GRICE E BOEZIO

 

ÆQVIVOCVM -- BOEZIO E GRICE: UNI-VOCALITY OF “EST” AND “IZZES”

J. L. Speranza, The Grice Club.

Et similiter enunciationes plures dicuntur quæ plura et non unum significant: non solum quando interponitur aliqua coniunctio, vel inter nomina vel verba, vel etiam inter ipsas enunciationes; sed etiam si vel inconiunctione, idest absque aliqua interposita coniunctione plura significat, vel quia est unum nomen æquivocum, multa significans, vel quia ponuntur plura nomina absque coniunctione, ex quorum significatis non fit unum; ut si dicam, homo albus grammaticus logicus currit. CARAMELLO

 

Abstract

In 1988, the year of his demise, H. P. Grice got published for The Pacific Philosophical Quarterly (having moved from Oxford to Berkeley in his fifties) under the editorship of his former Oxford pupil B. F. Loar, a rather intriguing essay, entitled, “Aristotle on the multiplicity of being.’ Philosophers well aware of the deep issues involved in matters of ‘univocity’ of ‘being’ and its enemies – equivocity, etc. –, and some of them, were struck by the choice of ‘multiplicity’ in the title, and by the lack of square quotes. It is not the multiplicity of ‘being’, but of being itself! In these notes, I propose to reconsider Grice’s main point vis-à-vis what he calls elsewhere – scil. in the Kant lectures at Stanford – the ‘aequi-vocal’ thesis – as it conforms to his well known advice: unity of sense, multiplicity of implicatures. I add Austin and Boethius for good measure!

Keywords: Boethius, H. P. Grice, univocality, J. L. Austin, aequi-vocality thesis.

“My enterprise,” Grice writes in his “Aristotle on the multiplicity of being,” posthumously edited by B. F. Loar, is “to explore some of the questions which arise out of a fairly well-known cluster of Aristotelian theses.” Which are these? The first brings him to his years of Oxford as university lecturer, in this case his joint seminar with J. L. Austin – who had been obsessed with paronymy since his tutorials with Prichard. In Categoriae, on which Grice lectured rather brilliantly with Austin at Oxford – as Ackrill testifies -- Aristotle distinguishes two different sorts of case of the application of a word or phrase – say, ‘ist’ – in ‘The α is β’ or ‘A ist B’ [I will follow Boethius and stick to the third-person singular] to a range of situations. The first sort of cases that Aristotle isolates is that in which both the word or the phrase and a single definition, account, λόγος, or conceptual analysis, as I prefer, apply throughout that range. The second sort of cases is that, in which the word or phrase – “ist” --, but no single definition or conceptual analysis, applies throughout the range.

 In the first sort of case, Aristotle says, that the word or phrase – say “ist” (A ist B) -- is applied syn-nomymously, or, more strictly, to at least two things which are syn-nomina – each a synonymum as Boethius would have it. For the record, Lewis and Short defines synonymum as “a word having the same meaning with another, a synonym.” They give the source: Front. Eloqu. p. 237; Prisc. 579 P; Serv. Verg. A. 2, 128. (obs. Synophites,, ae, m., a read. In Plin. 37, 10, 59, section 162 fron synnephitis.

In the second sort of case, the word or phrase – say “ist” (A ist B)–  is, Grice goes on, applied homo-nymously (cf. AEQVI-VOCALLY)  — to at least two things which are merely homonuma. Lewis and Short lack an entry for homonymum. But have one for the masculine homoymus and the abstract noun homonymia. Homonymus is defined as ‘of the same name, homonymous, and they give Quintilian as the source: “sicut in his, quae homonyma vocantur: ut, Taurus animal sit, an mons, an signfum in caelo, an nomen hominis, an radix arboris, nis distinctum non intelligitur” – Quint. 8 2 13. Interestingly, for ‘homonymia’, translated by Lewis and Shrot as homonymy, their source is Fronto, Diff. Verbs, p.. 353. Aequivoces.

Provision is also made, Grice adds, for an *intermediate* class of cases – that fascinated Austin --, or (as some may prefer) a sub-division of homonymous applications of a word or phrase into (a) cases of “chance homonymy” and (b) cases of “other-than-chance homonymy,” or as Aristotlle calls them: cases of "paronymy". Cicero couldn’t translate this. So, no entry in Lewis and Short for paronymum, if for paronomasia! (cf. Dictionnaire des untranslatables – PARONYMY, citing Grice).

Ever the philosopher for great tags, Grice adds that one may label the second of these sub-division cases of "UNIFIED – the word is key -- Multiplicity of Signification, or meaning. With Boethius, I will assume throughout that when Grice writes ‘meaning,’ he means ‘signification,’ and vice versa. Prominent among examples of The Unity (Univocity, Aequivocity) of Multiple-Signification is the application of the verb 'ist’ (as in A ist B) – as in the formula ‘The α is β.’ My choice of alpha and beta is informed by Grice’s careful considerations in his more precise, “Utterer’s meaning, sentence-meaning, and word-meaning” – and essay whose title he often found trouble in remembering. Now reprinted in WoW (p. 131ff), in that essay Grice provides for “To utter a psi-cross correlated … if (for some audience  or addressee A) the utterer U wants his audience o addressee A to psi-cross a particular R-correlate of alpha to be one of a particular set of D-correlates of beta. The reference here being his previous realization that a philosopher of language may “need to be able to apply such notion as a PREDICATION of beta (adjectival) on alpha (nominal).” (Smith is tactful, Smith is happy). (As an interesting point, in that essay, Grice is neutral about the mode of the utterance, ‘Let Smith be tactful’, whereas in his lectures on Aristotle he sticks to Aristotle’s obsession with the indicative mode).

Grice would often criticize Aristotle for what Grice calls Aristotle’s rather vague ‘dicta’. (The Pacific-Philosophical-Quarterly paper is an offspring of an earlier lecture delivered at Victoria, where to G. E. L. Owen, Grice makes more than a passing reference). According  to Aristotle, Grice reminds us, “[ist] is _said_ in many — more than one — ways.” πολλαχῶς λέγεται τὸ εἶναι

Grice adds that, among further important examples of this type of UNIFICATION or univocity, or aequivocality, Aristotle and Grice seem to be seeking – never mind Boethius or Austin -- we find the word αγαθόν (Cicero bonum, “good”) which, according to Aristotle, exhibits a seemingly superficial *multiplicity* of signification related to, and perhaps even dependent upon, that displayed by ‘ist’ as in “A ist B”; for in Ethica Nichomachea – that brings Grice again to his years as University Lecturer at Oxford taught ‘for years at Oxford under the tutelage of the translation  by his Oxford tutor – of Owen’s generation -- Hardie -- Aristotle remarks that “αγαθόν” is  _said_ in *as many ways* as being.”

This needed doctrine of the Unification, Unity, Univocality, or Aequivocality of Apparently Multiple Signification of 'ist’ as in ‘A ist B’ is notoriously of great importance to Aristotle. It is used by Aristotle, no less, to preserve the otherwise acceptable characterisation  of the philosophical discipline of philosophia prima as dealing with ist qua ist. The characterization is threatened by two objections. The first objection being that it is not the case that "ist” (as in ‘A ist B’) applies *syn-nonymously* -- for lack of a conceptual definition, or λόγος -- to all the items of things with which such philosophia prima is supposed to be concerned. The second objection has Grice in jest: and it is the one that claims that there is, therefore, no more a genuine or legitimate single prima philosophia than there is, say, — English Oxonian spelling assumed— a genuine single science or discipline of vice. And this is because we apply the expression ‘vice’ to such a thing as dishonesty, which is a moral thing. But we also apply ‘vice’ to such a thing as a clamp, which is a thing made of metal, rather.  These objections can, Aristotle, Boethius, and Grice, and Austin (if ethics has a subject-matter) would hope, he met by the reply that a multiplicity – i. e. not unicity, but duality or plurality -- of signification – if not sense, or content -- can be tolerated in the terminology specifying the subject-matter of a single science, provided that such apparent multiplicity (again, duality or plurality, rather than unity -- of signification  is somehow UNIFIED. Enter UNI VOCAL. Do not multiply senses beyond necessity. Keep your utterance UNIVOCAL and feel free to multiply implicatures as you please.

Grice had witnessed the Viennese bombshells at Oxford as a student at Corpus, and has a thing or two to say about the attacks by Ayer. As if expanding on the state of the art of metaphysics in Post-War Oxford (in his joint article with his former pupil P. F. Strawson and D. F. Pears, ‘Metaphysics,’ in Pears, The nature of metaphysics,’ Grice notes: “I should like,” Grice says after some decades of hindsight, “to say a word (or two) about the nature of my interest in Aristotle — and the peripatetics in general — or the Lycaeum — and about the prospects of deriving from Aristotle a significant contribution to the enquiries which I have it in mind to undertake.” Grice (like Austin, but unlike Ayer) just happens to regards Aristotle as being, like one or two other historical figures — notably Kant (Kantotle is the best)— , not just a great philosopher of the past but as being a great philosopher simpliciter. That is to say: to think of Aristotle – as read by Boethius, say (vide Minnio Paulello on the Aristoteles Latinus – so much studied at Oxford) as being concerned with many of the problems to which we today are, or at least should be, devoting our efforts. Furthermore, it is Grice’s view that once Aristotle — or Boethius, or Vio – vide Ashworth on analogy in Vio in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy -- who worked so arduously on analogy to improve on Aquinas — is properly interpreted, he is likely found to have been handling such problems in ways from which philosophers still have much to learn. 

In brief, then, Grice subscribes to a programme of trying to interpret — of reconstruct — the views of Aristotle (and he is not too fussy about the difference between these two descriptions) in such a way that, unless Aristotle’s text is totally probibitive, Grice will ascribe to Aristotle a view which is true rather than false, reasoned rather than unreasoned, and interesting and profound rather than dull or trivial. Grice is convinced that, in the philosophical area within which the topics of this endeavour fall, there are specially strong reasons for listening as attentively as possible to what Aristotle has to say or implicate. After all, a defence and definition of the nature and range of the enquiries falling under philosophia prima is among the most formidable of philosophical tasks. Philosophers need all the help they can get, particularly at a time when metaphysicians are only recently beginning to re-emerge from the closet, and, to Grice’s mind, are still hampered by the after-math of decades of ridicule and vilification at the hands of those ‘rednecks of Vienna and their adherents’ — notably at Oxford!

The main questions to which Grice addresses himself are various, or shall we say, multiplicitous. As Aristotle suggests, IF at least some expressions connected with the notion of "ist” (never mind αγαθόν – the title of his Victoria conference was on ‘Aristotle on good and being’– as in ‘The α is β’ -- exhibit multiplicity of signification: of which actual expression or utterance is that suggestion true? More precisely: is “ist” -- the conjugated third-person singular form of the verb, in the canonical predication-relation surfaced in the syntactical construction ‘The α is β’ where this suggestion is most plausible? What cognates of the ‘ist’, if any, are similarly affected? What happens when ‘ist’ is merely deleted, as is often the case with Cicero – how can the absence of a verb have a SENSE? What about ‘Socrates walks’ and ‘Socrates is a walker’ – How much freedom should we allow for the convertibility of non-copulative utterances into copulative utterances? Grice has in mind the philosophical lexicon that also has entries for ‘inherentia’ or ‘praesentia,’ and their respective conjugated forms, including ‘existit.’ What link is there, if any, between unity,  multiplicity of significationand jdentity or difference of CONTENT or sense? In what different ways may semantic multiplicity actually become unified? What considerations, if any, confer upon the availability of a single definition or conceptual analysis of special pride of place among possible criteria for identity of meanin, or of sense, or content? Is Aristotle’s suggestion for univocality of ‘A ist B’ to be argued for? Or is it just a matter of the intuitions of the native, however dialectal, speaker of a language? How, if at all, can the availability of such a definition or conceptual analysis involved in the doctrine of univocality be confirmed -- or disconfirmed, for that matter? Is Aristotle's classification of the ways of unifying semantic multiplicity exhaustive? Are its components mutually exclusive? Which form of unification applies to the semantic multiplicity connected with "The α ist β"? Note that, unlike an English philosopher like Grice, Boethius does not need to involve himself with the definite descriptor – ‘the A’ -- when discussing the canonical copulative predication relation: “A ist B” just does.

One first key question to be faced with regard to the possible semantic multiplicity of 'α ist β,’ or of einai, to be, esse  or tò on, what is, ens  is a not very subile question of interpretation. In what range of employments of the word ‘be,’ or of an appropriate Greek or Latin of Italian or other English counterparts, is semantic multiplicity to be looked for? From a standard viewpoint, to which Grice admits he does not in fact wholly subscribe, there seem to be various  possible locations of such semantic multiplicity:  The thesis which Grice identifies with COxford philosopher Owen – of the Ryle group – vide Owen’s necrology of Ryle in The Aristotelian Society, making a passing reference to the reverence Austin’s and laer Grice’s play group had amongst pupils -- in the word ‘be’ taken as meaning ‘existit’. Second, there is Grice’s own thesis, at this stage of development, that the word 'be' be taken as a copula in a statement of predication relation: The α is β. Grice considers two other possible collocations, only to go to dismiss soon: The word ‘be’ taken as expressing identity – vide his “Vacuous Names” for things like “Pegasus = Pegasus’ --. Fourth, the word ‘be’ considered as a noun and as roughly equivalent to 'object' or 'entity. ‘The ‘is’of the matter. Some of these four variants, Grice notes, are not really independent of one another. Since an entity or ens seems to be anything which is -- or exists, it is reasonable to suppose that semantic multiplicity would attach to such a noun as ‘entity’ or ens if, and only it, it also attaches to ‘exists.’ Furthermore, if we accept the commonly received view that 'existit’ may be paraphrased in terms of self-identity -- Pegasus exists if and only if Pegasus is identical with Pegasus, which creates to Meinongian ontological jungle, to paraphrase Grice in “Vacuous Names,” any semantic multiplicity in such a phrase as “is identical with” will go hand in hand with a corresponding semantic multiplicity in the ‘existit.’

Grice seems somewhat relieved to realise that we appear then to be left with just two independent candidates for semantic multiplicity: non-predicational ‘ist' (understood as meaning 'existit', as in the infamous thesis by Owen; and ‘ist’ understood as meaning a copula, as Grice 2.0. Owen, in Oxford, in his provocative ‘Aristotle on the Snares of Ontology,’ that Grice finds some especial excitment in quoting just for amusement, opts indeed – with the aid of asterisks to distinguish between ‘is*’ and ‘is**’ -- for the supposition that semantic multiplicity attaches to 'ist,’ meaning, or with the sense of, 'existit’).“I for a long time shared this belief,” Grice confesses. Austin never did since, an earlier Defensor of linguistic botanizing, always found Prichard’s disregard for the paronymy of ‘agathon’ almost insulting! The two groups – Ryle’s, with Owen, and Austin’s, with Grice, hardly met while at Oxford. Still, our of deference for his Owen, Grice considers Owen’s proposal first, since, too, Grice is the one to enjoy to learn from his errors. (Similarly, in his lecture for the British Academy, Grice starts by noting how he turned from a Stoutian into a neo-Prichardian).

Since Grice wishes to attribute a view to Aristotle only if Grice can find in Aristotle’s oeuvre, or altenatively invent on his behalf, a reasonable plausible argument to support it, Grice wonders whether we can find, or devise, such an argument in this instance. Grice offers the following. In Topica, Aristotle claims that being – or existence --, like unity is predicated of everything. By making this statement, Grice notes, Aristotle seems to imply that 'exists' is truly applicable to every, er, entity. But, Grice warns us, in making the dictum, Aristotle may also be implying that the universal ‘signified,’ or ‘denoted,’ by 'existit', or, if there is a more than such a universal – indeed a duality, plurality, or multiplicity, that one or another of each universal ‘signified,’ or denoted, by 'existit' is instantiated by every, er, entity. But Grice warns us to be cautious, and let us not assume that the second implicature holds, or is not cancellable!

Grice goes on to quote from his favourite Aristotle – as it was Boethius’s favourite, too --. In De Inierpretatione, on which as we’ve noted, Grice lectured for years at Oxford with Austin – Ackrill being among the fortunate pupils who attended, and who ends up translating the thing for The Clarendon Press --  Aristotle declares that every simple declarative sentence, or proposition, contains a hréme, or verb phrase, which ‘signifies’ something said of something else -- the ‘something else' being ‘signfied’ by a noun phrase. – like Smith’s dog, as in Smith’s dog is shaggy (Grice’s example in ‘Utterer’s meaning, sentence-meaning, and word-meaning’.

Indeed, Grice notes, the divisibility of declarative sentences into a kaapináseis, or assertion, and a ipopirseis, or a denial, which respectively assert or deny something (shagginess or hairy-coatedness) about something (Smith’s dog, Fido) -- vide Boethius’s commentary -- suggests that the notion of the exhibition of the subject-predicate relation or form enters into the very definition or conceptual analysis of a declarative sentence or proposition. A crucial reason for Grice to leave Owen for good is that an existential sentence, or proposition – as logicians use ‘existential’ -- is no exception to this thesis, and it even tolerates a quantificational modifier (Some dog is shaggy). Indeed, ‘the a is b’ displays such a toleration. For the analysis of ‘Smith’s dog is shaggy’– being Grice’s example, as opposed to Fido is shaggy, Grice relies on German philosopher Hans Sluga, who had left Germany for Berkeley, for clarification on what ‘the’ actually means in English! See the footnote in Grice’s ‘Presupposition and conversational implicature.’ (Grice had met Sluga at Oxford and found the time to teach him some cricket – he got a tutorial in logic in exchange.

From this it follows that a so-called existential proposition attributes, ascribes, or predicates, a ‘universal’ (shaggy) to its subject item (Fido). And here the reductio ad absurdum of Owen’s proposal: if ‘existit’ did signify a single universal, it would signify a generic universal – but ‘being’ ain’t a genus --, as Grice calls it, since, as is shown by differences in the ten categories, there is more than one way of ‘existing’ which would be (now) a species of such genus as existence is claimed to be. But then Aristotle suggests in his Metaphysics, too -- a rather strong hint here -- that being, or existence, is notably not a genus, and so is *not* a generic universal. 

A crucially different account therefore, needs to be found of what are naturally thought of as more than one way of such an ‘existence.’‘Existit’ cannot ‘signify’, on the other hand, a singular or unique universal, since Greeks and Englishmen like to talk, and criss-cross at least the ten categories of Aristotle! Rather, ‘existit’ would ‘signify,’ or denote, now one, now another, of at least a duality, a plurality, or duality, or multiplicity of this o that universal – any of the each ten categories, with the provision that some include essential predication, i. e. predication of essentia – whereas the canonical form now involves what Grice sees as a non-essential predication relation – not what A is, but what A has – a hairy coat.

Now, if ‘existit’ would ‘signify’ a duality plurality of multiplicity of universals, that plurality should need to satisfy at least two serious conditions. First, the plurality of universals that ‘existit’ allegedly would ‘signify’ or denote should be as small a plurality as possible -- by an intuitively acceptable principle of economy or semantical parsimony – Grice’s razor: Senses – even significations, especially when ascribed to an expression rather than its utterer -- are not to be multiplied beyond necessity. Second, each of the elemental categories or universals of the plurality for ‘existence’ would notably need to be an essential property of items of the kind to which it attaches.

While Owen’s thesis then involves a reference to ‘essentia,’ Grice feels like playing the linguistic game vis-à-vis Owen when distinguishing two senses of ‘is’ – is* and is** --. It is at this point that Grice coins ‘… IZZES …’ to name ‘is’ in such kind of predication of essentia. Grice’s logic is the converse of Aristotle, which allows Grice to introduce a counterpart for ‘… izzes …’ – notably: ‘… hazzes …’ – and its nominal counterpart: ‘a hazzer’. It is not that Fido IZZES a hairy coat, but that Fido HAZZES it. The removal of a property pertaining to the essentia – cognate indeed with ‘ist’ -- from any bearer belonging to a given kind (Fido is a dog) just deprives that bearer of existence. With respect to any kind, each element property seems to be entailed by the very concept of this spatio-temporal ‘existence,’ to which Owen’s thesis attributes such weight. The only set of universals which satisfies both of these two strong conditions is the set of category-heads themselves, as the most general list of properties of essentia one of another of which every item may on occasion possess.

Such ten category-heads then constitute the required plurality (not duality now) or multiplicity – which accounts for Aristotle’s ‘many ways’. ‘Exists’ by virue of ‘signifying’ a plurality or multiplicity of universals, exhibits multiplicity of signification. Interestingly, in his own “Utterer’s meaning, sentence-meaning, and word-meaning”, Grice analyses meaning ascriptions for both the nominal “Fido” and the adjectival “shaggy”, skipping a meaning ascription for “is” altogether – to which he laid the focus in his Aristotelian researches only. The argument given by Aristotle in favour of the contention that the concept behind ‘ist’ is not a genus is, Grice admits, rather obscure, if not of the Heraclitean type. Aistotle’s argument for denying ‘ist’ a GENERIC conceptual analysis rests on the thesis that a genus G cannot be predicable of a differentia, or diaphoron – symbolized by Grice as D -- of one of its species S.

Aristotle also seems to rely on the supposition that, if  ‘ist’ were a genus, it would have to offend against this prohibition. After all, ‘ist’ is universally predicable. More formally, if S is a species of a genus G, it must be the case that G belongs essentially to S, and is, therefore in the same category as S, that S is differentiated, within G, by some universal D; and that D is categorially different from, and, so to speak, categorially inferior to both S and G, in that no item in the category of S and G attaches essentially to, and so be predicable of D. Grice’s example: ‘two-footed,’ as a difterentia, differs in category from man and mammal – it is a quality, rather than a substance, in such a way that neither man nor mammal can be predicated of it. Which is not the case. It is a secondary substance which is not predicable of a quality, even though it may be the case that, necessarily, anything which has a given quality is a given sort of substance. But, if ‘ist’ were a genus G, since ‘ist’ (read, alla Owen, ‘existit’) is universally predicable, it would be predicable of any differentia of any of its species.

To show that ‘existit’ possesses not merely multiplicity of signification as an EXPRESSION, but  multiplicity of signification as per UTTERER’s MEANING may render it aequi-vocal. An item Alpha “existit” just in case it belongs to some  category C. E. g., substance, quality, quantity, etc. If category C is a category OTHER  than the first one, i. e. a substance, an item x can be a C, i. e. fall under C, only if alpha is a C of some substance beta. This can be seen as an application of a version of the doctrine of universalia in se. A version of the doctrine of universalia in se demands that the existence of a universal U requires, not just the possibility, but the actuality of an item alpha or beta which instantiates that universal.

The instantiation thesis is explicitly enunciated by Aristotle in Metaphysics. X being a C of some substance beta which *instantiates* C entails – to use Moore’s coinage -- being a C of something Y which ‘exists; in that sense or under that interpretation of 'existit’ which is appropriate for a substance. – Bunbury, but not disinterestedness. For a substance to exist is, plainly, lfor it to be a substance. (In seminars at Oxford with Strawson, Grice played with the difference between ‘Bunbury doesn’t exist’ and ‘Disinterestedness doesn’t exist’. The former, but not the latter, requires spatio-temporal continuity: ‘That’s not true: he’s in the next room,’ whereas ‘Disinterestedness is in the other room’ only IMPLICATES that an ‘instantiation’ of ‘disinterestedness’ is in the other room. (Grice regretted that Strawson failed to credit him when Strawson eventually published his Individuals: an essay in descriptive metaphysics. That a substance beta (say Fido) exists is prior to, or ‘presupposed’ by, each form of ‘exists,’ as it applies to an alpha which is not a substance – say, shagginess, or hairy-coatedness. The set of ways, in Aristotle’s phrase, in which 'existit’ is said are united by an appropriate relation to a primary substantial be, like Fido. "Exisit' would then exhibit unified semantic multiplicity

In spite of a recognisable affinity with philosophical positions which Aristotle is known to have liked, and also due to its bearing of at least a superficial charm, Owen’s argument does not however, lack its drawbacks -- both from a historical and from a conceptual point of view. A crucial passage for consideration is Aristotle’s Metaphysics devoted to what is (be) in the philosophical lexicon contained in the Metaphysics. There, Aristotle says, it seems, that whatever things are ‘signified’ by the forms of predication, presumably the categories, are said to be in themselves -- per se, kath'auta); 'be' has AS MANY SIGNIFICATIONS as there are forms of PREDICATION.. 

Since a predicate (beta) sometimes say what a thing (alpha) is, EST. But a predicate sometimes says what alpha is EST like. Sometimes, even, a predicate says how much alpha is, EST. And so on. There would be a different ‘signification’ of ‘EST’ corresponding to each predication, essential or non-essential. Occam’s razor rendered totally useless if it’s not here to cut Plato’s beard! Aristotle concludes that passage in the Metaphysics with the with the almost scholastic, if controversial, remark that there is no real difference in depth between the superficially varied “man walks (flourishes)” and “man is IST walking (flourishing).”

The obvious interpretation of this remark, beloved by Boethius and all the scholastics, is that the appearance of any verb-form like “walks” or “flourishes,” or “flies,” said of Pegasus, or “rides Pegasus,” said of Bellerophon, creates no major difficulty for Grice, since they may all be replaced, without loss or change of sense, by such an expression in canonical form such as  'is IST walking' or "is IST flourishing' ‘is flying, ‘is riding Pegasus’. If the expression regarded by Aristotle as canonical in form it is because the explicit use of ‘IST,’ whose multiplicity he is at least at his point discussing a copulative, or, strictly, COPULATION. Grice concedes that Aristotle on occasion does admit a categorial variation in the sense of copulative ‘ist’.  IST as IZZES, Owen is notably unwilling to allow that Aristotle is primarily concerned with copulative ‘ist’ regardless. As a result, and it seems Grice is having Warnock’s ‘Metaphysics in logic’ in mind here – in the well-circulated Flew collection --, Grice notes that Owen, rather strangely, interprets, the remark by Aristotle as alluding to semantic multiplicity in the copula as being supposedly a consequence of semantic multiplicity in ‘existit’! (Warnock’s three examples being: “There are tigers in Africa”; “Tigers still exist,” and “There are such things as tigers.” P. 88.

Now, Owen’s interpretation seems difficult to defend for someone with the ears atuned to the type of linguistic botanizing that philosophers of Grice’s generation – like Austin, his senior by two years, and Warnock – but unlike Owen’s generation, like Ryle, or Prichard --. When Aristotle says that a predicate sometimes may say what a thing is, sometimes what  it is like -- its quality --, sometimes how much it is -- its quantity --, and so on, he seems to be saying that, if we consider the range of predicates which can be applied to some item, for example to a substance like Fido – Smith’s infamously shaggy dog --, these predicates are categorially various, and so the use of the IST IzzES, in the ascription of these predicates, would undergo a terrifying corresponding variation of signification! In fairness to Owen, Aristotle has connected the semantic multiplicity in IST not with variation between the various predicates of one subject, but with variation between essential, pertaining to the essentia, or per se, predications upon different, indeed categorially different, subjects. Grice is having in mind Aristotle’s predications such as as "Socrates IS a man", "Cambridge blue IS a colour (a blue, a blue colour) A desire to harmonise these statements leads Grice to wonder whether Aristotle may be maintaining not only that the copula IS exhibits a multiplicity of signification which corresponds to the categorial differences between different statements – assertions or denials -- about one subject, for example, Fido, but also that this semantic multiplicity may be attributable to a multiplicity in the notion of essential being IST. The signification of 'is’ would, if Owen were right, vary between  "Socrates is a man", “Fido is shaggy,” and Cambridge blue is a colour",  or, to use another of Aristotle’s examples from his bag of linguistic botany: the didascalian “A weight of two pounds is a magnitude.”

To voice his suspicion more explicitly, Grice ventures that it might be Aristotle's view that if "Sociates is BETA" of F, to adopt the canonical symbol used by Grice in “Vacuous Names” to refer to a predicate (Fa, Ga, Fb, Gb), Smiths dog is shaggy, is an accidental, i. e. non-essential, predication,  Beta (as in Utterer’s meaning, sentence meaning, and word meaning) or "F" (as in Vacuous Names) signifies an item in category C, and ‘has" expresses the CONVERSE of Aristotle's relation of inherentia or praesentia, then the LOGICAL FORM of a proposition like ‘Socrates is beta’ or ‘Socrates is F’ or ‘Smith’s dog is shaggy’ may be regarded as expressed by the simpler "Socrates HAS, but IS not, something which IS F" or BETA -- where 'ist’ represents a sense of 'is,’ of 'is essentially,’ which corresponds to category C. The copula est in such cases expresses the logical PRODUCT of a constant, and thus manageable and systematic relation expressed by 'has,’ HAZZES — not est— and a categorially variant relation expressed by 'is,’ est is essentially.’

These predominantly scholarly murmurs against the received view, Grice notes, that Aristotle regards so-called (by logicians) ‘Ex’ (or in Peano’s inverted Ex – an existential statement or proposition as the habitat of semantic multiplicity are not the only possible kinds of dissent. A different kind of complaint, against the viability of the position which Grice has been treating so far as if it were Aristotle's rather than against the suggestion that he in fact held it, would urge the untenability of the thesis, supposedly a foundation of his position that EZx  are a particular VACUOUS NAMES type of subject-predicate utterance type (Smith is happy). But it is possible, Grice concedes, that Owen voices something like this charge iwhen he distinguishes typex of exists. One form of such an objection would be that "goats mumble" EX (x), whether treated as a way of saying "goats always mumble" or saying "goats usually mumble", or of saying "goats sometimes mumble", or as being indeterminate between these alternatives, has to be supposed to presuppose the existence of goats. Cf Warnock – Strawson. This will be attested both by intuition, and by a need to extend to all interpretations a feature which is demanded for universal of total and particular utterance types, in order to escape ditficulties which arise in connection with the Square of Opposition. To suppose "a goats exists" – but not a stag-goat exists, or a flying horse exists outside the realms of Greek mythology -- to be analogous to "a goats mumbles", would be to suppose that "a goats exists — Warnock a tiger exists — " presuppose that a goats exists or to put it another way, the truth of "a goats exists" is a necessary precondition of its being enher tre or faise that a goats exists. 

This is an absurdity. Even for Collingwood, who loved a metaphysical presupposition (vide Grice’s early treatment of Collingwood, then a big name at Oxford, in ‘Metaphysics,’ in Pears, The nature of metaphysics). It seems to Grice that Aristotle can be defended against this attack. To begin with, the invocation of a semantic relation of  collingwoodisn presupposition is not the only recourse when one is faced with troubles about the Square of Opposition. One might, for example, try to deploy a pragmatic notion of presupposition which would not mitigate the alleged absurdity. Presupposition  as implicature in negation; presupposition as entailment in affirmation 

 But a more serious defence might suggest that Aristotle has more than one method of handling Ex existentisls; that there are indeed two such methods, both S est P subject-predicate in character, which when combined avoid the charge. In Metaphysics where the primary topic seems 10 be what kinds of attributes are constitutive of and differentiate between sons of sensible things, Aristotle argues the range of such crudal teatures is much larger than Democritus allows atom, and indicates ways of giving quasi definitions of a variety of sensible objects, such as a threshold or ice, which contain analogues of genus and differentia. 

At this point, almost parenthetically, he gives a pattern of conceptual definitional analysis for existentials about such things. The pattern consists (of the sequence some + genus* + l: + differentia*; c.g., "Some water IST frozen" (an analysand for "ice exists" and “A stone iIST situated in threshold position" (an analysand for "a threshold exists"). We have, then, for certain Ex existential a definiens in subject-predizate s Ist P form which by utilizing the elements in definitions, ELIZmIznATES eliminates the  'existit altogether. Grice goes on to suggest, on Aristotle's behalf, that this ELIMINATIVE form could be employed lo conceptually analyst and define general existentials, like "ice exists" , "A goat exists,” -- while the category citing forms. like Socrates is a substance could be used to conceptuallyto analyse or define singular existentials, like ‘Socrates exists".A strategy for an attempted presentation of in argument in support of the hypothesis that unified semantic multiplicity is to be located in the copula, or in a sub-range of examples in which est is used as a copula, viz., cases of accidental predication, will be to put forward as a preliminary a partial sketch of a theory of categories, which Grice regards as being in the main Aristotelian, to comment on some points of interest in that sketch, and finally to use it as a basis for the proposed argument. 

Grice’s sketch departs from Aristotle's own position in one or, two respects, thereby depicting i somewhat improved theory, and it will incorporate what seems to be a conspicuous extension of his theory, though one which, so far as I can see, he might well have accepted without detriment to his account. Grice’s motivation is to put forward an outline of an account of categories which is overtly more SYSTEMATIZc than the assemblage of dicta which one may extract from Aristotle's (L). Grice starts, much as Aristotle does in Categoriae, by distinguishing two forms of predication. Each relation, which may be called  "izzes' and -- "Hazzes', are approximately the converses, respectively, of his relations “Is” said of and “is in (a subject)”. Ian x izzes () y  i=df y is said of x. hab  X hZzsz y  =df y is present in x. Grice goes on to list some of the properties which I wish to assign to these relations, adding that n one or two cases there seems to be options. Izzing is reflexive (Vxix izzes x), non-symmetrical (symmetry-neutral), and transitive. Grice’s hazzing, on the other hand, is inreflexive, either intransitive or transitivily-neutral, and asymmetrical. In all cases, if an individual x izzes y, y is essential to x, in the sense that it x were not to izz y, x would no longer exist. It is, however, certainly not true in all cases that if x hazzes y, its hazzing y is essential to its existence; indeed, Grice confesses to an inclination to think, that this is not true in any case. Grice is however disposed to accept the following "mised" law. (0) 11 x I y and y H z, x Hz; the acceptability of this law would depend on the idea that a non individual y hazzes something z ilt [of necessity] every individual falling under y (that is every indivicual that izzes y) hazzes 2. Grice is however, not disposed to accopf the "mixed" law. (ii) If x H y and y lz,  x Il z, since I would like to espouse the idea that a subject a (in any category other than that of x) harzes only individuals); in which case, l might also espouse the idea that the copula Ist can be conceptually analyzed or defined in terms of the disjunction of & l y and x H something z which I y. Grice makes izzing reflexive, so some of his definitions must differ from his, since I cannot claim, as le did in Caregories 3a7, that nothing tzzes an individual substance. The definitions will run as follows. I is an individual iff nothing other than x izzes x. x is a primary individual iff x is an individual and nothing hazzes x. x is a primary substantial (x is in the category of "substance") iff sune primary individual izees x. x is il secondary substance ig & is a primary substantial but not an individual. x is identical with y iff x izzes y and y izzes x. y is predicable of x iff either x izzes y or & huzzes something z which izzes y. 

Grice is now ready to compare his definition with the conceptual analysis of the copula est.  And y will be a primary element in some category other than that of substantials just in case there is a individual x [an individual which is a primary substantiall which hazzes something z which in tum izzes y (this allows for the possibility that z may be identical with y). Obviously, in the case of such a foreign predication a method will be needed for determining which foreign' category is involved as being the category of the predicated item y. 

We can attempt to make use of the different one-word interrogatives which can be extracted from Aristotle – and Cook Wilson, whose Statement and Inference Grice sort of worshipped, with the supposition that items in a particular category may be suitably invoked to provide answers to just one of the kinds of questions asked by each of such interrogatives. But it is not clear that such a list of interrogatives is sufficiently comprehensive (relatives, for example, seem to escape this programme. Nor is it clear what the rational basis would be for such a list of questions. While Aristotle says much that is interesting about some particular categories, his attempts, for example in the cases of quantity and quality, to pick on primary distinguishing marks are not clear. Such shortcomings matter Little. It seems sufficient to assume the availability of some discriminating procedure (perhaps some furtirer development of the 'interrogatives method) since Grice’s main concern is with the consequences of a scheme involving some procedure of such a sort. At this point the sketch incorporates the extension of Aristotle's thcory of categories. Grice assumes that there is an operation, substantialisation – a metaphysical routine if ever there was one – Grice, Prejudices and preilections, which become the life and opinions of H. P. Grice, which, when applied directly to an individual which belong to a con-substantial category, relocates it  in a NON-primary division of the category of substantials, thereby instituting or licensing the alocated items as further subjects of hazzing; the items hazzed by them will inhabit NON primary divisions of categories other than that of substantials. A Qualities of substance na be might be relocated as a non primary substantial, thereby becoming subjects which hazz (soy) further qualitatives of quantitatives, : that is to say. inhabitants of a NON primary division of this or that NON substantial category. So the category of qualitatives may include qualities of substances, qualities of substantialized qualities (or substantialized quantities) of substances, and so without any fixed limit. Fidinterestnedd diedng exist Banbury doesn’t exist.

The scheme would, provide for substantialisation with respect to some, but not necessarily to all, items which initially belong to some NON substantial category; some categories, however, might be inebigible£ for the application of substantialisation, and in other categories it might be that only sub-categories would be eligible for substantialisation.The scheme also ensures that substantialisation goes hand-in hand with beooming a subject of hazzing; but would not guarantee that substantialised items would hazz further items in every non-substantial category. Admittedly, Grice’s scheme as is absirace : and it would be necessary to make sure that it could have application to concrete cases.  It might also, even if concretely applicable, be only PARTIAL in character; it might, for example, provide for one kind of category (say “logical categories”), but leave other kinds of categories, like sensory categories, unprovided for. Grice’s scheme leaves room lor sub. categorial diversities within a given overall entegory, There might be distinctions between, for example, qualities of substances, qualities of quantities of substances, qualities of quantities of actions of substances, and so forth. All of these specific classes would fall within a general category of QUALITY: and there would be opportunity to legislate against any item's belonging to more than one sub-division. Within an already discriminated category or sub-category there might be a categorial distinction between substantializable and non-substantialicable items.There will be room 1o adopt a cruerion of realiy distinct frem the perhaps increasingly cedious Quineian condition of being "quantifiable over"

One might, for example, insist that reality attaches, or full reality attaches, only to items which besides being izzers, being izzed, and being hazzed, are themselves haziers (that is, are susceptible to substantialisation).Since it cannot be assumed that a non-primary substantial will receive predicables in every non-substantial category, there is room for distinctions of richness between the range of categories from which predicobles apply to one huzzer, and that from which predicables apply to another; and these variations in predicationable richness could be used as a measure of degree of reality: the richer the realer, with primary substantials at the top. Having discussed two different suggestions about the possible location of semantic multiplicity associated with the notion of ist Grice expands. One would lie ta the range of maximally general specifications of the notion of existit (of the use of the verb to be' to signify existence). The other would lie in the use of the copula to signify different predication relations. 

Both suggestions seem to have solid Aristotelian foundations. The categorial multiplicity of the term 'existit' and the distinction between different forms of predication relations are both well-established Aristochian docirines. So far, then, there might seem little room for a preference of one suggestion to the other. There are, however, two lines of reflection which in one way or another might upset this equilibrium. The first line of reflection would allow that Aristotle or an Aristotelian might have good reasons for secking TWO, rather than merely one, predication-relation, reasons perhaps connected with intuitively acceptable restrictions on the scope of transitivity, and with a desire to block such unwanted inferential moves as "Socrates is white, white is a colour, so Socrates is a colour.” (But cf. “Fido’s coat is shaggy; so Fido is shaggy”). But it remains true that nocharacterization hos been given of the concept of a predication-relation; and though certain formal properties may have been assigned to izzing and hazzing, it is not clear that these formal properties would by themselves be adequate guides for someone wanting to be told how to apply the terms izzing' and luzzing' to a particular case. It is not clear, either, whot extra formal supplementation could he provided, one would hardly suppose, for example, such relational terms to be susceptible of ostensive definition. It may then be that these relations do not (and presumably cannot) have a readily discernible character, a fact which if not a blemish at least creates a problem.  It is ultimately possible then that despite initial appearances the notion of a predization-relation is not well-defined, and indeed that apparent examples of such relations are illusory. This alternative line of reflection then, might confer better survival chances upon the first of the two suggestions here dstinguished.

A different line of reflection, however, is one which Grice is certainly more inclined to take seriously. Unlike the previous one, this line of reflection would not lavour the attribution to Aristotle of one rather than the other of two viens about the location of a contain semantis multiplicity. It would rather suggest. or conjecture, that the attribution to Aristotle of either view would involve a misconception of Aristotle's position, unless it wore accompanied by a recognition of a certain not immediately obvious distinction. Enter pragmatics – and implicature. It would be a mistake to suppose Aristotle to be holding that exists est ‘signifies; a plurality of distinct universals and that therefore the existential 'is' bos a plurality of meaning; It would also he a mistake to attribute to Aristotle the view that the copulative 'is may signify one or another of lWo predication-relations thereby ‘signifying’ a plurality of universals, with the consequence that the copulative "is' has more than one meaning. What Aristotle is really proposing is a separation of — the question what an U universals is, — the question how many SIGNIFICATIONS an expression possesses. Aristotle is suggesting the possibility that a particular expression may have only one meaning sense or content and yet be used on different occasions to point to different universals. It is no doubt trus that historically universals were admitted to the realm of philosophical discourse in order to be items in which the meaning of particular expressions might consist. But this historical fact does not establish an indissoluble connection between universals and the meanings of a linguistic expression; and it should be modified or abandoned should subsequent rational reflection provide reasons for adopting such a ovurse.

Grice is well aware that his suggestion, whether advanced on behalf of Aristotle or independently, that a distinction should be made between, on the one hand, the universal or universals, which either in general or on a particular occasion are pointed by the expression, and, on the other hand, the meaning or meanings of the expression in question, which is likely to give rise to a sense of shock. Grice suggests that susceptibility to this sense of shock will be independent of the question whether the person who feels it is friendly or unfriendly towards universals. Grice invites us to consider first the reaction of one who is friendly to universals. The philosopher may be liable to take the view that the reason for introducing universals in the first place was primarily, indeed exclusively, to equip ourselves with a range of items, each of which would serve as that which was meant, or as one of the things that was meant by significant expressions. This is what a universal does, and it is what they are supposed to do, and they do it perfectly well; it is not therefore in order te propose a severance of just that connection with meaning which gives universals a raison d'être. One who is unfriendly to universals can hardly be expected to be more sympathetic to the proposal, such a person might be unfriendly to universals either because, like Quine, while he is prepared to describe each of a multitude of expressions as being meaningful, be is not prepared to count as legitimate specifications of what it is that a meaningful expression means, or he is not prepared to allow that two distinct expressions may each mean the same thing. These denials are plainly linked; if it is legitimate to ask of two meaningful expressions, what it is that each mcans we can hardly preveat it from being the case, sometimes, that what each means is just the same as what the other means. Alternatively the enemy of universals might not wish to eliminate specifications of meaning or the possibility of synonymy; his position is rather that an adequate account of the full range of meaning-concepts can be provided without resort to universals. But the enemies of universals, from whichever camp they come, may well insist that one who, unlike them, is disposed to bring in universals is not at liberty to contemplate divorcing them from that connection with meaning which he will have to allow as underlying their claim to existence.

Grice is not sure that such hostility to the general idea of divorcing the ‘signification’ of one or more universals from the possession of one or more meanings is as solidly founded as initially it appears to be. If I ask someone whether he knows the birth place of Cicero, he might reply in two quite different ways. He might say: “Certainly I do; he was born in Arpino.” Alternatively he might reply "I am afraid I do not. Cicero was born in Arpino, 1 am afraid I have never been able to get to Arpino so I don't know the place at all.’ The obvious difference between these two distinct interpretations of the question seems to me to be plainly connected with the functioning of certain pronouns as (a) indirect interrogatives (b) as relatives; in my example, the first reply claims knowledge where Cicero was born, the second claims ignorance of that place where (in which) Cicero was born.

There are other ways of looking at the linguistic phenomenon presented by my example, which are not incompatible with the way just outlined. and indeed which may turn out to be useful complementaries to it. One might draw attention to a distinction between knowledge of propositions and knowledge of things, suggesting that what the first respondent claims is propositional knowledge, whereas, what the second respondent disclaims is thing-knowledge; the second respondent exhibits a certain bit of propositional knowledge but professes substantial ignorance concerning the item to which his propositional knowledge relates. There is of course no reason why these two states should not coexist. While we are directing our attention to this approach, we night bear in mind that one kind of knowledge might be dependent on the other. It might, for example, be the case that knowing a thing a consists in the possession of a perhaps indefinitely extended supply of pieces of propositional knowledge, all of which are cases of propositional knowledge which relates to x; or alternatively, knowledge of x might consist not in an indefinite supply of pieces of propositional knowledge about x, but rather in the possession of a foundation or a base from which such propositional knowledge may be readily generated. Yet a further idea to be considered begins with the recognition that definite descriptions like many other kinds of phrases may, within a sentence occupy either subject position or predicate position; as some might prefer to put it, "the birth place of Cicero" may be used either referentially or predicatively. It might then be suggested that in the mouth, or at least in the mind, of the first respondent the phrase "the birth place of Cicero" occurs predicatively, whereas in the case of the second respondent it occurs referentially, as, potentially at least, a subject expression. If we suppose the phrase to occur predicatively in a given cose, it will be necessary that one should be able to point to a mentioned or unmentioned item to which the predicate in question might apply: then, in the case of the first respondent in normal circumstances there will be some particular item which he thinks of as, or believes to be, the birth place of Cicero.

The relevance of this discussion to the topic of meaning and universals is that it may with some plausibility be alleged that those who have invoked universals as the items in which the meaning or meanings of significant expressions consist are guilty of representing such a phrase as "knowing the meaning of the word 'watershed " as referring to knowledge of an object or thing, as knowledge of “that which” the word watershed' significs or means (where the pronoun "which' is a relative pronoun); whereas, in fact, the phrase plainly refers to knowing what the word ‘watershed’ – or ‘runt’ means where the pronoun 'what' is indirectly interrogative rather than relative. The theory of universals as meaning, then, rests on a syntactical blunder; that this is so is attested by the fact that in principle at least the caning of an expression E, may be identical with the meaning of the expression E’ but plainly to know the meaning of E, is not the same as to know the meaning of E’.

This attack on the historical genesis of the concept of a universal as the focal element in a certain kind of anti-nominalistic theory of meaning, might encounter the following response. It might not be denied that the kind of syntactical blunder, which I have been attempting to expose, is in fact a blunder and has indeed been committed by some who have championed the cause of universals. It is, however, a remedial blunder which can be rectified, ultimately not only without damage, but even with advantage to the view of universals as the primary constituents of meaning. Once universals are admitted, they can be, and should be, thought of and accepted as being those items which are the meanings of this or that element of language. In the end, then, knowing the meaning of an expression E would emerge as knowing what E means, rather than what an utterer U means by uttering E, that is, as propositional knowledge connected with interrogative pronouns rather than as thing-knowledge connected with relative pronouns. So everything comes right in the end; and the tie between universals and meanings cannot be put asunder.

This defence of the inviolability of the link between the concept of a universal and ‘signification’ may be ingeniously contrived, but is not, I think, irresistible. If the specification of meanings were to provide not merely a useful mode of employment for universals once they are recognized as being around, but rather the sole justification and raison d’être of the supposition that they are around, the specification of meaning would have to be not merely something that can be commodiously done with universals, but rather something which cannot be done or fully done without universals. To my mind this stronger requirement cannot be met. There are, I think, some cases of expressions E such that knowing the meaning of E cannot comfortably be represented as knowing, with respect to some acceptable entity that it is that to which the description "the (a) meaning of E" applies. I offer two examples:

If Grice were to say "The wind is blowing in the direction of Arpino", any normally equipped Greek, Latin, English, or Italian speaker would know the meaning both in general and on the current occasion of the phrase ‘in the direction of Arpino’; that is to say he would know both what in general the phrase means and what Grice meant by it on the occasion of utterance. But such examples of knowledge of the meaning in general, and also the meaning relevant to a particular occasion, of a particular phrase, so far as 1 can sec, neither requires, nor is assisted by, the specification of an admissible entity which is to be properly regarded as that to which the description ‘the meaning of the phrase ‘in the direction of Arpino’’ applies, either generally or on this occasion. It is unlikely that there is such an admissible entity, the phrase 'in the direction of Sacramento' does not seem to be one which applies to any particular entity; and even if it were possible to justify the claim, such a justification seems hardly to contribute to one's capacity for knowing what such a phrase means.

 By a precisely parallel argument I may know perfectly well what is ‘signified’ by ‘the inducement which I offers you for looking after my farm in Sibila', even though I am neither helped nor hindered by the presence or absence of any thought to the effect that there is some admissible item which satisfies the description "the signification of the phrase 'the inducement which I offer you for looking atter my farm in Sibile' "

Before leaving this topic, Grice makes two further comments. First, the fact that the conection between universals and meanings may not be inviolable does not dispense someone who wishes to modify it from obligations to make clear just what changes he is making; second, if a theory of meaning should fail to provide an indispensable rationale for the introduction of universals, it might turn out to be incumbent upon a metaphysician to offer an alternative rationale. But this question will have to wait for another occasion.

Let us for the moment retain an open mind on the nature of Aristotle's views about the connection between the unification of multiplicity of signification and the presence or absence of identity of ‘signification’. Aristotle lists a number of modes of this kind of unification which I shall consider one by one. As one embarks on this enterprise one might well bear in mind the possibility that the list provided by Aristotle might not be intended to be exhaustive; and that the number and proper characterization of the modes which do occur in Aristotle's list is sometimes uncertain. Aristotle refers to cases in which a general term is applied by reference to a central item or type of items as ones in which there is a single source for a contribution to a single end. It is not clear whether he is giving a single general description or a pair of more specific descriptions each of which applies to a different sub-class of examples. I know no way of settling this uncertainty. The modes of unification actually listed by Aristotle consist in (a) what Grice dubs, with deference to Peano, recursive unification in which the application of each member of a range of predicates is determined by the conditions governing the application of a primary member of that range, and as opposed to both what Grice, with deference to Owen, calls focal unification (unification which derives from connection with a single central item), and analogical unification, in which the applicability of one predicate or class of predicates is generated by analogies with other predicates or classes of predicates, I shall consider these headings in order. The cases of Peanoan recursive unification are primarily, though not exclusively. mathematical in character; they are also cases in which what one might call the "would-be" species of a generic universal stand to one another in relations exemplifying priority and posteriority. The Platonists – or academia, as Cicero prefers --, so Aristotle tells us, regarded such priority and posteriority as inadmissible between fellow species of a single genus. Aristotle does not explicitly subscribe to this view, but he does not explicitly reject it and is liable to act as if he accepted it. Grice suggests that ‘number’ and ‘soul’ fall under this type of unification – vide his “Method in philosophical psychology: from the banal to the bizarre”. Why should priority and posteriority stand in the way of being different species of a single genus? Why should not different numbers be distinct species of the genus number? In the case of numbers, End. Eih. (121%aff.) attempts a reductio ad absurdum: if there were a form (universal) signified by "number" it would have to be prior to the first number, which is impossible; this argument might be expanded as follows: consider a sequence of "number-properties" (Pl, p?..., e.g., 2-ness, 3-ness ...): such a sequence satisfies, inter alia, the following conditions. For any x and for any n 1, x instantiates Pi entails x does not instantiate pa-' (nor indeed any P'). For any x and for any n * 1, x instantiates P" entails something y (* x) instantiates pr-/If P™ = P', no counterpart of (a), (b) holds; so Pl is the first number. If the fulfillment of the above conditions is to be sufficient to establish a sequence of properties as a sequence of number properties, then there cannot be a universal number; if there were, it would, like any genus, be prior to each of its species, and so prior to Pl; but since P' is the first number it cannot have a predecessor and so nothing can be prior to it. There seem to be two objections. It is by no means clear that the above conditions are sufficient to guarantee that a sequence of properties is a sequence of number-properties. Even if they were, one part of them would not be fulfilled in the case of Pl and being a number; if x instantiates Pl (viz., 2-ness), x, not something other than x, will instantiate being a number, a set whose cardinality is 2 itself instantiates being a number (as a cardinality). If this route to a denial of the existence of a generic universal number fails there are two further possibilities. One might attempt to represent conformity to a "standard" genus-species-differentia model as being not just an acceptable picture of situations in which a more general universal has under it a range of subordinate universals which are its specializations, but as being constitutive for such examples of the existence of the more general universal. The slogan might be "For there to be a universal U, with specializations U,, U,, ..., U,, U has to be the genus of those specializations with all that that entails" (or, more briefly, "no specialization without species"). The justification for such a claim will not be easy to find. While, intuitively. one might be prepared to accept the idea that a more general universal must be independent of its specializations in that the non-emptiness of the general universal should be compatible with the emptiness of any particular specialization (though not of course with the emptiness of all specializations), it does not seem intuitively acceptable to make it a condition of the existence of U that any pair of specializations U, and U2 should be in this sense independent of one another. One might try a simpler form of argument. If the special cuses for the application of a general term E, that is to say, the universals U, ... U, are united by a single ordering relation R into a series 5, the elements of which [U, ... U.] cover every item to which E applies, and only such items, then we do not need a generic universal U; its would-be species U, ... U, are already unified by membership of the series S. The expression "being an instance of some universal in the series S" is of course applicable to anything to which E is applicable; but this expression does not even look like the name of a gonus.

Another, more Oxonian, indeed more Corpus, sice it was Owen’s -- mode of unification to which the alleged multiplicity of ‘significations’ may be susceptible, that of, to use Owen’s verbiage, focal unification, is discussed at length by Aristotle in Metaphysics. – who incidentally, never read Owen! In Metaphysics Aristotle brings up two of his favourite – Grice’s Oxford pupil, Strawson, said ‘stock’ -- examples, the applications of the sanus and medicalis. Aristotle indeed states that everything to which sanus or sanum or sana applies – never mind the plurals -- is related to, in one way or another, the focal item of sanitas, -- an universal if ever there is one --. One item, in the that the item *preserves* sanitas; another item that in that the item *produces* it; an yet another in that the item is a symptom of sanitas; an fourthly, another item, because it is an item which is capable of it. Similar considerations apply to applications of medicalis. An item which is medical is relative to the medical art, another item being medical because it possesses such an art; yet another item because it is naturally adapted to the medical art; and another item because it is a function of the medical art. On the most obvious interpretation of the passage, Aristotle seems to be implicating that standard analysis of ‘signification’ will be right in supposing the applicability of an adjective such as sanus or medicus to a particular item depending on the relationship of the item to an associated ‘universal’ – sanitas --, but wrong in supposing that the relationship in question is invariably that of instantiation – ; there are more ways of killing a cat than skinning it. There are other sorts of relationship that may be conversationally involved, especially in Athens, where they did little but engage in sophistries! There is, however, a less obvious, if more enlightening, position which Aristotle might have been taking up. According to this position, Aritstotle, or any graduate from the Lycaeum, say, would be maintaining, with respect to this or that universal, that the only way in which an individual items may be related to this or that universal is indeed that of instantiation, but that there will be other items which will indeed be general items, though not this or that universal. To such an universal, this or that individual items may be related in a variety of ways which are quite distinct from instantiation. The relative merits of these two ideas will be a matter for debate, and Owen’s interest was focalised at this point. The focal mode of unification, in any case is of special interest in Grice’s enquiry since Aristotle states, and quite plainly too, that this is the mode of unification which applies, in Owen’s interpretation, to the multiplicity of ‘signification’ connected with ‘A est B’ – rather than the previously discussed recursive unification, or, say, analogical unification. While Owen is wrong about the focus being on the existence – or ‘quantified existentials’, to use Warnock’s happier phrase --  two categorially different items may all be said to be, by virtue of different kinds of connections which they have to some focal (to use Owen’s verbiage) item, which will be intimately and ultimately connected with the notion of a substance that exists as a spatio-temporal continuant, to use Grice’s pupil Strawson’s verbiage bow. This central item might be an individual substance or, more likely, it might be the notion of substantal type, or, if you’re not enough of a Russellian, kind: any item which izzes this type or kind would be an individual substance, and, therefore, it would exist. But a non-substantial item may also be said to be, by virtue of their relationship -- different in different cases, of course -- to the same central or focal item. Some item may be said to be because it is an affection, a quality, of a primary substance. Think a Rylean agitation. Another item one may be willing to say to be merely because it (or he or she) is a process towards substance – think Whitehead --, and so forth. It is pretty diaphanous that the Stagirite habitually thinks of the focal item as being indeed a universal, or at least some kind of pretty general entity. But such restriction is hardly mandatory, nothing prevents the focal item from being a straight particular out of Strawson’s Individuals – his essay in descriptive metaphysics – a kind of odour, say – elaborated while joining Grice for their joint seminars in ‘Meaning’ at Oxford. Consider the adjective Cockney, for Strawson almost was one,or French or italiano as it occurs in the phrases, "French citizen",  citadino italiano, "French poem", poema italiano, "French professor". professore italiano. The following features are perhaps significant: (1) The appearance of the adjective in these phrases is what I might call "adjunctive" rather than "conjunctive" or "attributive". A French poem, is not as I see it, something which combines the separate eatures of being a poem and being French, as a fat philosopher would simply combine the features of being fat and of being a philosopher. "French" here occurs, so to speak, adverbially. (2) The phrase French citizen or citadino italiano standardly ‘signifies’ ‘citizen of France’ or ‘citizen of Italy’, while the phrase French poem or poema Italiano standardly ‘signifies’ "poem in the French language,’ or ‘poem in the Italian language’ (Sicilian if Pirandello, as Pirandello would hasten to add). But it would be a mistake to suppose that this fact implies that there are two (indeed more than two) ‘signfiications’ or Fregean ‘senses’ of the French or italiano – or siciliano. The expression French or italiano has only one – unified – ‘signification,’ viz. ‘of or pertaining to France’ or ‘of or pertaining to Italy.’ French, or italiano, will, however, be what one might call 'context sensitive,’ as Grice suggests in ‘The theory of context’ – Let’s put the theory of context into context. One might indeed say, if you like, that while it has only one ‘signification’ or Fregean sense, French or italiano has a variety of ‘signfiications’-in-context. That is: relative to one context, French or italiano ‘signifies’ ‘of France’ or ‘of Italy,’ as in the phrase French citizen, or citadino italiano. Relative to another context French or italiano ‘signifies’, ‘in the French language,’ or ‘in the Italian language,’ as in the phrase French poem, or poema italiano. Whether the, to use Owen’s epithet, focal item is a ‘universal’ or a mere particular is quite irrelevant to the question of the ‘signification’ of the adjective. To use Aristotle’s example, the medical art is no more the ‘signification’ of medical, as France or Italy is the ‘signification’ of French or italiano. As a concluding observation Grice remarks that, while the attachment of the long-awaited, life-saving appropriate conversational context may well suggest an interpretation in context of a given expression or conversational move, it need not always be the case that even such suggestion is indefeasible. It might be for instance that French poem or poema italiano would have to ‘signify’ ‘poem composed in French,’ or ‘poem composed in Italian,’ unless there are counter indications. In which case, perhaps, the phrase might mean ‘poem composed by a French competitor’ (in some competition) or ‘poem composed by an Italian competitor (in another competition). Now, for the phrase French professor or professore italiano there would be at least two obvious ‘significations’ in context. The ‘disambiguation’ would depend on the wider conversational context that makes for the circumstances of utterance of the conversational move (He was an Italian professor – no more).

Grice turns to a third mode of unification, which he would describe as Cajetan in nature, and what is possibly the most baffling of the various ways explicitly suggested by Aristotle as being those in which what Grice is calling this unification or aequi-vocality the multiplicity of significations may arise, even if made less baffling by Vio – vide Ashford. These will be those cases in which the application of an epithet or expression E to a range of items is accounted for by an analogy detectable within that range. More explicitly, an analogy between the specific ‘universal’ which determines the application of the epithet or expression, or between an exemplification of that ‘universal’ by this or that type of item. Even more explicitly, an analogy between the universals U1, U2, … Un, which determines the application of the epithet or expression, or between an exemplifications of U1, U2, … Un, by items of the sorts ly. lo etc., The puzzling character of Aristotle's treatment of this topic arises from a number of different factors. First, there are a few things which Aristotle himself might have done to aid our comprehension. He might have given us a firm list of examples of epithets or expressions, the application of which to a given range of items is to be accounted for in this way. Alternatively, Aristotle might have given us a reasonably clearer characterisation of the kind of accounting which analogy is supposed to provide, leaving it to us to determine the range of application of this kind of accounting. Unfortunately he does neither of these things. Aristotle only offers us the most meagre hints about the way in which analogy might ‘unify,’ via aequi-vocality, the various applications of an epithet. We are told, for example, that as seeing is in the eye, so understanding is in the soul with the implicature that this fact accounts for the application of see both to a case of optical vision and a case of intellectual ‘vision.’ He also suggests that analogy is responsible for the application of the calm both to an undisturbed body of sea water and to an undisturbed expanse of air. Such offerings do not get us very far. Furthermore, not surprisingly, where Aristotle seems to fear to tread his commentators are most reluctant to plant their own feet. Perhaps the least unhelpful suggestion comes from a latter-day commentator, not Avicenna, but the influential Oxford, indeed Scottish, philosopher W. D. Ross, who suggests, as Aristotle's view, that the application of good is attributable to the fact that within one category C1 items which are good are related to an item in general belonging to that category, in a way which is analogous to the way in which a good item (say, a good cabbage) in some second category C2 is related to the general run of items which belong to that second category. Apart from the obscurity in the presentation of this idea, Ross's suggestion takes for granted something which Aristotle himself does not tell us, viz. that the application of the epithet good is one exemplification of unification or aequi-vocality of a value-oriented concept which is the outcome of analogy. Ross's suggestion about good would, moreover, be at best only a description of one special case of analogical unification via aequi-vocality, and would not give us any general account of such unification. Grice adds that little supplementary assistance is derivable from those who study general concepts. Such philosophers seem to adhere to the principle that silence is golden when it comes to discussion of such questions as the relation between analogy, and her sisters: metaphor, simile, allegory, and parable. So far as Aristotle himself is concerned, it seems fairly clear to Grice that the primary notion behind the concept of analogy is that of ‘proportion’: a:b::c:d. This notion is embodied, for example, in Aristotle's treatment of just. where one kind of just is alleged to consist in a due proportion between return, reward, or penalty, and antecedent desert, merit, or demerit. But it does remains a bit of a mystery how what starts life as, or as something approximating to, a quantitative relationship gets converted into a non-quantitative relation of correspondence or affinity. It looks as if we might be thrown back upon what we might hope to be an inspired conjecture. Grice takes as task the provision of an example, congenial to Aristotle, of the unification by analogy of the application to a range of objects of some epithet. Grice expects this to involve the detection of an analogical link between the exemplifications of the variety of this or that universal which the epithet may be used to ‘signify.’ Grice’s chosen specimen is grow. In the case of grow, a number of different kinds of shifts might be thought of as possessing an analogical unification by aequi-vocality. One of these would be examples of shifts in respect of what might be termed a syntactical metaphysical or ontological category. A substance, indeed a physical substance like a lump of wax or a mass of metal, might be said to grow. It would be tempting here to suggest that the relevantly involved ‘universal,’ that of increase in size or getting larger, provides the foundational instance of the literal ‘signification’ or sense of a universal by the application of th expression grow. We have here, so to speak, the 'ground-floor' signification – dictiveness -- of grow. But now, not only the physical substance itself but some accident of the substance may also be said to grow. Not only the piece of wax, but its magnitude, some event or process in its history, its powers or causal efficacy and its aesthetic quality or beauty might each be said to grow. And it seems not unplausible to suggest that though growth on the part of these non-substantial accidents is different, and more or, again, less boringly connected with growth on the part of the substance, there will always be some kind of correspondence, indeed analogical connection, between grow in the case of a non-substantial item and grow in the initial case of a substantial item. Another and different kind of categorial variation may separate some of the universals which the grow may be used to ‘signify’ from others. These will be connected with differences in some sub-category within the category of substance within which fall different sorts of items which may be said to grow. Different universals may be ‘signified’ by someone who speaks of a plant as growing and by someone who speaks of a human being as growing. The connection between these diverse realisations of grow may rest on, say, vegetal, analogy. In what is called the grow of a plant, such as a rose, internally originated increase in size seems to occupy a prominent place. In the case of a human being, the kind of development which may be involved in the grow may be much more varied and complex. The link between the two distinct universals which may be ‘signified’ might be provided by analogy between the roles which such changes fulfill in the development of the very different kinds of substances which are being characterised. No doubt many further kinds of analogical connection would emerge within the general practice of attributing this or that grow. Grice’s next endeavour will be an attempt to supply some general account of the way in which the presence of analogy may serve to unify multiplicity of signification; and if such an account should be found to offer prospects of distinguishing analogy from other concepts, particularly metaphor (as conversational implicature, as in the song title, ‘You’re the cream in my coffee’ to use Grice’s example in ‘Logic and conversation,’ which belongs to the same general family, that would be a welcome aspect of the account. It is Grice’s idea that, in metaphorical -- rather than literal -- description, a universal is ‘signified’ (you’re my pride and joy), which though distinct from that which underlies the literal signification of the epithet (the cream in the coffee) is nevertheless recognisably similar to the literal signification. Grice comes then to the concept of analogy itself. Grice starts by considering this or that item, I1, I2, … In, any one of which may be called an S. Grice initially supposes that being an S consists in belonging to a substantial type or kind, or category S, though that supposition may be relaxed. Grice’s move is to assume that being an S, consists in being subject to a system of laws which jointly express the nature, metier, or essentia, of the type or kind Si. Further, these laws, which furnish the core theory of S,, are to be formulated in terms of a finite set of Si-core properties -- let us say P1 to Pn. Each law involves an ordered extract from the core set. Their totality governs any fully authentic Sy. This totality may well not include every law which applies to S,: but it does include every law which is deemed to be relevant to the identity or identification of Sy, every law which determines whether or not a particular item I1, I2, … In, is to count as an 5. Grice next considers not merely things each of which is an S, but also things each of which is an Sz. It remains an open question whether or not the type S is to be deemed identical with the type S1. Grice assumes that, as in the case of S, membership of S, is determined by conformity to a system of laws relating to those properties which are central to S2. Grice symbolises these properties by the set of devices Or ... Q.. We now have various possibilities to consider. The first is that every law which is central to the determination of Sz is a mirror image of a law which is central to S,; and that the converse of this supposition also obtains. To this end, we assume that the properties which are central to being an S, are the properties of the devices O, through Os; and that if a law involving a certain ordered extract from the set P through P, belongs to the central theory of S to a law involving an exactly corresponding ordered extract from the set O, through O, will belong to the central theory of S; and that the same holds in reverse. In that case, we are in the position to say that there is a perfect analogy between the central theories of S, and Sz; in which case, it may also be tempting to say that the types S, and S, are essentially identical. We should recognize that if we yield to this temptation we are not thereby forced to say that Sy and S, are indistinguishable, they might, for example, be differently related to perception, only one of them, perhaps, being accessible to sight. We shall only be forced to allow that essentially, or theoretically, the types are not distinct. The possibility just considered is that of a total perfect analogy between the central theories of S, and Sa. There is also, however, the possibility of a merely partial pertect analogy between S, and Sz. That is to say part of the central theory of one type, say S, may mirror the whole of the central theory of Sz, or again may mirror some part of a central theory of Sz. In such a circumstance, one might be led to say, in one case, that the type S, is a special case of the type S,; or, in another case, that the types S, and S, both fall under a common super-type, determined by the limited area of perfect analogy between the central theories of S, and Sz. Another possibility will be that no perfect analogy, either total or partial, will hold between the two central theories. The best that can be found are imperfect analogies which will consist in laws central to one type approximating, to a certain degree, with the status of being analogues of laws central to the other. At this stage, Grice proposes a relaxation in the characterization of the signification of such symbols as 'S!', 'Sz etc., which till now I have been regarding as ‘signifying’ or denoting substantial types or kinds, reference to which is made in more or less regimented discourse of a theoretical or ‘alethic’ sort. But Grice allows for such symbols as being allowed to relate to what he hopes might be legitimately regarded as an informal precursor of the afore-mentioned substantial types, as expressing this or that concept of one or other classificatory sort, concepts which will be deployed in an unregimented description or explanations as pre-theoretical. Examples of such unregimented classificatory concepts might be concepts such as that of an investor, a doctor, a vehicle, a confidante, and so on. Grice would hope that in many ways their general character or metier might run parallel to that of their more regimented counterpart. In particular, Grice hopes and expects that the nature of such concepts would be bound up with conformity to a certain set of central generalities, like platitudes, truisms, etc. To be an investor or a vehicle will be to perform a metier, that is, to do a sufficient number of the kinds of things which are typically even stereotypically done by an investor or a vehicle. Grice expects, however, that the variety of possible forms of generalisation might considerably exceed the meagre armament which a theoretical enquirer normally permit themselves to employ. Grice also hopes and expects that the generalities which would be expressive of the nature of a particular classificatory concept would be formulable in terms of a limited body of features which would be central to the concept in question. This material might be sufficient to provide for the presence, from time to time, of analogy, at least of imperfect analogy, between such generalities which aro expressive of distinct classificatory concepts. When they occur, such analogies might be sufficient to provide for some unity or uni-vocality of ‘signification’ in the employment of a single epithet to ‘signify’ even different classificatory concepts; and this unity or aequi-vocality of ‘signification’, in turn, might be sufficient to justify the idea that, in such a case, the expression in question is used with a single ‘significatoin,’ lexical meaning, or Fregean sense.

Grice concludes his ‘Aristotle on the multiplicity of being’ with some suggestions about the interpretation of the concept of analogy as a possible foundation for the unity of ‘signification’ with two supplementary comments. His first comment is that there seems to be a good case for supposing that anyone who, like VIO did, accepts an account of an analogy-based unity of signification should not feel free to combine it with a rejection of the so-called analytic-synthetic distinction. After all, the analogy-based unity account relies crucially on a connection between the application of a particular concept and the application of a system of laws, or some such generalities, which is expressive of that concept. This, in tum, relies on the idea of a stock of further concepts, in terms of which these laws and generalities are to be formulated, being central to the original concept. But it seems plausible, if not mandatory, to suppose that such centrality involves a non-contingent connection between the original concept and the concepts which are said to be central to it, a connection which cannot he admitted by one who denies the analytic/synthetic distinction, as Quine and his fellow nominalists did. So either one does accept the analytic/synthetic distinction, or one rejects at least this account of analogy-based unity of ‘signification.’ Grice makes no attempt here to decide between these alternatives. Grice’s second comment is that material introduced in Grice’s suggested elaboration of the notion of analogy, particularly the connection between concepts and conformity to laws or some such generalities, may serve to provide a needed explanation and justification of an initial idea that the applicability of a single defining formula, couched in terms of the ideas of genus, but also species, and differentia is a paradeigmatic condition, if not an indispensable condition, for identity of ‘sigification,’ never mind unity. We might, for a start, agree to treat a situation in which the applicability of an epithet to an item I1 rests on a conformity to exactly the same laws or generalities as does its application to item I2, as being a limiting case of partially perfect analogy. But situations in which no such interpretation at all is required may be treated as limiting cases of situations in which, though re-interpretation is required, one such re-interpretation is available which achieves such partial perfect analogy. As one might say, a law is perfectly analogous with itself. Situations, then, in which an epithet or expression E applies to a range of items I1, I2, … In, solely by virtue of the presence of a single ‘universal,’ and so of a single set of laws, may be legitimately regarded as a specially exemplary instance of a kind of unity which is required for identity of ‘signification.’

Both a proper assessment of Aristotle's contribution to metaphysics and the analysis of ‘meaning’ or ‘signification,’ and studies in the theory of meaning themselves might profit from a somewhat less localised attention to questions about the relation between a ‘universal’ and ‘signification’ than is visible in Grice’s reflections. Grice has it in mind to raise not the general question whether, despite what he calls the school of latter-day nominalists, an analysis of ‘signification’ requires an abstract entity such as a ‘universal,’ to which Grice assumes an affirmative answer), but rather the question in what way the concept of a ‘universal’ is to be supposed to be relevant to the analysis of ‘signification.’ Consideration of the practices of latter-day lexicographers, so far from supporting a charge that, at least on Grice’s interpretation of him, Aristotle proposes an illegitimate divorce between the concept of a ‘universal’ and the concept of ‘signification’ suggests that it would be proper to go a deal further than did Aristotle himself in championing such a divorce. There will be many different forms of connection between the varieties of the concept of a ‘universal’ which may be ‘signified’ by a non-equivocable expression beyond that countenanced by the tradition of the theory of definition alla Robinson, and even perhaps beyond the extensions to that theory envisaged by Aristotle himself. These forms will include some form of connection like that involved in metonymy or synecdoche, recognised by later grammatical theorists, and no doubt others as well. It would, Grice suggests, be a profitable undertaking to study carefully the contents of a good modern dictionary, with a view to constructing an inventory of these various modes of connection. Such an investigation would, Grice suspects, reveal both that, in a given case, the invocation of one mode of connection may be subordinate and posterior to the invocation of another, and also that there is no prescribed order or limitation of order which such invocations must observe. Grice suspects, also, that it might emerge that the question whether variations in ‘signification’ are thought of as synchronic or diachronic has no bearing on the nature of these uniting connections. The same form of connection may be available in both cases, and either case may in turn well be found to correspond with the range of such different figures of speech which conversational practice may typically employ for the effect of implicature. Should this conjecture turn out to be correct, the underlying explanation of its truth might, Grice would guess, run along the following lines. Rational communication, in pursuit of its co-operative purpose, encounters a boundless, indeed unpredictable, multitude – indeed multiplicity -- of distinct situations. Perhaps unlike a computer we shall not have, ready made, any vast array of forms of description and explanation from which to select what is suitable for a particular conversational occasion. We shall have to rely on our rational capacities, particularly those for imaginative construction and combination, to provide for our needs as they arise. It would not then be surprising that the operations will reflect, in this or that way, the character of the capacities on which we rely.

Grice confesses to only the haziest of conception bow such an idea might be worked out in detail. Which is a long way from the aequi-vocality of ‘being’! Enter Aequi-vocality. In his fourth Kant lecture Grice confesses to have been so far in the early stages of an attempt to estimate the prospects of what he names as an AEQUI-vocality thesis,” – that is, a thesis, or set of theses, which claims that an expression is UNI-vocal. In ‘Aristotle on the multiplicity of being’ the univocity is veiled under the guise of unification, but the spirit lives on!

 

References

 

Abbagnano La critica kantiana consiste nel dire che l’intera psicologia razionale si fonda su di un « paralogisma » cioè su un errore formale di ragionamento o su un equivoco [H. P. Grice: aequivocality]: nel senso che assume come oggetto di conoscenza, a cui sia applicabile la scienza e, spesso, ridotta alla stessa coscienza. Quest’inversione del rapporto tra A. e coscienza per cui la coscienza, da via d’accesso alla realtà-A., si trasforma in questa stessa realtà, è egualmente evidente nelle due grandi correnti della filosofia ottocentesca, l’Idealismo e il Positivismo. Hegel, per es., considera l’A. come il primo grado dello sviluppo dello Spirito, che è la coscienza nel suo grado più alto, cioè Auto-coscienza; e la configura come « Spirito soggettivo », cioè come lo spirito nell’aspetto della sua individualità. Ed ecco come egli descrive il processo dello Spirito soggettivo: « Nell'A. si desta la coscienza; la coscienza si pone come ragione che si è immediatamente destata alla consapevolezza di sè; e la ragione mediante la sua attività si libera col farsi oggettività, coscienza del suo oggetto» (Enc., $ 387). Il primo di questi momenti, cioè il destarsi della coscienza, è l’anima. Ad essa Hegel riconosce le caratteristiche tradizionali (sostanzialità, immaterialità), ma in un senso in cui queste caratteristiche possono essere riferite alla coscienza. « L’A., egli dice, non è immateriale soltanto per sè ma è l’immaterialità universale della natura, la sua semplice vita ideale. Essa è la sostanza e quindi il fondamento assoluto di ogni particolarizzamento e individualizzazione dello spirito, di modo che lo spirito ha nell’A. ogni materia della sua determinazione e l’A. resta l’idealità identica e prevalente di questa. Ma in tale determinazione ancora astrapreparare e di fondare una « scienza » dei fatti psichici che avesse lo stesso rigore delle scienze della natura. In questa direzione già il termine « A. » appare improprio e viene spesso sostituito dal termine spirito (v.); e in questo senso Stuart Mill, dice, per es., che lo spirito (mind) è la «serie delle nostre sensazioni» con in più « un'infinita possibilità di sentire» (Kant ritenne l’aggettivo «sommo» EQUIVOCO [H. P. Grice: aequivocality]  giacchè esso può significare sia supremo (supremum) sia perfetto (conBENE SOMMO summatum). CHIACCHIERA (ted. Gerede). Secondo Heidegger uno dei modi d’essere dell’uomo nella vita quotidiana ed anonima (insieme con la curiosità [v.] e l’equivoco [v.]). La C. non è un termine dispregiativo ma indica un fenomeno positivo che costituisce uno dei modi (l’inautentico) di comprendere il mondo e di viverci dentro. La C. rompe il rapporto del linguaggio coi fatti. Sicchè ciò che viene detto acquista un carattere d’autorità e si implica che «la cosa stia appunto così come si dice » (Ste questo farsi è la chiarificazione. Scheler ha mostrato l’equivoco di questo presupposto che in realtà confonde la C. (che è simpatia e partecipazione emotiva) con il contagio emotivo. Al contrario, nota Scheler, «la C. è assente tutte le volte che c’è contagio della sofferenza, giacchè allora la sofferenza non è più quella di un altro ma la mia, ed io credo di potermici sottrarre evitando il quadro o l’aspetto della sofferenza in generale» (Sympathie, cap. II, $ 3). Per l’appunto quest’avvertenza fondamentale si è tenuta presente nel caratterizzare la C. al principio di questo articolo. UNIVOCO ED EQUIVOCO [H. P. Grice: aequivocality] (gr. suvevupoc, sudvupog; lat. Univocus, Aequivocus; ingl. Univocal, Equivocal; franc. Univoque, Équivoque; ted. Eindeutig, Aequivok). Questi due termini hanno avuto definizioni diverse a seconda che sono stati riferiti all'oggetto o al concetto (o nome). 1. Aristotele li riferì all'oggetto e intese per univoci (o sinonimi) gli oggetti che hanno in comune sia il nome sia la definizione del nome: così, ad es., sia l’uomo che il bue si dicono animali. Chiamò invece equivoci [H. P. Grice: aequivocality] (od omonimi) gli oggetti che hanno in comune il nome mentre le definizioni richiamate dal nome sono diverse: in questo senso si chiama animale sia l’uomo sia un disegno (Cat., I, 1a 1-11). Queste definizioni ricorrono frequentemente nella scolastica (per es., Pietro Ispano, Summ. Log., 3.01) e si mantengono anche in logici più recenti (ad es., Jungius, Logica Hamburgensis, 1, 2, 4-9). 2. La logica terministica ritenne «improprio» il riferimento dei due termini agli oggetti e ritenne che essi si dovessero riferire propriamente soltanto ai segni e cioè ai concetti o nomi. Da questo punto di vista, le definizioni di Ockham sono le seguenti. «U. è o la voce o il segno convenzionale che corrisponde a un solo concetto o, più strettamente, è ciò che si può predicare di per sè di più cose o è il pronome dimostrativo di una cosa. Equivoco [H. P. Grice: aequivocality] dall’altro lato è il nome che, significando più cose, 900 non è subordinato a un unico concetto ma è unico segno di più concetti o intenzioni dell’anima. L’U. può derivare o dal caso, come accade quando il nome Socrate viene imposto a più uomini, o da una deliberazione quando si impone un certo nome a certe cose e lo si subordina a un solo concetto e poi per la similitudine di questo concetto con altri si estende ad altri il nome stesso» (Summa Log., I, 13). Le definizioni terministiche dei due termini sono quelle che si danno anche oggi dei termini stessi. Le discussioni medievali sulla natura dell’univocità avevano nel Medio Evo un’immediata risonanza teologica, per la disputa tra i sostenitori dell’univocità e quelli dell’analogicità dell’essere (v. ANALOGIA).

Ackrill, J. L. (1963). Aristotle’s Categories and De Interpretatione. Translated with Notes and Glossary. Clarendon Aristotle Series, ed. By J. L. Ackrill and Lindsay Hudson. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Aquino Deinde cum dicit: Quare nec in his etc.,  concludit ex præmissis quod nec in his affirmationibus et negationibus, quae utuntur subiecto  aequivoco [H. P. Grice: aequivocality], semper oportet unam esse veram et  aliam falsam, quia scilicet negatio potest aliud negare quam affirmatio affirmet. nomen potest  de pluribus prædicari, sed id quod significatur per nomen etc.— D: universale dicitur non solum quando nomen potest de pluribus prædicari, sed illud quod significatur etc. Prima pars convenit cum editione  Piana; sed secunda pars ob omissionem particulæ etiam (quæ requireretur  si  prius legendum esset mon solum quando) indicat lectionem codd. ABC.— Cod. E: universale dicitur quando in unum solum  (f. non solum) nomen potest de pluribus prædicari, sed etiam id quod  significatur etc. Quae lectio videtur favere magis lectioni codd., quam  Pianae.  7) Significabit naturam humanam etc. Ita codd. ACDE.  Cod. B  post verba, in hac materia, omittit fere omnia, quae sequuntur, et habet  tantummodo haec verba: et sic eius alia significatio, non erit univer.sale sed aequivocum ÆQVIVOCVM EQUIVOCO [GRICE : EQUIVOCALITY THESIS]. Quod lectionis fragmentum satis est ut dicamus  lectionem codicis, a quo :excripsit amanuensis cod. B, fuisse identicam  cum lectione aliorum codd. Porro haec codd. lectio perspicua est, atque  respondet immediate praecedentibus : significat naturam humanam etc. P.: significabit aliud; et propter hoc non esset universale, sed aequivocum. Forma aliquantulum diversa est a codd., sensus idem: qui tamen  in universale et particulare, sed res. Et ideo intelligendum est quod universale dicitur quando,  non solum nomen potest de pluribus praedicari,  sed  id, quod significatur per nomen, est natam  in pluribus inveniri; hoc autem non contingit in  praedictis nominibus: nam hoc nomen Socrates  vel Plato significat naturam humanam secundum  quod est in hac materia. Si vero hoc nomen imponatur alteri homini significabit naturam humanam " in alia materia; et sic eius erit alia significatio; unde non erit universale, sed aequivocum.  8. Deinde cum dicit: Necesse est autem   enunciare etc., concludit divisionem enunciationis ὅ.  Quia enim semper enunciatur aliquid de aliqua re;  rerum autem quaedam sunt universalia, quaedam  singularia; necesse est quod quandoque enuncietur  aliquid inesse vel non inesse alicui universalium, quandoque vero alicui singularium. Et est  suspensiva constructio usque huc, et est sensus *:  Quoniam autem sunt haec quidem rerum  etc.,  necesse est enunciare etc.  9. Est autem considerandum quod de universali aliquid enunciatur quatuor modis. Nam universale potest uno modo considerari quasi separatum a singularibus, sive per se * subsistens, ut  Plato posuit, sive, secundum sententiam Aristotelis,  ctu.  secundum esse quod habet in intelleEt sic potest ei aliquid attribui dupliciter.   Quandoque enim attribuitur ei sic considerato  aliquid, quod pertinet ad solam operationem intellectus, ut si dicatur quod /homo est praedicabile  de multis, sive universale, sive species '. Huiusdeterminatus magis est et enucleatior ex codd. quam ex Piana, quia  illud  significabit aliud per significabit naturam humanam in alia  materia, declaratur et determinatur.  0) Concludit divisionem enunciationis. Codd. : concludit ex praedictis  (DE ex praemisis) divisionem enunciationis. Et est melior lectio: nam  revera ex praemissis

Ashworth, E. Jennifer and Domenic D’Ettore (2021) Medieval theories of analogy. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (ed), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2021/entries/analogy-medieval/>

Austin, J. L. (1936). Aγαθόν and Eυδαιμονια in the ethics of Aristotle. Repr. in Philosophical Papers, 3^rd edition, 1979, ed. by J. O. Urmson and G. J. Warnock, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Baldini Le tre forme di amicizia, rispettivamente basate su virtù, utilità, piacere, secondo l’Eudemia intrattengono la relazione asimmetrica che Aristotele chiama πρὸς ἓν, in cui vi è un significato primario o focal meaning cui gli altri, secondari e derivati, rimandano[36]: l’amicizia a causa della virtù e fondata sul bene è posta come πρώτη φιλία, «prima amicizia», da cui le altre dipendono dal punto di vista definitorio. Quindi «φιλία» non denota tre specie di un unico genere, né è un termine EQUIVOCO [H. P. Grice: aequivocality] che denota realtà completamente diverse; è termine “multivoco” MULTIVOCO [H. P. Grice: multivocal], giacché l’amicizia si dice in molti modi ma in riferimento a un senso che illumina tutti gli altri, e a cui gli altri si rapportano necessariamente. Molti critici ritengono che, siccome l’amicizia “utilitaristica” e quella “edonistica” possono darsi indipendentemente da quella “virtuosa”, l’idea che esse rimandino necessariamente a quella “virtuosa” non sarebbe convincente, e proprio per questo sarebbe poi abbandonata nella Nicomachea. Ma la gerarchizzazione πρὸς ἓν è anzitutto definitoria: il piacere è un bene apparente (dunque, una declinazione del bene),

Boethius, Univocus – Aequivocus -- De Interpretatione. Cited by Owen. Post aequivocorum [H. P. Grice: aequivocality] definitionem ad univocorum terminum transitum fecit, in quibus nihil aliud discrepat, nisi quod aequivoca definitione disiuncta sunt, univoca ipso quoque termino coniunguntur sed caetera omnia quaecumque in aequivocorum definitione dicta sunt, in hac quoque univocorum designatione conveniant. Nam quemadmodum in aequivocis secundum nomen aequivocarum rerum definitio fiebat, ita quoque in univocis secundum nomen substantiae ratio assignabitur. Sunt autem univoca aut genera speciebus, aut species speciebus, genera speciebus, ut animal atque homo. Nam cum hominis genus sit animal, dicitur homo animal, ergo et animal et homo animalia nuncupantur. Secundum igitur commune nomen si utrosque definias, dicis animal esse substantiam animatam atque sensibilem, hominem quoque secundum id quod animal est, si substantiam animatam sensibilem dixeris, nihil in eo falsitatis invenies. Species vero speciebus univocae sunt, quae uno atque eodem genere continentur, ut homo, equus atque bos, his commune genus est animal, et communi nomine animalia nominantur. Ergo secundum nomen unum quod illis commune est animalis, una illius ratio definitionis aptabitur, omnia enim sunt substantiae animatae atque sensibiles. Secundum igitur posteriorem univocationis designationem Aristoteles qua speciebus species univocae sunt, ut homo et bos, quae sub eodem sunt genere, sumpsit exemplum. DENOMINATIVA VERO DICUNTUR QUAECUMQUE AB ALIQUO, SOLO DIFFERENTIA CASU, SECUNDUM NOMEN HABENT APPELLATIONEM, UT A GRAMMATICA GRAMMATICUS ET A FORTITUDINE FORTIS.

Bottirolli, Giovanni.

Capua: voci equivocose.

Carlini Una stessa  cosa potrebbe essere e non essere soltanto nel caso di un  EQUIVOCO [H. P. Grice: aequivocality], qualora, ad es., quel che noi chiamiamo uomo,  altri lo chiamassero non-uomo. Quel che è in questione non  è già se lo stesso possa insieme essere e non essere uomo  di nome, ma di fatto. Se poi uomo significa lo stesso che  non-uomo ('), è chiaro che anche esser-uomo sarà lo stesso  che non-esser-uomo, per cui tra essere e non esser uomo,  essendo l’identica cosa, non ci sarebbe nessuna differenza.  Questo appunto vuol dire esser l’identica cosa; come chi  dicesse abito e vestito : chè il concetto è unico. Se fosse unico,  esser-uomo e non-esser-uomo significherebbero lo stesso. Ma  8’era mostrato che il loro significato è diverso. Se, dunque,  si deve poter dire qualcosa di vero, bisogna necessariamente  che, chi dice di uno che è uomo, intenda dire che è un animale bipede: questo era, infatti, ciò che la parola uomo significava. E se questo è necessario, non è possibile che quello  stesso non sia un animale bipede: chè questo appunto vuol  dire che una cosa è di necessi tà: esser impossibile che non  sia. Non si può dare, quindi, il caso che sia vero insieme  dire che uno stesso è uomo e non è uomo.   Il discorso vale anche per il non-esser-uomo. L’esser-uomo  esprime un’altra cosa dal non-esser-uomo, come del resto anche l’esser-bianco è diverso dall’esser-uomo: anzi, la opposizione tra i primi termini è anche maggiore, esprimendo  essi una cosa del tutto diversa. E se qualcuno ci volesse  sostenere che bianco e uomo significano una stessa e mede   Chiarisce il par. precedente, dove aminette che una cosa può essere e non  essere la stessa soltanto per un EQUIVOCO [H. P. Grice: aequivocality] (il testo ha omonimia, usato qui, come  la sinonimia della 1. precedente, in senso alquanto diverso da quello stabilito in  nota a lib. I. 6, 5: qui si bada se uno intende con la stessa parola indicare concetti opposti, oppure lo stesso concetto con parole diverse). Se l'avversario vuol  dare alla parola «uomo  lo stesso senso di « non-uomo , deve anche identificare  il fatto e il concetto di «esser uomo  con quello opposto di « non-esser-uomo :  e venir meno, quindi, al patto (cfr. 11) di non dare a una stessa parola significati  diversi in confronto alle cose, sima ‘cosa, noi ripeteremo quel che abbiam detto prima: che  allora tutte le cose, e non soltanto gli opposti, fanno una  cosa sola ('). E

CESAROTTI Si potrebbero citare a riscontro numerosi passi di Cesarotti, tra cui una nota osservazione alla r1 Filippica di Demostene: noi non possiamo dar un fondato giudizio dell'esatto valore dei vocaboli, e delle frasi d'una lingua morta, né dello stile de’ suoi scrittori rispetto alla locuzione. Su questo articolo noi siamo ugualmente soggetti a prender EQUIVOCO [H. P. Grice: aequi-vocality thesis] e nei termini proprj e nei figurati. I Greci e i Latini consapevoli dello stemma genealogico delle parole, e del loro senso primitivo, o accessorio, potevano scorger un'ombra d' immagine lontana, un'allusione occulta, un cenno indiretto in molti e molti vocaboli che a noi non presentano che un senso schietto ed ignudo, senza veruna bellezza accessoria (C., 1807 158-9). Un lungo passo di Rochefort, in cui è compresa la nostra citazione, è

CICERONE Se poi sarà di già stancala F attenzione dell’ uditore, noi cominceremo da qualche  cosa, che muover possa il riso, come sarebbe o da  un apologo, o da una favola, o da un contraffacimento, o da una storta interpretazione, o da una  inversion di parole, o da un equivoco, o da un indovinello, o da uno scherzo, o da una giulleria, o  da una esagerazione, o da un acconciamento e mutamento di lettere; e inoltre promovendo aspettazione, recando una similitudine, una novità, un  fallo accaduto, un verso; o approfittandoci ad una  interpellazione, ad un sorriso di alcuno; o promettendo di lasciar da parte molte cose, che avevamo  in animo di dire; e di non voler parlare in quella  forma, in cui sogliono gli altri, con esporre brevemente in questo caso e il metodo altrui e il nostro.  

 

CILIBERTO .   Crede con gli ordini e i costumi di Roma antica di poter rifare quella grandezza e ritemprare i suoi tempi, e in molte proposte e in molte sentenze senti le vestigia di quell'antica sapienza. Da Roma gli viene anche la nobiltà dell'ispirazione e una certa elevatezza morale. Talora ti pare un romano avvolto nel pallio, in quella sua gravità; ma guardalo bene, e ci troverai il borghese del Risorgimento, con quel suo risolino equivoco {H. P. Grice: aequi-vocality thesis].

