Supposition is a controversial logical theory. Scholars have investigated many points of this doctrine such as its historical origin, its use in theology, the logical function of the theory, or the relationship between supposition and signification. In the article I focus on this latter aspect by discussing how some Italian, and in particular Florentine, Dominican followers of Aquinas—Francis of Prato, Girolamo Savonarola, and Georgius Rovegnatinus —explained the relation between the linguistic terms’ properties of signifying and suppositing, and hence the division (...) of supposition. After sketching out Thomas Aquinas, Hervaeus Natalis, and William of Ockham’s positions on the relationship between signification and supposition, I closely examine Francis’s criticism of Ockham. Francis follows Walter Burley’s account of supposition and considers the statement that a term has simple supposition when it is taken not significatively and stands for an intention of mind as the weak point of Ockham’s explanation of supposition. According to Francis, if this were the case, there would be no semantic basis for differentiating simple from material supposition. Francis is however hesitant about the full subordination of supposition to signification, especially with regards to material supposition, when a term, suppositing for itself, is taken to signify itself besides its meaning. More than one hundred years later, Girolamo Savonarola and Georgius Rovegnatinus have no doubt about the fact that terms may supposit only for what they signify. (shrink)

A tese de que o conceito espinosista de ideia de afecção, introduzido na Ética, expressa o sentido mais preciso do que seja, para o autor, o conceito de ideia da imaginação. Este texto pretende problematizar essa leitura, procurando fornecer subsídios para a hipótese de que ela não é nem inequivocamente corroborada pelo texto da Ética, nem exigida pela doutrina aí apresentada. -/- It is widely accepted by scholars that Spinoza’s concept of idea of affection, introduced in the Ethics, states his (...) notion of the idea of imagination. In this paper I address this reading, claiming that it is not either unequivocally corroborated by the text of the Ethics, or required by the doctrine developed there. (shrink)