Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Signification is not the essential form of the linguistic... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Signification is not the essential form of the linguistic sign for Giles of Rome

    Philosophy of Language
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    2 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.For Giles of Rome, the vox (spoken word) is a natural entity whose primary relation is to the mental concept it immediately expresses, not to external things.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Signification of external things is mediated through the concept and thus constitutes an accidental, secondary function of the sign rather than its defining formal property.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Aristotle's De Interpretatione distinction between natural likeness (of mental impressions) and conventional imposition grounds Giles's view that convention cannot constitute the essence of the sign.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Giles, following Boethius and the Scholastic commentary tradition, treats impositio as an extrinsic denomination that attaches to a pre-existing natural vocal entity, leaving that entity's essential structure intact.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A property that can be removed—such as conventional signification, which varies across languages—cannot constitute the essential form of the thing to which it belongs, by standard Aristotelian essentialism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Giles of Rome holds that the signification of a name is a concept (or definition), which in turn signifies the thing
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.This signification is conventional, not natural
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The linguistic sign signifies in a natural way only its mental image, which is essential to human acts of speech
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Philosophy of Language

    Connections

    1 topic

    Consciousness & Mind1 linked

    Related

    A property that can be removed—such as conventional signification, which varies ...Aristotle's De Interpretatione distinction between natural likeness (of mental i...For Giles of Rome, the vox (spoken word) is a natural entity whose primary relat...Giles of Rome holds that the signification of a name is a concept (or definition...
    +4 moreShow less
    Giles, following Boethius and the Scholastic commentary tradition, treats imposi...Signification of external things is mediated through the concept and thus consti...The linguistic sign signifies in a natural way only its mental image, which is e...This signification is conventional, not natural

    Similar

    The linguistic sign signifies in a natural way only its mental image, ...82%Thought is essentially articulated in terms of linguistic meanings.77%Invert and Nonvert belong to the same linguistic community77%(Cons) is not disquotational77%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: giles
    View source passageHide passage
    After René Antoine Gauthier identified in the master Guillaume Arnauld the real author of the Lectura supra logicam veterem attributed to Giles of Rome (Tabarroni 1988), interest in logical works focused mainly on his Commentaries on the Sophistici Elenchi and on Posterior Analytics. In his treatment of the fallacia figurae dictionis Giles proves to be a brilliant and original representative of “modistic logic”, who bases his solutions mainly on the semantics of intentiones (Tabarroni 1991). Thi
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (2 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit