Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-s6l46 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T01:31:27.936Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ockham on Judgment, Concepts, and The Problem of Intentionality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Susan Brower-Toland
Susan Brower-Toland*
Affiliation:
Saint Louis University, St. Louis, MO 63108, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Introduction

In this paper I examine William Ockham's theory of judgment — in particular, his account of the nature and ontological Status of its objects. ‘Judgment’ (Latin iudicio) is the expression Ockham and other medieval thinkers use to refer to a certain subset of what philosophers nowadays call ‘propositional attitudes’. Judgments include all and only those mental states in which a subject not only entertains a given propositional content, but also takes some positive stance with respect to its truth. For Ockham, therefore, as for other medievals, a judgment is a type of mental State that includes attitudes such as belief, knowledge, opinion, doubt, faith, and so on.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 37 , Issue 1 , March 2007 , pp. 67 - 109
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Adams, M.M. 1977. ‘Ockham's Nominalism and Unreal Entities.’ The Philosophical Review 86 144–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, M.M. 1987. William Ockham. Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame University Press.Google Scholar
Addis, L. 1989. Natural Signs. Philadelphia: Temple University.Press.Google Scholar
Aquila, R. 1977. Intentionality: A Study of Mental Acts. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Boehner, P. 1946. ‘The Realistic Conceptualism of William Ockham.’ Traditio 4 307–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boehner, P. 1951. ‘The Relative Date of Ockham's Commentary on the Sentences.’ Franciscan Studies 11 305–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boler, J. 1976. ‘Ockham on Evident Cognition.’ Franciscan Studies 36 85–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boler, J. 1982. ‘Intuitive and Abstractive Cognition.’ In The Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy, Kretzmann, N. Kenny, A. and Pinbourg, J. eds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Boler, J. 2003. ‘Ockham on the Concept.’ Medieval Philosophy and Theology 11.1 65–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brower-Toland, S. 2002. Later Medieval Theories of Propositions: Ockham and the 14 Century Debate at Oxford over Objects of Judgment. Diss., Cornell University.Google Scholar
Brower-Toland, . Forthcoming. ‘William Ockham and Walter Chatton on the Structure and Objects of Judgment.’ In Intentionality, Cognition, and Mental Representation in Medieval Philosophy, Klima, G. ed. New York: Fordham University Press.Google Scholar
Caston, V. 1993. Towards a History of the Problem of Intentionality Among the Greeks. In Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium in Andent Philosophy, Cleary, J. and Wains, W. eds. New York: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Caston, V. 1998. ‘Aristotle and the Problem of Intentionality. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 58 249–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chatton, W. 2002. Reportatio super Sententias. Wey, J. and Etzkorn, G. eds. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies.Google Scholar
Crane, T. 2001. Elements of Mind. Oxford: Oxford University.Press.Google Scholar
Findlay, J. 1963. Meinong's Theory of Objects and Values. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Gál, G. 1967. ‘Gualterri de Chatton et Guillelmi de Ockham controversia de natura conceptus universalis.’ Franciscan Studies 27 191–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaskin, R. 2003. ‘Complexe Significabilia and Aristotle's Categories.’ In La tradition medievale des categories (Xlle-XVe siecles), Biard, J. and Rosier-Catach, I. eds. Louvain: Editions Peeters.Google Scholar
Grassi, O. 1990. ‘The Object of Scientific Knowledge in Some Authors of the Fourteenth Century.’ In Knowledge and the Sciences in Medieval Philosophy. Proceedings ofthe Eighth International Congress of Medieval Philosophy, Knuuttila, S. Tyorinoja, R. and Ebbesen, S. eds. Helsinki: Luther-Agricola Society.Google Scholar
Haidane, J. 1989. ‘Brentano's Problem.’ Grazer Phlosophische Studien 35 351–62.Google Scholar
Harney, M. 1984. Intentionality, Sense, and the Mind. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haugland, J. 1990. ‘The Intentionality All-Stars.’ Philosophical Perspectives 4 383–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karger, E. 1995. ‘William of Ockham, Walter Chatton, and Adam Wodeham on the Objects of Knowledge and Belief.’ Vivarium 33 171–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, F. 1978. ‘Some Observations on the “Fictum” Theory in Ockham and its Relation to Hervaeus Natalis.’ Franciscan Studies 38 260–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, F. 1981. ‘Walter Chatton Vs. Aureoli and Ockham Regarding the Universal Concept.’ Franciscan Studies 41 222–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, J. 1996. Philosophy of Mind. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Kretzmann, N. 1970. ‘Medieval Logicians on the Meaning of the Propositio.’ The Journal of Philosophy 67 767–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leff, G. 1975. William of Ockham: The Metamorphosis of Scholastic Discourse. Manchester: Manchester University.Press.Google Scholar
McDowell, J. 1998. ‘Intentionality as a Relation.’ Journal of Philosophy 95 471–91.Google Scholar
Normore, C. 1999. ‘Some Aspects of Ockham's Logic’ In The Cambridge Companion to Ockham, Spade, P. ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Normore, C. 1987. ‘Meaning and Objective Being: Descartes and His Sources.’ In Essays on Descartes’ Meditations, Rorty, A. ed. Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Nuchelmans, G. 1973. Theories of the Proposition: Ancient and Medieval Conceptions of the Bearers of Truth and Falsity. Amsterdam: North Holland.Publishing.Google Scholar
Nuchelmans, G. 1980. Late-Scholastic and Humanist Theories of the Proposition. Amsterdam: North Holland.Publishing.Google Scholar
Ockham, W. 1967–89. Opera Philosophica et Theologien. St. Bonaventure, New York: St. Bonaventure University Press.Google Scholar
Ockham, W. 1990. Philosophical Writings. Ed. and trans. Boehner, P.. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
Ockham, W. 1991. Quodlibetal Questions. Trans. Freddoso, A. and Kelly, F.. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Ockham, W. 1994. ‘Five Questions on Universals from his Ordinatio d. 2, qq. 4-8.’ In Five Texts on the Medieval Problem of Universals, Spade, P. trans. and ed. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
Panaccio, C. 1999. ‘Semantics and Metaphysics.’ In The Cambridge Companion to Ockham, Spade, P. ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Panaccio, C. 2005. Ockham on Concepts. Hampshire: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Pasnau, R. 1997. Theories of Cognition in the Later Middle Ages. Cambridge: Cambridge University.Press.Google Scholar
Read, S. 1977. ‘The Objective being of Ockham's Ficta.’ Philosophical Quarterly 27 14–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. 1983. Intentionality. An Essay in the Philosophy of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University.Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seilars, W. 1963. ‘Being and Being Known.’ In Science, Perception and Reality. London: Routledge.& Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Spade, P. 1999. ‘Ockham's Nominalist Metaphysics: Some Main Themes.’ In The Cambridge Companion to Ockham, Spade, P. ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tachau, K. 1988. Vision and Certitude in the Age of Ockham: Optics, Epistemology and the Foundations of Semantics 1250–1345. Leiden: E.J. Brill.Google Scholar
Wolenski, J. 1998/99. ‘Twardowski on the Distinction between Content and Object.’ Brentano Studien 8 15–35.Google Scholar
Woodruff-Smith, D. and Mclntyre, R.. 1982. Husserl and Intentionality: A Study of Mind, Meaning and Language. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar