In the paper, I discuss the interpretation of the Thomistic theory of universals put forward in Paweł Rojek’s book Tropy i uniwersalia. Badania ontologiczne [Tropes and Universals: Ontological Investigations] in the context of the issue of hidden nominalism. My aims are threefold. (i) I suggest a more precise definition of a universal that enables a defence of basic claims by Rojek concerning hidden nominalism; (ii) I show that the interpretation of Aquinas put forward by Rojek does in fact collapse into hidden nominalism; (iii) I offer another interpretation of the Thomistic theory of universals based on the theory of triplex status naturae that seems free from the trap of hidden nominalism.
PL
W artykule dyskutuję z interpretacją tomistycznej teorii uniwersaliów w książce Pawła Rojka Tropy i uniwersalia. Badania ontologiczne w kontekście problematyki „ukrytego nominalizmu”. Stawiam sobie w nim trzy cele. (i) Proponuję uściślenie definicji powszechnika, pozwalające bronić zasadniczych tez Pawła Rojka dotyczących ukrytego nominalizmu; (ii) pokazuję, że zaproponowana przez Pawła Rojka interpretacja Akwinaty sama popada w ukryty nominalizm; (iii) proponuję, w oparciu o teorię triplex status naturae Awicenny, inne odczytanie tomistycznej teorii uniwersaliów, które wydaje mi się unikać pułapki ukrytego nominalizmu.
2
Dostęp do pełnego tekstu na zewnętrznej witrynie WWW
The paper focuses on the discussion of significata propositionum, the proper semantic correlates of sentences, as the alleged objects of mental act of arriving to a conclusion, as developed in Gregory of Rimini’s Prologue to his commentary to the Sentences. After a brief account of arriving to a conclusion presented by Gregory as some kind of mental act, I present his arguments for the thesis that neither the actual thing the conclusion is about, nor the actually formulated conclusion itself as some actuality in the mind, are direct objects of that mental act (I). Then I present Gregory's account of what kind of entities are the significata propositionum: that no kind of actuality (neither in thought, nor in extramental reality) can be ascribed to them, and so they have to considered as entities in some special sense (II). In (III) I show that: (1) this sense needs further elucidation; (2) it is possible to demonstrate the way this sense is connected with the actuality in mind and actuality of a thing the conclusion is about; and (3) the activity of arriving to a conclusion needs to be investigated. A possible line of investigation is demonstrated by showing why Gregory’s arguments in (I) are invalid.
JavaScript jest wyłączony w Twojej przeglądarce internetowej. Włącz go, a następnie odśwież stronę, aby móc w pełni z niej korzystać.