Grice e Rimini: la ragione conversazionale, o del significato
totale, la percezione del pane e Socrate è seduto – filosofia italiana -- Luigi
Speranza (Rimini). Filosofo italiano. Rimini,
Emilia-oIl primo a conciliare gli sviluppi delle idee d’Occam ed Aureolo. Questa
sua sintesi ha un impatto duraturo. Insegna a Bologna, Padova, Perugia, e
Rimini. Da lezioni sulle sentenze di Lombardo. Oltre alla sua opera principale,
il commento alle sentenze di Lombardo, scrive diversi saggi, tra cui: “De usura,”
“De IV virtutibus cardinalibus” – cf. Grice, philosophy, like virtue, is entire
-- e un estratto del commento alle
sentenze, il “De intentione et remissione formarum,” un’appendice sulla IV
distinctio del I libro del commento alle sentenze, una tabula super epistolis. Augustin.
Manifesta una certa attitudine sincretistica tra gli sviluppi d’Occam ed Aureolo.
Mostra analoga tendenza anche nella ri-costruzione e dell'analisi del processo
della percezione animale e umana e il conoscere umano, nelle quali si fondono
in maniera originale elementi etero-genei desunti da Aristotele del Lizio,
Agostino e Ockham. Causa un grave fraintendimento della sua filosofia, è
qualificato come tortor infantium, per la supposizione di aver condannato alle
pene eterne i bambini che muoiono senza il battesimo. In realtà espone tale
dottrina senza pronunciarsi. Talvolta è indicato quale antesignano dei
nominalisti. Altre saggi: “Gregorii lettura super I et II Sententiarum”; “De
imprestantiis venetorum”. Mazzali, Gori, Manuale di filosofia medievale, Dizionario
biografico degl’italiani, Istituto dell'Enciclopedia Italiana, Dizionario di
filosofia. Now two important consequences follow from
Gregory's definition of the object of complex knowledge as the significatum
totale of the conclusion. Firstly, it entails a proposition of a special kind
which meets the requirements of both demonstration and experience.? Not every
proposition does so. Indeed Gregory dis-tinguishes three different kinds of
propositions. They are in two categories. The first is of mental images
representing actual spoken words, or statements, from which they are directly
derived and which vary according to the language in which they are framed: for
example Greek or Latin.3 The second is of mental images which have no direct
correlation with words; it consists in purely mental concepts undiversified by
language, the same for all men. These are the mind's natural signs prior
to words, which have been instituted to express them.* They are divided into
those which are (bid, pono etiam tetio quod propositio aliqua non est
ipsam esse veram 2 Secundo, idem est obiectum scientie et assensus
sciabilis, sive assensus sit scientia sive distinguatur. Nam ei quod quis scit assentit, sed obiectum assensus
sciabilis est significatum conclusionis. Ei enim assentit quis habens
demon-strationem quod significat conclusio demonstrationis (ibid., O). a
Quidam enim est earum que sunt vocalium enuntiationum imagines vel
similitudines ab exterioribus vocibus in anima derivate, vel per ipsam ficte,
iuxta modum qui infra dist. 3 declarabitur de abstractione et fictione in
anima conceptuum. Et iste non sunt eiusdem rationis in omnibus *
Quidam vero genus est enuntiationum mentalium que nullarum suntultimately founded
upon sense experience and those which are not. The former, whether they originate directly or
indirectly by simple or complex knowledge, or just inhere in the mind, have
their source in external things; they are as much the property of the deaf and
dumb as of other men, for experience, not words, is their agent. The other
group, on the contrary, owes nothing to external knowledge; its images belong
to propositions which are held as matters of belief or opinion and remain
unverified. ? They do not come within the province of knowledge. Of these
three groups only the second represents both know-ledge and assent.? The first
consists simply of words, devoid of either knowledge or judgement; the third of
judgement, or assent, divorced from knowledge. Gregory includes in the third
category dissent since it is the negative act of assent. The effect of
this classification is to isolate statement, know-similitudines vocum, nec
secundum illarum diversitatem in hominibus habentibus diversificantur. Sed
eadem sunt secundum speciem apud omnes idipsum naturaliter significantes quid
vocales eis subordinate ad significandum ad placitum et per institutionem
significant; et ille sunt illa verba que nullius lingue sunt, et vocalia verba
exteriorius sonantia (Prol.). secundum enuntiationum mentalium
subdividitur: quantum quedam immediate ex rerum intuitivis notitiis
incomplexis, tanquam ex partialibus causis vel ex alis complexis vel
incomplexis, ex illis mediate vel immediate causatis, seu ex habitibus ex
talibus notitiis complexis derelictis causantur, vel forsitan etiam quedam non
ex aliquibus incomplexis notitiis causantur, sed sunt simpliciter prime
venientes in mentem naturaliter. Quedam vero sun que non ex talibus primis
notitis rerum aliquo predic torum modorum causantur, cuiuismodi sunt
enuntiationes quibus quis enuntiat mente et iudicat sic vel sic esse aut non
esse, non cognoscens tamen intuitive, aut alia notitia prima vel ex intuitiva
derivata, que sic sit vel non sit, sicut enuntiat in mente quis dum credit vel
opinatur. Secundi autem generis propositiones et
enuntiationes sunt et notitie et assenus propositiones primi generis sic
sunt enuntiationes quod non sunt notitie formaliter, necque assensus, non plus
quam enuntiationes vocales quibus sunt similies. Tertii autem generis
propositiones et enuntiationes quidem sunt et assensus, sed non notitii
ibid.). Ex his autem sequitur quod dissensus non est aliquis actus
intellectus a quolibet assensu distinctus, quinimmo quilibet est assensus
quidam. Quod probatur, quantum cum assensus
mentalis sit enuntiatio, dissensus erit enuntiatio sibi opposite] knowledge,
and judgement as separable elements in a mental demons-tration. One does not
imply the other, so that the statement can obtain either exclusively or in combination
with knowledge or judgement. Only when
all three are joined together can there be a true demonstration. The statement
alone tells whether something is or is not, according to whether it is
affirmative or negative, knowledge enables us to ascertain its truth or
falsity; assent or belief affords the judgement necessary to any
demonstration" and is thereby the means by which a conclusion is reached. R.,
then, unlike Occam, keeps assent and knowledge separate; although, when present
together in the same demonstration, they are all part of a single mental
action, we have seen that propositions containing one do not logically imply
those containing the others. The separation between them gives rise to the
second consequence in R.’s treatment of complex knowledge. For since assent has
to be to a proposition embodying a statement of truth, the object of assent is
the proposition, not an external object. Consequently the object of assent is a
complex, as opposed to a simple, signification; or as R. puts it, it is Ulterius sequitur ex istis quod non omnis mentalis
enuntiato est assensus, licet omnis assensus sit mentalis enuntiato. Et quod quamvis omnis notitia complexa... sit mentalis
cuntiatio, non tamen e contrario omnis mentalis enuntiatio est talis notitia.
