Abstract
The study of the connections of the propositions in the ‘argumentatio’ is the last step of a series of more particular inquiries which make up the tissue of the science of logic: in two parallel passages in Ingredientibus and Nostrorum1 Abelard has clearly underlined the path of the ‘discretio argumentandi’, which is frequently denounced in his anti-rhetorical scientificity.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
G.G., pp. 2 (8fr.), 508.
G.G., p. 309 (7).
G.G., pp. 394 (10–26), 487, 499 (24ff.).
See De Rijk, op.cit., p. xix.
D., p. 232 (4–10).
D., pp. 232, 233.
D., p. 233 (6).
D., p. 232 (21); G.L., pp. 321 (25)-2 (1); D., 254 (531ff.).
D., p. 233 (6).
D., p. 255 (36–7).
D., p. 499 (30).
D., pp. 256 (34), 257 (24ff.); D., pp. 253–4, 255 (32).
D., p. 255.
De Rijk, op.cit., pp. xxxii-xxxiii.
G.L., pp. 321–2.
See also D., p. 471 (31), 282–3, 271.
D., pp. 234–49; Boetius, P.L., p. LXIV.
D., p. 239 (20–7).
De Rijk, op.cit., pp. xxxviii-xxxix.
D., p. 329 (19ff.).
G.G., pp. 360–1.
G.L., pp. 205–330; D., pp. 253–413.
G.L., p. 206 (33); D., p. 253 (22).
D., p. 253 (16).
G.L., pp. 213, 319 (16–8). In the comment this is explicitly stated on the guidance of the Boetian text (Boetius, P.L., pp. LXIV, 1173–84) and the general considerations on logic and its ramifications are repeated. In an autonomous treatment such as Dialectica this type of consideration was to be found una tanturn at the beginning of the text.
G.L., p. 309. The ‘proprietates terminorum’, together with the ‘constructio’ can be interpreted as ‘complexio terminorum’.
G.G., p. 508 (9–15). The ‘proprietates sermonum’ are different from the ‘terminorum’; with the first the value of the word is indicated as significative; with the second it is alluded to as an element of the whole expression.
D., pp. 256–7.
Distinct herein from the ‘actus rerum’: see D., pp. 282 (30–7), 265.
D., p. 274 (28–9).
D., p. 271 (35ff.): “Sunt autem quidam qui non solum necessarias conse-cutiones sed quaslibet quoque probabiles veras esse fateantur.” Among these ‘quidam’ Abelard indicates a ‘Magister Noster’ whom De Rijk, somewhat doubtfully, interprets as Guillaume de Champeaux. But Abelard himself indicates that at the basis of this ‘sententia’ there is a clearly subjectivistic and not ‘realistic’ criterion (“probabilitas ad visum referenda est, Veritas autem sola ad rei existentiam”), and this viewpoint seems rather alien to a realist like Guillaume. See the clear example of probable ‘locus’ on p. 277 (333ff.); in the following lines note the fairly rare meaning (in Abelard) of ‘dialecticus’ as rhetorician, swiftly followed by the normal meaning of ‘dialecticus’= philosopher.
D., p. 263 (11).
G.L., pp. 207 (1), 230 (3ff.), 244 (32).
G.L., p. 207 (4); D., p. 263 (7).
G.L., p. 238 (35ff.); D., p. 317 (2ff.). 36 G.L., p. 235 (10).
G.L., p. 235 (22).
G.L., p. 235 (26).
G.L., p. 235 (31).
G.L., p. 239 (20ff.).
D., p. 317 (23).
D., p. 317 (28–9).
D., p. 267 (25ff.).
D., p. 318 (26ff.).
D., p. 235 (28ff.). See also the expression ‘exprimens habitudinem vocum’ referring to the definition of ‘maxima propositio’ (G.L., p. 239 (36)), while in Dialectica we find on several occasions the expression ‘habitudo rerum’ (e.g. p. 256).
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1969 D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Teresa, M., Fumagalli, BB. (1969). The ‘Argumentatio’. In: The Logic of Abelard. Synthese Historical Library, vol 1. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-3384-8_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-3384-8_6
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-010-3386-2
Online ISBN: 978-94-010-3384-8
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive