Mental language, According to ockham, Consists of mental acts or capacities for performing mental acts. Its structure is analogous to that of spoken or written language and is the structure of a logically ideal language. Hence its study is useful for philosophy. Ockham's concern about the apparent closeness of the analogy is also considered with reference to his discussion of the possibility of angelic (and hence nonphysical) language.

In a recent discussion of the notion of substance Miss Anscombe points out that the following three doctrines are very closely associated: the doctrine that proper names lack all connotation, are mere labels, the view that there is nothing essential to the individual, and the doctrine that individuals are bare particulars with no properties in and of themselves. In this article as well as in other writings she rejects all three of these doctrines. And, along with P. T. Geach, whose (...) position on this matter I take to be identical to hers, she defends a doctrine of proper names that is based upon this rejection. She is quite right in supposing that the notion of individuality embodied in these three doctrines is not a straw man. E. B. Allaire has recently defended the doctrine that there are bare particulars along with its corollaries about names and the nominal essence of individuals. He even thinks the doctrine can be defended on “common sense” grounds, independently of dialectical considerations. In this paper I wish to examine one of his arguments in defence of bare particulars. (shrink)

Mr Barber has admirably understood what he calls my first argument. Unfortunately, he thinks it does not succeed in demonstrating that the phenomenological argument Jbr the existence of bare particulars is circular. Or, rather, he thinks t he phenomeno-logical argument need not be taken in the way I suggested but can be put so that my argument will not apply to it. His attempted phenomenological rejuvenation of the putative acquaintance with bare particulars will not do. Indeed, it can be used (...) to illustrate one of the points I tried to make in my original paper. (shrink)

Mr Barber has admirably understood what he calls my first argument. Unfortunately, he thinks it does not succeed in demonstrating that the phenomenological argument Jbr the existence of bare particulars is circular. Or, rather, he thinks t he phenomeno-logical argument need not be taken in the way I suggested but can be put so that my argument will not apply to it. His attempted phenomenological rejuvenation of the putative acquaintance with bare particulars will not do. Indeed, it can be used (...) to illustrate one of the points I tried to make in my original paper. (shrink)