Item quod quamvis omnis notitia complexa sit assensus, non quilibet tamen
assensus est talis notitia quia est circa obiectum scientie, quod proprie est illud
quod significatur per conclusionem demonstrationis, ut patet ex primo articulo,
intellectus habet actum enuntiandi et actum cognoscendi et actum credendi seu
assentiendi nam per ipsam conclusionem enuntiat sic esse, si est affirmativa,
vel non sic esse, si est negativa. Cognoscit etiam sic esse sicut enuntiat unde
primo Posteriorum dicitur, quod scire est per demonstrationem
intelligere, et quod demonstratio est syllogismus faciens scire. Non solum
autem enuntiat et cognoscit sic esse, sed etiam credit seu assentit quod ita
est. Prima conclusio est quod conclusio demonstrationis mentalis propric
accepte est assensus de sic esse sicut ipsa significat ga conclusio est quod
circa taliter demonstratum vel scitum non sunt ponendi tres actus distincti in
anima ad enuntiandum conclusionem et cogno-scendum et credendum, seu
assentiendum, sic esse vel non sic esse; sed quod idem actus sufficiat ad hoc,
et idem actus est conclusio, notitia, et assensus (ibid.).a complexe
significabile.! Its meaning derives not from direct
sen-sory experience but from mental activity. It is an expression, as opposed
to thing, describing a set of relations which has no direct correspondence to
an actual object. Hence, although Gregory has throughout stressed that the
truth of any proposition rests upon its foundation in experience, this is not
the same as saying that it can in itself be directly encountered. Its reality
is of a different order; verbal rather than actual. Now there are three
ways in which something? can be said to be. In its most general sense it
embraces any sign, simple or complex, true or false; secondly it can denote any
sign which is true; finally in its strictest sense it is confined to that which
is actually in being, and conversely by this criterion that which does not so
exist is nothing. While by the first and second modes the totale significatum
can be said to exist, by the third it cannot, as, for example, to say that man
is an animal is both a statement and a true one but not something which can be
seen in itself. R., as Élie shows in Le complese significabile, here opens the
way to what is akin to scepticism in making a distinction between verbal
statements and sensory reality. In his case, however, it had the opposite
effect, since it enabled him to recognize a true description without seeking to
identify it with any specific object in rerum natura. As applied to God's
attributes, the divine persons, and sin, we shall see that the innovation of
the complexe significabile was employed to reassert the most rigorous
traditionalism. If it is here that complex and simple knowledge diverge,
it is also the point at which they meet, for the absence of direct experience
in complex knowledge compels it to depend for its truth upon simple knowledge:
no simple knowledge, no true Ad
probationem dico quod non assentimus proprie loquendo nisi signi-ficabili per
complexum, nec aliunde vere dicimur assentire alicui complexo, nisi quia
assentimus ei quid ipsum significat (Prol.). He regards the terms aliquid, ens, and res as
synonymous. Tertio modo sumuntur ista ut significant aliquam essentiam sive
entitatem existentem, et hoc modo quid non existit dicitur nihil
(ibid.). * Cum dicitur utrum istud totale significatum sit aliquid, dico
quod, si aliquid sumatur pro primo vel secundo modo, est aliquid; si vero
tertio modo sumatur, non est aliquid, unde homo esse animal non est aliquid...
(ibid.).complex knowledge, is the law governing all valid mental demonstration.
There is a constant order between what can be known directly in itself and the
judgements which can be made about it; and ultimately the guarantee for the
validity of the latter lies in the truth of the former.? As R. says, a
proposi-tion is true or false in accordance with the truth or falsity of that
to which it refers. Experience is therefore the final arbiter, appeal to which
transcends the findings of a conclusion taken in itself and so gives rise to
the totale significatum. From this there follows, finally, the
conclusion, or corollary, so momentous for fourteenth-century cosmology, that
knowledge of one thing does not entail knowledge of another. It springs
*logically from Gregory's findings over the object of complex knowledge in
which judgement must be based upon simple knowledge, and has two aspects. One
