In the course of his philosophy, in various contexts, Kant comes to reject three theses about existence: (i) that the thoroughgoing determination of a thing implies its existence, (ii) that existence is a real predicate or determination of a thing, and (iii) that existence is the complement of inner possibility or essence. Kant’s target here is Baumgarten, who advocates these theses as the criterion, classification, and definition of existence. In this article I seek to clarify Kant’s elusive theory of existence (...) through its opposition to Baumgarten. I will show that Kant’s refutation of (i)–(iii) does not stand alone but is grounded on his own definition of existence as (absolute) positing. Thus contrary to common practice, Kant’s negative claims about what existence is not cannot be understood in isolation but must be taken as jointly dependent on Kant’s positive claim of what existence is. I will show that the theses (i)–(iii) fail because they presuppose that existence contributes to the intension or content of a concept, whereas according to Kant existence in fact posits a (non-empty) extension to the concept. (shrink)

This paper challenges the standard a priori/a posteriori distinction by looking at statements in which comprehension requires more that merely passive awareness of objects and their properties. A proposal is made to add to the traditional categories of knowledge, the “a positio,” characterized by active, intentional, and collective involvement of language users in the existence and nature of objects of reference needed for the truth of statements about various kinds of artifacts, broadly construed. The conditions of understanding statements about (...) institutions, institutional activity and standards of measurement are considered in some detail. (shrink)

During the 13th century, several logicians in the Latin medieval tradition showed a special interest in the nature of impossibility, and in the different kinds or ‘degrees’ of impossibility that could be distinguished. This discussion resulted in an analysis of the modal concept with a fineness of grain unprecedented in earlier modal accounts. Of the several divisions of the term ‘impossible’ that were offered, one became particularly relevant in connection with the debate on ars obligatoria and positio impossibilis: the (...) distinction between ‘intelligible’ and ‘unintelligible’ impossibilities. In this article, I consider some 13th-century tracts on obligations that provide an account of the relation between impossibility and intelligibility and discuss the inferential principles that are permissible when we reason from an impossible – but intelligible – premise. I also explore the way in which the 13th-century reflection on this topic survives, in a revised form, in some early 14th-century accounts of positio, namely, those of William of Ockham, Roger Swineshead and Thomas Bradwardine. (shrink)

_ Source: _Volume 53, Issue 2-4, pp 372 - 390 This paper investigates a series of Oxford _Obligationes_ texts, all of which can be associated with Richard Billingham. My study is based on eleven of the surviving manuscripts and two early printed texts. I focus on one aspect of their discussion, namely the rule for granting the initial _positum_ of an obligational disputation of the type called _positio_, and the six restrictions that could be placed on that rule. I explain (...) these restrictions with reference to several sophismata that were meant to illustrate the problems that the restrictions were intended to solve, and in particular, I discuss the fifth restriction ‘not inconsistent with the _positum_’. I also shed light on the final restriction, which has not always been well understood, namely the restriction ‘wherever there is no _obligatio_ relevant to the _positum_’. (shrink)

In the early 1980s, Paul V. Spade advanced the thesis that obligational reasoning was counterfactual reasoning, based upon his interpretation of the obligationes of Walter Burley, Richard Kilvington, and Roger Swyneshed. Eleonore Stump in a series of contemporary papers argued against Spade’s thesis with respect to Burley and Swyneshed, provisionally admitting it for Kilvington with the caveat that Kilvington’s theory is by no means clear or non-idiosyncratic. In this paper, we revisit the connection between counterfactual reasoning and obligationes, focusing on (...) one particular treatise, the anonymous early twelfth-century Obligationes Parisienses edited by L.M. de Rijk in the late 70s. We show that while positio in this treatise does not involve counterfactual reasoning, the species sit verum or rei veritas apparently does, and it is precisely this which distinguishes the two species in this treatise. (shrink)

Mitte der 80er Jahre bildete sich an der Universitat-Gesamthochschule Pader born eine Diskussionsgruppe, die unzufrieden daIiiber war, wie mit Vielfalt bzw. Alternativen in den Kulturwissenschaften umgegangen wird. Diese Unzufriedenheit bezog sieh auf die verschiedensten Gebiete. Selbst dort, wo vielfiiltige Positionen in Forschung und Lehre dargestellt werden, geschieht dies selten systematisch vergleichend. Auch werden hierbei keine Methoden entwickelt, die herausfinden lassen, ob es sieh bei den verschiedenen Positio nen urn Alternativen handelt und wie unter ihnen gegebeneofalls LOsungen als die vorerst (...) besten auszuzeichnen sind. Ohne Klarung dieses Problemkreises istnicht zu sehen, in welchem AusmaB wissenschaftliches Wissen zu verant worten ist. Angesiehts der grundlegenden technischen Herausforderungen und der Bedeu tung des wissenschaftlichen Wissens hierfiir wurde die Frage drangend, wie die angesprochene Lage zu verbessern sei. Es stellte sieh bald heraus, daB es sinnvoll sein muBte, einen neuen Typ einer wissenschaftlichen Diskussions zeitschrift zu griinden, die nieht nur Forschungen prasentiert, sondern selbst als Forschungsprojekt fur die Suche nach einem besseren Umgang mit Alternativenkonzipiertist. Ende der80erJahregriindetesieheineInitiativgruppe fur die Zeitschrift 'Ethik und Sozialwissenschaften' und konstituierte die FORSCHUNGSGRUPPE ERW AGUNGSKULTIJR, die seit 1990 diese Zeitschrift heraus gibt und Forschungsergebnisse in Arbeitspapieren veroffentlicht. Ergebnisse der Forschungen dieser Gruppe sind in diesem Band abgedruckt. (shrink)

Les Méditations cartésiennes, en instaurant la métaphysique comme science de l'esprit, permettent de fonder la science physique sur elle. Ce texte montre ainsi la primauté de la science de la mens sur celle des corps : tout d'abord l'esprit, en tournant vers soi son regard , se sait cogitatio, et ensuite alors il comprend le corps comme ce qui est étendu, flexible, muable, ce qui peut être tourné diversement, bref comme son contraire. L'auto-affirmation de l'ego engage l'examen de l'hypothèse « (...) rien n'est », et demande de distinguer l'ordre de l'hypothèse, de la suppositio, de celui de la positio, de la vérité. In the Meditations of Descartes, since metaphysics is established as a science of mind, physics can be based on it. Thus, this text evinces the pre-eminence of the science of mens over that of bodies : first of all, by turning towards itself mind knows itself as cogitatio and threrefore understands the body as being flexible, mutable, having extensity, and being changeable in diverse manners ; in short, as being its opposite. The self-asserting ego implies the consideration of the « nothing exists » hypothesis and asks for a distinction between the order of hypothesis and that of truth. (shrink)

_ Source: _Volume 56, Issue 3-4, pp 340 - 366 The history of thinking about consequences in the Middle Ages divides into three periods. During the first of these, from the eleventh to the middle of the twelfth century, and the second, from then until the beginning of the fourteenth century, the notion of natural consequence played a crucial role in logic, metaphysics, and theology. The first part of this paper traces the development of the theory of natural consequence in (...) Abaelard’s work as the conditional of a connexive logic with an equivalent connexive disjunction and the crisis precipitated by the discovery of inconsistency in this system. The second part considers the accounts of natural consequence given in the thirteenth century as a special case of the standard modal definition of consequence, one for which the principle _ex impossibili quidlibet_ does not hold, in logics in which disjunction is understood extensionally. (shrink)