modernorum: A contribution to the History of Early Terminist Logic. I: On the Twelfth Century Theories of Fallacy (1962); II, 1: The Origin and Early Development of the Theory of Supposition; II, 2: Texts and Indices (1967), Van GorcumGoogle Scholar

Robert, Holkot (1518a). Sex articuli, in Holkot, Robert (1518)Google Scholar

Soto, Domingo (1587). In Porphyrii Isagogen, Aristotelis Categorias librosque de demonstratione commentaria, Venice (Reprinted Minerva 1967)Google Scholar

Stump, Eleonore (1978). Boethius's De topicis differentiis. Translated, with notes and essays on the text;Cornell UniversityGoogle Scholar

Vignaux, Paul (1977). ‘La problématique du nominalisme médiéval peut-elle éclairer des problèmes philosophiques actuels?’, Revue philosophique de Louvain 75:.CrossRef Google Scholar

Walter, Burley (1497). Expositio super artem veterem Porphyrii et Aristotelis, Venice (Reprinted Minerva 1967)Google Scholar

William, Ockham (1483). Quaestiones et decisiones in primum libarum Sententiarum, Urach (1491). Quodlibeta septem, Strasbourg (Reprinted Éditions de la Bibliothèque S.J.Louvain 1962)Google Scholar

William, Ockham (1967). Opera theobgica [OT] I: Scriptum in librum primum Sententiarum, Ordinatio, Probgus et Distinctio prima, ed. Gál, G. and Brown, S. in Ockham, William 1967–Google Scholar

William, Ockham (1974a). Opera philosophica [OP] I: Summa logicae, ed. Boehner, P., Gál, G., and Brown, S., in Ockham, William 1967–Google Scholar

Zumlceller, A. (1941). Hugolin von Orvieto und seine theologische Erkenntnislehre, Cassiciacum. Eine Sammlung wissenschaftlicher Forschungen über den hl. Augustinus und den Augustinerorden, Band IX, 2. Reihe, 3. Band, WürzburgGoogle Scholar