Band 99, Heft 3

Abstract: In this article, I explore how Avicenna’s (d. 1037) views about the subject matter of logic relate to earlier debates about Aristotle’s Categories among Aristotle’s Platonist commentators and the Baghdad Peripatetics, chief among them being Alfarabi (d. ca. 950). I argue that Alfarabi invents the idea of secondary intelligibles (or “second intentions”). I show, however, that under the influence of the middle and late Platonist commentary tradition on the Categories , he insists that primary intelligibles, not secondary intelligibles, are the subject matter of logic. While Avicenna thus takes over the idea of secondary intelligibles from Alfarabi, I show that Avicenna rejects Alfarabi’s view that primary intelligibles are the subject matter of logic. I conclude that what motivated Avicenna to hold that secondary intelligibles are the subject matter of logic was his belief that logic is a discipline of philosophy and not merely an instrument of it.

Abstract: John Locke’s claims about relations (such as cause and effect) and mixed modes (such as beauty and murder) have been controversial since the publication of the Essay . His earliest critics read him as a thoroughgoing anti-realist who denies that such things exist. More charitable readers have sought to read Locke’s claims away. Against both, I argue that Locke is making ontological claims, but that his views do not have the absurd consequences his defenders fear. By examining Locke’s texts, as well as the intellectual context in which they were written, I show that Locke’s position is at once radical and thoroughly traditional.

Abstract: The reduplication argument advanced by Bernard Williams in 1956 has greatly stimulated the contemporary debate on personal identity. The argument relies on a famous thought experiment that, although not new in the history of philosophy, has engaged some of the most influential contemporary philosophers on the topic. I propose here an interpretation of the argument and a reconstruction of the early reception that Williams’ paper had in the 6 years immediately after its publication. The works discussed include papers by C. B. Martin, G. C. Nerlich, R. Coburn, and J. M. Shorter.