Advertisement

The ‘Argumentatio’

Chapter
  • 64 Downloads
Part of the Synthese Historical Library book series (SYHL, volume 1)

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.

Keywords

Implicit Position Psychological Criterion Analytical Proposition Hypothetical Syllogism Parallel Passage 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    G.G., pp. 2 (8fr.), 508.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    G.G., p. 309 (7).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    G.G., pp. 394 (10–26), 487, 499 (24ff.).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    See De Rijk, op.cit., p. xix.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    D., p. 232 (4–10).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    D., pp. 232, 233.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    D., p. 233 (6).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    D., p. 232 (21); G.L., pp. 321 (25)-2 (1); D., 254 (531ff.).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    D., p. 233 (6).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    D., p. 255 (36–7).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    D., p. 499 (30).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    D., pp. 256 (34), 257 (24ff.); D., pp. 253–4, 255 (32).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    D., p. 255.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    De Rijk, op.cit., pp. xxxii-xxxiii.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    G.L., pp. 321–2.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    See also D., p. 471 (31), 282–3, 271.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    D., pp. 234–49; Boetius, P.L., p. LXIV.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    D., p. 239 (20–7).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    De Rijk, op.cit., pp. xxxviii-xxxix.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    D., p. 329 (19ff.).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    G.G., pp. 360–1.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    G.L., pp. 205–330; D., pp. 253–413.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    G.L., p. 206 (33); D., p. 253 (22).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    D., p. 253 (16).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    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.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    G.L., p. 309. The ‘proprietates terminorum’, together with the ‘constructio’ can be interpreted as ‘complexio terminorum’.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    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.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    D., pp. 256–7.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Distinct herein from the ‘actus rerum’: see D., pp. 282 (30–7), 265.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    D., p. 274 (28–9).Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    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.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    D., p. 263 (11).Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    G.L., pp. 207 (1), 230 (3ff.), 244 (32).Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    G.L., p. 207 (4); D., p. 263 (7).Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    G.L., p. 238 (35ff.); D., p. 317 (2ff.). 36 G.L., p. 235 (10).Google Scholar
  36. 37.
    G.L., p. 235 (22).Google Scholar
  37. 38.
    G.L., p. 235 (26).Google Scholar
  38. 39.
    G.L., p. 235 (31).Google Scholar
  39. 40.
    G.L., p. 239 (20ff.).Google Scholar
  40. 41.
    D., p. 317 (23).Google Scholar
  41. 42.
    D., p. 317 (28–9).Google Scholar
  42. 43.
    D., p. 267 (25ff.).Google Scholar
  43. 44.
    D., p. 318 (26ff.).Google Scholar
  44. 45.
    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).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland 1969

Authors and Affiliations

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations