Correia, M.A.; (1997) The nature and logic of the indefinite name and verb in Boethius' In Librum Aristotelis Peri Hermêneias Commentarii I et II. Doctoral thesis (Ph.D), UCL (University College London).

Preview

Text The_nature_and_logic_of_the_in.pdf Download (39MB) | Preview

Abstract

Using the concepts of 'syntax' and 'semantics' all the relevant passages containing Boethius' comments on indefinite names and verbs in his two commentaries on Aristotle's Peri Hermêneids are classified and analysed. The occurrences reveal a doctrine. (Part I,1-5). The indefinites are not ill-defined terms, but homonymous expressions contained in the non-strict definitions of name and verb. (I,1). Aristotle's assertions concerning the signification of indefinites relate ultimately to his views on predication, existence, non-existence, truth, and falsity: the negation of what does not exist is true. (I,2). The indefinites are not superfluous, but elements of the theory of the categorical proposition and its negation, as developed in Peri Hermêneias. This theory is not complete without indefinites. (I,4). Boethius' analysis of the sources, which he calls antiqui, reveals an ancient concern about the nature of the indefinites among the Peripatetics. His anriquiores refers to ancient philosophers and in particular to Plato: they do not (or do not properly) analyse the notion of indefinite signification, negation, and not-being. In Boethius' explanation, which differs radically from that of Ammonius, Aristotle was the first to give a consistent account of indefinites and to describe them in technical language. (I,3). For Boethius, Aristotle in Peri Hermêneias also determines a logic of the categorical proposition with indefinites. This logic follows the fact that all the species of categorical propositions have been determined. Boethius provides a comprehensive exposition of the relations stated by Aristotle and, unlike Ammonius, he reports valuable information for the history of Logic in the expositions of Herminus, Alexander and Porphyry. (II,1 and 2). As to the doctrine, Boethius' and Ammonius' explanations are dependent on earlier Greek sources, but their commentaries are independent of each other. The detail of Boethius' sources and Boethius' dependence on them are controversial. The evidence reveals difficulties in accepting the hypotheses of a servile dependence on this Greek material and of a unique codex originating in the school of Proclus as the only source of Boethius' commentaries on Aristotle. (I and II).

Download activity - last month

Export as CSVXMLJSON

Download activity - last 12 months

Export as JSONXMLCSV

Downloads by country - last 12 months

Export as CSVXMLJSON

Archive Staff Only

View Item