is R.'s sustained re-buttal of the contention of St. Thomas and Henry of Ghent
that there can be a single habit for all knowledge. Apart from in-
stancing the absurdities to which this would lead, in allowing everything to be
deduced from first principles, R. bases his arguments upon the character of
complex knowledge. Firstly, as we have seen above, a demonstration is true only
if it can be verified, and this applies equally to each of the components which
make it up. Thus the knowledge (and habit) of the conclusions is not the same
as knowledge of the principles; one does not engender the other. Secondly, each
proposition must be reached by a separate act of verification: far from
knowledge of one lead-ing to knowledge of another, we can know one proposition
and 1 Aut notitia conclusionis, id est enuntiabilis per conclusionem, sit
notitia nobis naturaliter ex alia prior notitia, aut non. Si non, ergo non est
scientia proprie loquendo unde illud dicitur falsum enuntiabile, cuius
enuntiatio est falsa, vel esset falsa si esset, et illud verum, cuius
enuntiatio est vera, vel esset vera si formaretur. Vel aliter, illud
dicitur verum quod est enuntiabile per veram enuntiationem, illud falsum quod
per falsam non sequitur notitia conclusionis eque preexigit notitiam premissarum,
sicut notitia terminorum nulla autem una enuntiatione nobis naturaliter
possibili possunt tam diversa enuntiabilia enuntiari yet be ignorant of
others,' for each refers to its own object;ª it can be particular, universal,
affirmative, negative, according to its significatum totale. Thirdly, only that
knowledge which derives from direct experience can be complete knowledge: to
know something a priori is not to know something on account of some-thing else
but to infer it from a premiss.' Thus the proposition which tells us that the
moon is liable to eclipse does not tell us that such and such an opaque body is
the cause of a particular eclipse; that can only be known directly. Knowledge,
then, far from being a unity governed by a common habit and a common set of
principles is individual, resting ultimately upon specific, veri-fiable
experiences. The other aspect of the individuality of knowledge lies in
the status of the subject. Duns Scotus had held that the subject of any
knowledge contained virtually within itself all the truths pertain-ing to it,
and that in God, as the first subject, inhered the habit of all truths."
Gregory rejects this view. A subject, and its proper-ties, he says, can be
understood in one of two ways: as the terms of a proposition? or as things
themselves for which the terms stand.® In the first sense they can obtain
either formally in them-selves, if the proposition is a composite one
comprising distinct 1 Notitia unius principii potest stare cum ignorantia
alterius (Prol.). Significata principiorum sunt alia et alia,
et unum non cognositur per alud, igitur non est unus habitus constat
autem quod demonstrationis aliqua est propositio universalis et aliqua
particularis, aliquando etiam aliqua est propositio affirmativa, aliqua
negativa. Item de diversus predicatis vel subiectis obiective sunt, sicut aliud
significatum totale est unius propositionis demonstrationis vocalis, aliud
alterius. Ad confirmationem dicendum quod aliud est dictu scire est cognoscere
hoc propter hoc. Aliud est dictu scire est cognoscere quod est propter
hoc. Primum enim universaliter verum est... Secundum autem non
universaliter, tum quia ille qui scit aliquid precise a priori et per causam
non cognoscit quod hoc est propter hoc (Op. Ox. I,
Prol. q.3, and Rep. Par. q.I.). premitto quod subiectum et passio in proposito
possunt dupliciter accipi: uno modo pro terminis mentalibus quorum unus vel
formaliter secundum se vel quas significant (ibid.).parts, so that both
the subject and properties are separate from each other.' Alternatively, if the
proposition is not composite but simple, standing for only one term, as it
were, then the subject and its properties are equivalent, in the event of which
one can be predicated of the other.* In every case the subject and the
proper-ties, whether as terms in a mental proposition or as self-subsisting
entities, are not implied in each other: that is, one does not virtually
contain the other,a nor does one entail knowledge of the other.* In the first
place, if the property were contained virtually within the subject, it would
not be a property, for it would then become a different thing from the subject,
and, as Duns says, be joined to the latter in a causal relation as its effect.
