Based on the 1965 Moody edition of Ockham’s Expositio in librum Porphyrii de praedicabilibus, this work is the fruit of the efforts of L. Valcke and R. Galibois. The former gives a capable, but quite debatable, introduction to the issues raised by the text. After a presentation of the various meanings of ‘realism’ and ‘nominalism', he attempts to clarify in what sense these labels can each be applied to the Venerable Inceptor. He raises the key issues of the Porphyry commentary, (...) and he tries to demonstrate what he considers some unresolved tensions in Ockham’s thought, particularly in relation to this work. Galibois provides a complete French translation of Porphyry’s text itself along with a competent and readable rendition of Ockham’s Expositio. Generally his translation stays close to the Latin text, and when he takes liberties he is faithful to the sense. (shrink)

Although this work begins with Franz Brentano’s critique of both the Humean "content" theory of awareness and the Cartesian "idea" view of consciousness, it is not precisely an historical presentation of Brentano’s study of intentionality. It is more properly a philosophic study of the ontological and epistemological problems raised by Brentano’s work and modern efforts to solve them. Aquila thus attempts to analyze and evaluate Chisholm’s attack on Brentano’s view of "intentional relations"; he presents and criticizes Meinong’s, Bergmann’s, and Russell’s (...) theories regarding the proper objects of judgment; he examines the difference between the contents and objects of mental acts, contrasting Husserl’s early conception of this distinction with his later, more Fregean view; finally he referees the debate between Wilfrid Sellars and Chisholm on the nature of intentionality, concerning whether or not it is a real "characteristic" or "property" of an entity. (shrink)

Given the great amount of research in medieval logic and grammar that has gone on in the last quarter of the century, the general portraits of medieval developments in these fields found in works like Ph. Boehner’s Medieval Logic or histories of logic by Prantl, Bochenski, or the Kneales are quite out of date. This little work by Jan Pinborg, the Director of the Medieval Institute in Copenhagen, which has specialized in medieval grammar and logic, is a good update of (...) the general contributions made to these fields from the twelfth to the fifteenth centuries. Based on lectures given at Copenhagen and at the Christian Albrects University at Kiel, this short book indicates the interplay of the two disciplines at various historical periods of this era and highlights the contributions of Anselm, Abelard, Peter of Spain, Boethius of Dacia, Ockham, Buridan, and Burleigh. (shrink)

The way in which early followers of St. Thomas Aquinas interpreted or misinterpreted his metaphysical doctrines and works still needs much exploration, so a text edition and editor’s commentary of this kind is a most welcomed project, especially since Conrad of Prussia has possibly left us the earliest commentary on Aquinas’ De ente et essentia. The editing task is a precarious work, however, since Conrad’s commentary survives in only one known manuscript, located in the monastery library at Admont, Austria. The (...) editors’ printed result thus has a number of flaws, but without a copy of the codex it is impossible to say which derive from the manuscript and which from the editors. Without a text a reviewer cannot legitimately correct, but can only suggest alternatives to evident mistakes. In the first lectio there is a very humorous flaw. Conrad is trying to prove that little mistakes can sometimes lead to big ones. The edited text illustrates: "omnis canis creditur, celeste sydus est canis, ergo celeste sidus creditur. Interum: quidquid creditur, habet pedes; celeste sydus, ut dictum est, creditur; ergo habet pedes. Ecce quot inconvenientia sequuntur ex uno modico errore." Creditur makes no sense: "Every dog is believed."? Currit does make sense: "Every dog runs." Unwittingly the editors prove the point the author wanted to make. By misreading or failing to correct the fundamental word currit so frequently it grew into a big error. It grew into an even bigger one later because Professor Bobik’s commentary on this text is an explanation based on this faulty text. (shrink)