Abstract

In his Tractatus de secundi intentionibus Hervaeus Natalis claims that an intention, taken in the strict sense, is not a mental entity but a thing qua cognized thing having « objective existence ». Peter Aureol agrees with this thesis, but he denies that one needs to introduce, in addition to this « concrete intention », an « abstract intention ». This article gives a preliminary edition of Aureol’s critique, along with a brief analysis of the controversial issues in the Aureol-Hervaeus debate