Thus, in the case of say a straight line which is divisible, the line and its
divisi-bility would become separable entities, so that either, by God's power,
the divisibility could exist without the line, or the line, as virtually
containing its own divisibility, could divide itself— both absurd. The same
position is reached with whatever is con-sidered, as for example, the
separation of a creature from his property of annihilability, leaving the
latter with no subject.? It is equally inapplicable to God, in whom nothing
inheres virtually, and to the celestial bodies. Si
vero propositio non sic componatur.. tunc inquam talis passio mentalis non nisi
equivalenter dicitur predicari de subiecto (ibid.). Prima
(conclusio] est accipiendo subiectum et passionem secundo modo, non omme
subiectum scientie vel principii continet virtualiter primo suam passionem. Secunda
quod notitia subiecti non sic continet, scilicet, primo virtualiter notitiam
passionis, et si subiectum et passio primo modo accepta non sunt aliud quam
notitie incomplexe subiecti et passionis secundo modo acceptorum, ut aliqui
volunt, tunc idem dictum, primo modo accipiendo subiectum et passionem, quod
subiectum non continet passionem. Si ista passio est alia res etc., vel est
aliqua res actu existens in linea, qua ipsa linea est formaliter divisibilis,
que vocatur divisibilitas; vel linea non est divisibilis per huius
divisibilitatem quam habet actualiter, sed per divisionem quam habet
possibiliter. Si detur primum, possibile erit per dei potentiam esse lineam
absque tali natura. Patet, tum quia accidens potest esse sine
subiecto... Si detur secundum, igitur linea, quando dividitur, causat
divisionem in seipsa, quod est absurdum In the second place, among nothing
created does knowledge of one thing entail virtual knowledge of another such
that the know-ing of one thing is the cause of knowing something else.1 This
conclusion shows the degree to which the Ockhamist cosmology of individual
experience had gained currency, even if, as we have stressed, this does not
imply scepticism or a purely critical out-look. As we have seen, all knowledge
of the external world, that is knowledge which deals with creatures and their
relation to one another, depends upon direct experience of what is known.
Hence immediate (intuitive) knowledge of one thing cannot by its very nature
engender intuitive knowledge of another not itself directly experienced.
Similarly, abstractive knowledge, since it is dependent upon what has
previously been known, cannot give rise to further knowledge either intuitively
or abstractively.? R. has no difficulty in showing that no virtual
knowledge can meet these conditions: knowledge of man does not in itself entail
virtual knowledge of his capacity for beatitude or his ability to smile;? in
knowing of the existence of rhubarb we do not thereby know virtually its
curative properties in purging choler.* To be known these attributes have to be
experienced for themselves. Thirdly, if our propositions are true
only when founded on experience, conversely our experiences do not in
themselves lead to demonstrations—the source of scientia in the strict sense.»
Thus we can have distinct and separate intuitive knowledge of both rhubarb and
of its curative powers without thereby knowing it, as 1.. quia
nulla notitia unius rei continet primo virtualiter notitiam alterius.
Loquor de rebus creatis (Prol.) per notititiam intuitivam unius rei non potest
haberi intuitiva alterius... et per consequens non primo virtualiter continetur
a notitia intuitiva alterius, nec secundum... quia nulla talis [abstractiva
notitia] potest haberi nisi pre-habita intuitiva eiusdem rei... Nec tertium
potest dici. Tum quia abstractiva non potest esse prima, et per consequens nec
primo continere. Tum quia multo minus per abstractivam unius rei potest haberi
intuitiva alterius quam per intuitivam. Tertia
conclusio probatur, nam multe sunt propositiones immediate que sunt
principia artis et scientic, in quibus predicantur passiones proprie de
subiectis, nec tamen ad eas sumendas sufficit notitia incomplexa ctiam
distincta subiecti et notitia distincta passionis (ibid., 16 B).a
universal truth, that rhubarb purges choler: this is the property of
propositions which make up complex knowledge.' Thus, simple knowledge does not
virtually contain complex know-ledge.* In the same way, one principle cannot be
inferred from another, for in any demonstration each has to be known
imme-diately, nor can the conclusion be known from the subject or knowledge of
the subject. We have thus, as it were, boxed the compass in rejecting any
source of knowledge other than simple intuitive experience and any means of
