Le XIVe siècle allemand a vu l'apparition et le développement d'une forme de philosophie autonome, fortement influencée par le péripatétisme grécoarabe, mais s'orientant de façon croissante vers le néoplatonisme le plus authentique: celui de Proclus. Si la transition de l'aristotélisme à la «théologie platonicienne» a connu son point culminant dans le Commentaire des Éléments de théologie de Berthold de Moosburg, elle a été préparée par une série de décisions philosophiques, acquises pour l'essentiel chez Albert le Grand. L'objet du présent article est de montrer comment la théorie albertinienne de la contemplation philosophique, avec ses notions spécifiques de «conjonction» et d'«intellect acquis», a servi de point de départ à la reviviscence de l'idéal antique de sagesse contemplative qui caractérise l'école dite «de Cologne», de Dietrich de Freiberg à Berthold lui-même, en passant par Maitre Eckhart.

In 1498 Cajetan published a short book, On the Analogy of Names, which is often regarded as a masterly summary of Aquinas's doctrine of analogy. It opens in the very first paragraph with an attack on three views of the concept of being (ens): first, that it is a disjunction of concepts; second, that it is an ordered group of concepts; and third, that it is a single, separate concept which is unequally participated by substances and accidents. A number of questions immediately spring to mind. Why are concepts being discussed when analogy is said by Cajetan to be a theory of language? What is meant by ‘concept’? Who held the views under attack and why? So far as I can tell, the extensive literature on both Aquinas and Cajetan offers no satisfactory answers to these questions.

Duns Scotus's famous proposition was first attacked in a short polemical treatise attributed to Thomas of Sutton. By the time of Ockham, the proposition was known as the propositio famosa, so called by Walter Chatton, Ockham's colleague at Oxford and London, who defended it against Ockham's lengthy critique. At Paris, during the same period, it was called the propositio vulgata and was used approvingly by Francis of Meyronnes, Peter of Navarre and Durandus St. Pourçain. This “famous proposition” was so controverted because on it depended the acceptance, with Duns Scotus, or the rejection, with Ockham, of theology as a strict, propter quid science. As its detractors and defenders must have realized, it also struck at the heart of the divergent philosophical outlooks of Duns Scotus and Ockham. For all of this, Duns Scotus's famous proposition and its history have all but escaped notice.

Two of the best currently practising scholars of Ockham, Marilyn Adams and Paul Spade, seem to have accepted a reading of Ockham's ontological program which, although it contains much that is uncontroversially correct, attributes to Ockham a reductionist view that is on my interpretation of his works far too radical to be genuinely Ockham's. Their reading runs as follows. So far as entities go, Ockham accepts only particular substances and some particular qualities. Aristotle's categories, according to Ockham, are not 10 broad classes of radically different sorts of things, but rather are classes of non-complex terms arranged roughly according to the kinds of questions they can be used to answer. When we look at these terms we find that those in the category of substance and some in the category of quality are not definable by some longer expression synonymous with them but simply signify each of the members of a certain class of substances or qualities. These terms are said to be absolute. But other terms (some in the category of quality and all in the other categories, whether abstract or concrete) can either be replaced by a definition that is synonymous with the term defined or can be interpreted as making “exponible” the sentences in which they occur. These terms are all said to be connotative. It is in principle possible to reword all the sentences in which these connotative terms appear so that the only categorematic terms left are absolute terms from the categories of substance and quality.

Jean Buridan donne du syllogisme catégorique élémentaire une théorie qui diffère notablement de la théorie scolastique traditionnelle, dont celle de Guillaume d'Ockham peut être considérée comme représentative. Je n'en veux pour preuve que le fait suivant: alors que selon Ockham il y a six modes «utiles» de prémisses syllogistiques de la première figure, selon Buridan il y en a huit. Mon propos sera ici d'expliquer cette divergence et d'en dégager la portée. Pour ce faire je me propose de reconstituer la théorie buridanienne du syllogisme catégorique élémentaire, c'est-à-dire d'en exposer les composantes essentielles en rendant explicites les concepts et thèses qu'elles contiennent parfois implicitement.