understanding (or scientia) other than complex propositions. In the one case
each component must be given in experience; in the other a separate mental
process of affirmation and negation is needed. Neither therefore permits
knowledge, least of all universal knowledge, through one first and
all-embracing subject; as this would short-circuit the processes necessary for reaching
a true demonstration as just adumbrated. In short, since one thing cannot be
known from another, and cause cannot be inferred from effect, there can be no
way to the universal knowledge contained in propositions other than by
individual experience; while, for their part, individual propositions must be
combined into a demonstration before they yield universal truths. What,
then, is the subject of knowledge? If the subject is taken to mean that which
is signified in reality, as opposed to one element in a mental proposition, and
knowledge is regarded as that which is signified in a specific demonstration,
then the subject of knowledge is that which is. Thus in the statement that a
line is I etiam si quis novit(a) quod hoc singulare rheubarum est purgativum
cholere, et illud, et sic de pluribus, ad habendum notitiam universalem, quod
omne rheubarum etc, necessario requiritur quedam alia notitia universalis non
causata ex illis singularibus. Ms. Univ.: noverit. Ex his patet quod
notitie incomplexe subiecti distincte et predicati seu passionis non continet
primo virtualiter notitiam complexam principii. Quarta
conclusio quod unum principium non continet primo virtualiter aliud seu una
premissa aliam quia subiectum seu notitia subiecti non continet primo
virtualiter pro-positiones immediatas, igitur nec conclusionem. Quinta
[conclusio] quod subiectum scientie non continet virtualiter primo omnes
veritates illius scientie divisible the subject is the line as divisible.' If, however, we speak of the subject as part of a
mental demonstration, then the subject is one part of the total knowledge thus
gained; for, unlike the object of knowledge, which is reached by a complex of
judgement and experience, the subject is simple.? Taking knowledge in the wider
sense as a collection of conclusions all pertaining to a single body of
scientia, there will then be as many subjects of such knowledge as there are
conclusions and objects known,* as in the case of the subjects which go to make
up logic or medicine. Here the determining factor will be the nature of the
subject in question." Accordingly, Gregory's entire treatment of the
relation of the different kinds of knowledge, and of their parts, to one
another is governed by the experience which we gain of them. The validity of
anything known springs from the evidence which experience provides, and that
experience can only be of individuals. It is at once the bond which unites and
the barrier which divides the simple and the complex, the subject and the
object. There remains to be considered self-evident knowledge. It difters from
both purely simple individual apprehension and trom demonstration, and indeed
strictly speaking from a proposition at all, in dealing with necessary truths
immediately evident to all. As defined by Gregory, it is a statement or
its equivalent, the 1 dico quod subiectum scientie est illud quid scitur
per illam esse tale. Et ratio subiecti, seu esse subiectum, est scire esse tale
vel tale, verbi gratia, huius scientia qua scitur omnem lineam rectam finitam
esse divisibilem in duo media. Subiectum
est linea; ipsa enim scitur esse divisibilem etc., et ipsam esse subiec-tum
huius scientie non est aliud quam ipsam sciri esse divisibilem etc (Prol.
supposito quodtalis conclusio mentalis non sit actus simplex...sed
essenti-aliter sit composita ex subiecto et predicato sicut propositio vocalis
et scripta ...et sic subiectum scientie est pars scientie actualisquia
subiectum secundum omnes est aliquid incomplexum. Si
vero loquamur de scientia secundo modo dicta, sicut eius sunt plures conclusiones
et plura obiecta scita, sic etiam sunt plura subiecta. Et ista patent discurrendo per ea que
communiter assignantur subiecta in scientiis... quam etiam per rationem,
quantum non apparet taliter qualiter tot partiales scientie dicantur ad unam
scientiam totalem pertinere (ibid., P).Gregorius Ariminensis. Gregorio da Rimini.
Rimini. Keywords: complesso significabile, semplice, complesso, animale, pane,
l’animale percezione del pane, Socrate is seated, truth-functionality, scuola
italiana, scuola di Bologna, studi generali in Italia, studio di Rimini. Refs.:
Luigi Speranza, “Grice e Rimini” – The Swimming-Pool Library.
No comments:
Post a Comment