Face aux difficultés soulevées par le rapport de l'intellect à la chose intelligée — question qui suscite de nombreux débats aux confins des XIIIe et XIVe siècles —, Guillaume d'Ockham adopte une solution radicale: elle consiste à supprimer tout intermédiate entre l'acte d'intellection et la chose réelle, donnée dans sa présence singulière, ultime cause efficiente du procès d'émergence et d'élaboration de la connaissance. De ce fait, Guillaume d'Ockham rejette tout corrélat de la connaissance qui serait distinct de la chose même. Cela revient à invalider aussi bien l'idée d'intentio in concreto que celle d'esse obiectivum. Sans faire l'unanimité, loin de là, la solution ockhamiste trouve des echos aussi bien chez des anglais tels que Gauthier Chatton ou Robert Holkot, que dans la pensée parisienne à partir de Jean Buridan. L'essentiel, de ce point de vue, est l'exigence de présence de la chose même dans le renvoi sémantique et dans le rapport de connaissance, par conséquent la détermination de l'objet — entendu comme ce qui fait face à l'intellect — à partir de la présence et de l'être donné, l'instauration d'une relation de causalité efficiente (au moins à titre de cause partielle) entre la chose et la connaissance.

An obligation, in the sense in which it was of interest to medieval logicians from about the early thirteenth century to the end of the scholastic period, is, according to Paul of Venice, a relation limiting one to take some statement affirmatively or negatively. This relation is based on the actions of two individuals: one (the opponent) obligates the other (the respondent) by first putting forward a sentence which the respondent agrees to affirm or deny for a limited time. The sentence the respondent agrees to affirm is called the positum; that which he agrees to deny, the depositum; and his act of agreeing, the admissio. After this relation is established between the opponent and respondent, the opponent proceeds by putting forward a series of sentences to which the respondent replies by granting, denying, or doubting — all in accordance with certain rules the two individuals have previously accepted as governing their exchange. If the respondent at any time grants what is inconsistent with the sentence he agreed to uphold, or responds in a way that violates the accepted rules, the exchange comes to an end. The respondent has failed in his obligation.

Dans son ouvrage Schools and Scholars in Fourteenth-Century England, William J. Courtenay nous offre une riche synthèse historique sur la philosophie et la théologie en Angleterre au XIVe siècle. Ce travail mérite la plus grande attention, autant pour sa contribution à l'histoire de la pensée, que pour ses énoncés sur les rapports entre la philosophie et la société au Moyen Âge. Car je lis le livre de Courtenay comme un fructueux dialogue entre Clio et Philosophie, et c'est le point de vue qui retiendra mon attention. La présente contribution se veut davantage une réflexion à propos du livre, qu'un véritable compte rendu. Elle tente d'explorer les difficiles rapports entre l'histoire de la philosophie et l'histoire, sur lesquels Alain de Libera (1991) nous a livré ses idées, tout récemment.

Semiotics, the age-old investigation of signs, is still striving for acknowledgement as a scientific (and academic) discipline. Though the ‘linguistic turn’ in the philosophical disciplines seemed to be followed by a ‘semiotic turn’ in many sciences during the 1970s, efforts were not crowned by great success. When seen from a certain distance, a definition of semiotics as a discipline can only be obtained from its history. Research into the sources of the human pre-occupation with signs, and with concepts or conceptions of signs, is really desirable and even necessary when a field of considerable scientific interest at the brink of being awarded the rank of a discipline runs the risk of getting lost between the unificationism of the Morris-type and the elegance of pseudo-mathematical empty classificationism (such as demonstrated in the late Max Bense's Stuttgart School) on the one side, and profitable exploitation of the sign's popularized design qualities on the other.

The fourteenth-century English philosopher and theologian Richard Kilvington (1302/5–61) presents a useful correction to popular views of medieval philosophy in two ways. On the one hand, he reminds us that to think of medieval philosophy in terms of Aquinas, Duns Scotus and Ockham, or to think of medieval logic in terms of Aristotelian syllogistic, is to overlook vast areas of intellectual endeavour. Kilvington, like many before and after him, was deeply concerned with problems that would now be assigned to philosophy of language; philosophical logic and philosophy of science. He discussed topics in epistemic logic, semantic paradoxes, problems of reference, particularly those connected with the interplay between quantifiers and modal or temporal operators, and problems arising from the use of infinite series in the analysis of motion and change. On the other hand, this very account of his work raises the important issue of conceptual domain. I have spoken as if Kilvington's work can be neatly classified in terms of contemporary interests; and the temptation to read medieval philosophy in modern terms is only strengthened when one recognizes Kilvington as the first member of the group of Oxford calculatores, men such as William Heytesbury and Richard Swineshead, whose discussions of mathematics and physics have caused them to be hailed as forerunners of modern science.