Code, A. D. (1986). Aristotle on essence. In Grandy and Warner, Philosophical Grounds of Rationality: Intentions, Categories, Ends. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

CONTI Cercherò prima ne’testi de’Filoſofi stessi il senso, che naturalmente preſeniano, e dove sia questo oscuro, ed equivoco [H. P. Grice: aequi-vocality thesis], ricorrerà all'in terpretazione o di Cicerone, o di Plutarco, o di Sefto Empirico, o di Laerzio Viſle Cicerone molti anni prima del Crifianeſimo, e Plutar co viffe a Roma ſotto Adriano, o Trajano, dopo d'aver ſtudiato in Egitto forro Amonio, diſcepolo di Potamone, e del quale egli b 2 par (a ) Pachimero in Suida, Vedi Fabrizio Bibliot. art, Proclo. e mo,. (12 ) parla nella vita di Temiſtocle ed altrove. L Il secondo pos­sibile EQUIVOCO [H. P. Grice: aequi-vocality thesis] concerne la nozione stessa di corpo. Contra­ riamente a quello che ci attenderemmo in relazione a una nozione moderna di corpo, per gli stoici erano "corpi" an­ che le qualità, in quanto venivano considerate come materia in un certo stato. Le proprietà di un certo individuo costi­ tuiscono stati o modi del suo essere e, per la loro esistenza, dipendono dall'esistenza di questo individuo. Se l'individuo esiste, le sue proprietà sono appunto disposizioni esistenti di materia (Rist). Si profila, a questo punto, una ontologia che pone al suo centro la nozione di "particolare": quest'ultimo viene carat­ terizzato come un oggetto materiale, che ha una forma defi­ nita come condizione necessaria e sufficiente della sua esi­ stenza. La forma, del resto, è --  l'elemento Interpretazione  secondo il modo enigmatico ~l et t e r a l e n o n se n so sen~  so errato per omonlmia per equivoco errate scambio assunzioni di prospettiva di credenza  2.3 L'INTERPRETAZIONE NEI RACCONTI ORACOLAR.I 43 Vediamo ora alcuni racconti oracolari in cui sono esem­ plificate queste modalità di errore. L'incapacità di assegnare un senso al testo profetico si ha in vari racconti nei quali vengono utilizzati meccanismi re­ torici, tra cui alcuni di tipo metaforico. È naturale che, quando il veicolo metaforico viene interpretato "letteral­ mente", si ottenga una assurdità sul piano del senso, a me­ no che non si immagini un mondo possibile, diverso da quello reale, in cui i muli possano diventare re dei Medi e gli araldi siano dipinti di rosso. Il consultante, che prende in considerazione soltanto il mondo reale, si trova in difficoltà ad assegnare un senso e una denotazione a testi siffatti. Ma vediamo che cosa succede nel primo di questi racconti. È Erodoto a narrarci la storia degli abitanti deli'isola di Sifno, i quali, essendo giunti a un notevole grado di ricchez­ za con le loro miniere d'oro e d'argento, decisero di consul­ tare l'oracolo di Delfi per sapere se avrebbero potuto con­ servare a lungo la loro prosperità. La Pizia rispose: "Ma quando, a Sifno, il pritaneo sarà bianco e bianco il bordo della piazza pubblica, allora c'è bisogno di un uomo accor­ to per guardarsi dall'agguato di legno e dall'araldo rosso" (Herod., Hist., III, 57). La storia continua narrando del­ l'arrivo di una nave dei Sami, della loro ambasceria per chiedere denaro e del saccheggio che questi ultimi fanno dell'isola dei Sifni. Erodoto sottolinea l'incapacità manifestata dai Sifni di dare un senso al testo ("l Sifni non furono capaci di com­ prendere l'oracolo"); per loro il testo, e in particolare, si presume, le espressioni "agguato di legno" e "araldo ros­ so", sono prive di senso, perché appunto essi si fermano a un livello letterale di interpretazione. In realtà il dio gioca con vari meccanismi tropici: innan­ zitutto con una doppia enallage1 1 (è il legno [ = nave] che anticamente è rosso, come spiega Erodoto, ed è l'araldo [ = gli ambasciatori] che organizza un agguato), complican­ do poi il testo con meccanismi metonimici (legno per nave, il singolare araldo per il plurale ambasciatori). Un secondo esempio di mancata comprensione si trova in un episodio di quel lungo e complesso "romanzo oracolare"  2 . LA DIVINAZIONE GRECA t·hc l·:rodotodedicaaCreso,quandoquest'ultimochiedeal­ l ' oracolo di Delfi se la sua monarchia sarebbe durata a lun­ o . La Pizia risponde: "Quando un mulo sarà re dei Medi, allora, Lidio dai piedi delicati, fuggi lungo l'Ermo sassoso, non indugiare e non temere di essere vile" (Herod., Hist., l, 55). Anche in questo caso, l'interpretazione che viene data alla profezia sceglie il senso letterale: Creso ritiene, di con­ seguenza, impossibile che venga a verificarsi uno stato di cose che soddisfi alla descrizione della frase "un mulo sarà re dei Medi"; la conclusione che egli trae da questa impossi­ bilità è che sia altrettanto impossibile che il suo regno abbia una fine. Sarà poi il dio stesso a spiegare al re il suo gioco metafo­ rico, quando ormai i fatti si saranno compiuti e Creso sarà caduto sotto la dominazione dei Persiani . Il "mulo" è, in ef­ fetti, Ciro, e il passaggio è mediato dalla proprietà "sangue misto", che è condivisa sia dal termine metaforizzante sia dal termine metaforizzato: ·sangue misto• / Tanto maggiore è la cecità di Creso se si pensa che l'ele­ mento comune è doppiamente esemplificato in Ciro, in quanto figlio "di madre nobile e di padre di oscuro lignag­ gio" e "di madre meda e di padre persiano", come il testo di Erodoto non manca di sottolineare. Vale la pena di rilevare che l'interpretazione del senso fi­ gurato è un'operazione realmente più difficile di quello che si potrebbe immaginare, fatto che giustifica in qualche ma­ niera gli insuccessi dei consultanti. Essa è legata a cono­ scenze enciclopediche locali, oltre che ai meccanismi retori­ ci che su quelle conoscenze si applicano. Ciò è tanto più ve­ ro se si considera che è impossibile anche per il lettore mo­ derno fornire l'interpretazione del testo profetico quando il testo letterario non ci informa sulle relative porzioni di enciclopedia. Ciò avviene, a esempio, nel racconto oracolare di Arcesilao (Herod., Hist., IV, 163-164) in cui, accanto a scambi metaforici tra "anfore" e "uomini", tra "torri" e "forni" che vengono spiegati dal prosieguo della narrazio­ ne, compare l'espressione "il tuo più bel toro" che rimane inspiegata ed è anche per noi incomprensibile. Vediamo ora il caso in cui il testo appare interpretabile secondo un percorso di senso letterale, in cui cioè sia rin­ tracciabile un corso di eventi corrispondente a esso, senza però essere quello inteso dalla profezia. Consideriamo in particolare il caso in cui l'errore interpretativo sia dovuto a omonimia. Questo meccanismo, accompagnato dal costante frain­ tendimento, caratterizza l'intero romanzo oracolare di Cambise. Si tratta di una storia in cui i vari segni si collega­ no tra di loro in una catena di rimandi interni. Questa storia ha inizio con un sogno: Smerdi (fratello di Cambise) era già tornato in patria (la Persia) quando Cambise ebbe in sogno questa visione: gli parve che un messo, giunto dalla Persia, gli annunciasse che Smerdi, seduto sul trono regale, toccava con la testa il cielo. Temendo perciò che il fratello meditasse di ucciderlo per impadronirsi del regno, mandò in Persia Prexaspe, che gli era fedelissimo fra tutti i Per­ siani, a uccidere Smerdi. (Herod., Hist., III, 30) Dopo parecchi paragrafi, in cui la storia continua narran­ do le stravaganze e le crudeltà di Cambise, ci viene raccon­ tata la ribellione in Persia dei due fratelli Magi, uno dei quali, che si chiamava anch'esso Smerdi, era stato collocato sul trono. Quando Cambise viene a conoscenza di questo fatto, comprende il vero senso del sogno. Ma la storia non finisce qui: Dopo che ebbe pianto e si fu afflitto di tanta sciagura, Cambise balzò a cavallo per muovere al più presto verso Susa contro il Mago; ma, mentre saliva in arcione, gli cadde il puntate del fo­ dero della spada, che rimasta nuda lo ferì alla coscia. Colpito così nello stesso punto in cui aveva trafitto il dio egizio Api, il  2. LA DIVINAZIONE GRECA fl\ iudicando mortale la sua ferita, domandò ancora come si chiarnassc la città dove si trovavano e gli risposero che si chia­ rnava Ecbatana. Ora, molto tempo addietro, a lui che l'aveva consultato, l'oracolo di Buto aveva risposto che sarebbe morto ad Ecbatana ed egli aveva interpretato che sarebbe morto, vec­ chio, ad Ecbatana di Media, dove aveva tutti i suoi beni, men­ tre l'oracolo aveva inteso di indicare Ecbatana di Siria. Pertan­ to Cambise, come ebbe saputo il nome della città, sotto il dupli­ ce colpo della rivolta del Mago e della ferita, rinsavì e, com­ prendendo finalmente il divino responso, esclamò: "Qui è desti­ no che muoia Cambise, figlio di Ciro". (Herod., Hist., III, 64) La rivolta del Mago e la ferita sono, più che avvenimenti, dei segni, in quanto permettono a Cambise di accedere alla conoscenza, di comprendere, finalmente senza più ambigui­ tà, l'oracolo, di non rimanere più prigioniero dei giochi di parole: la rivolta che gli fa capire la differenza tra Smerdi suo fratello e Smerdi Mago; la ferita mortale, la differenza tra Ecbatana in Media ed Ecbatana di Siria. Infine c'è l'ulteriore caso di errata interpretazione a cau­ sa di un equivoco, non strettamente linguistico, e che può essere di varia natura. L'equivoco più famoso di tutta la letteratura oracolare greca è senz'altro quello di cui cade vittima Edipo. Come noto, durante un banchetto Edipo viene insospettito dalle insinuazioni fatte da un convitato circa la sua paternità e decide allora di interrogare il dio della sapienza, il quale gli predice che ucciderà il padre e che si congiungerà con la ma­ dre (Soph., Oedipus tyrannus, 787-798). L'equivoco riguar­ da le assunzioni di crede...zza: Edipo non sa che i suoi veri genitori sono Laio, re di Tebe, e Giocasta, ma crede che sia­ no Polibo, re di Corinto, e Merope; per questo, al fine di stornare gli avvenimenti predetti dall'oracolo, si allontana da Corinto per andare in direzione di Tebe, e compie, così, inconsapevolmente, proprio il destino che gli è stato annun­ ciato. Altre volte l'equivoco riguarda lo sca1nbio diprospettiva. Il caso emblematico è quello di Creso che manda a consul­ tare congiuntamente l'oracolo di Delfi e quello di Anfiarao L'INTERPRETAZIONE NEI RACCONTI ORACOLARJ 47 per sapere se dovesse fare guerra ai Persiani. I due oraco­ li, concordemente, predicono che "se avesse mosso contro i Persiani, avrebbe distrutto un grande impero" (Herod., Hist., l, 53). Creso interpreta

Contri, L’equivoco di Croce.

COSTA Perciò a distinguerle è sovente bisogno di preineltere all’espressione ‘AMAVA’ – latino: AMABA/AMABAT -- il nome o il pronome. Giova spesso alla CHIAREZZA, e segnatamente nell’espressione complessa o composita, il ben distinguere le persone e le cose, delle quali si parla (il topico). E perciò sta bene talvolta il *ripetere* il nome sostantivo per non confondere l’una coll'altra. Imperciocchè, i pronomi e i relativi sogliono spesso essere cagione di EQUIVOCO [H. P. Grice: aequi-vocality thesis] – confusione – cf. avoid ambiguity, be perspicuous [sic], the imperative of conversational clarity. E questo interviene specialmente, quando nella proposizione antecedente sono più nomi sustantivi di un medesimo genere e numero, che si possono accordare coi relativi delle susseguenti. Perciò, conviene tal volta o giovarsi di un sinonimo onde porre in luogo di alcun nome mascolino un femminino. O inulare il numero del più in quello del meno. O viceversa. -- Recbiamone esempi. Alcuni molli graziosi si generano in virtù della metafora. Avendo Lodovico Sforza duca di Milano eletta per sua impresa una spazzetta, con che voleva segare se essere disposto a cacciare dall'Italia gli oltremontani, domanda alcuni ambasciatori fiorentini, che loro ne paresse. Quelli risposero. Bene ce ne pare, salvochè molle volle avviene che chi spazza tira la polvere sopra di sè. Più grazioso ė il motto, quando ad alcuno, che metaforicamente abbia parlato, si risponde cosa inaspettata continuando la metafora stessa. Tale si fu detto il Cosimo de' Medici, il quale a' Fiorentini ſuoruscili, che gli mandarono a dire che la gallina cova, rispose. Male potrà covare fuori del nido. Anche il paragonare cose vili e piccole a cose grandi è spesso cagione di ridere, come in questi versi del Berni: E prima, iodanzi tutto, è da sapere che l’orinale è a quel modo tondo, Acciocchè possa più cose tenere, E falto proprio come è falto il mondo. Dobbiamo in questa maniera della facezia guardarci dal fare sovvenire il compagno conversazionale di cose laide e stomachevoli, affiochè la piacevolezza non degeneri in buffoneria: lo che sovente accade a coloro, che non sono piacevoli per naturale disposizione. Molti molti ridevoli si formano per via di iperbole [“Every nice girl loves a sailor”] accrescendo o diminuendo alcuna cosa. Diminui ed accrebbe a un tempo le cose Cicerone parlando giocosamente di suo fratello, che essendo di piccola slatura aveva cinto il fianco di una spada' smisurata. Chi ha, disse, cosi legato mio fratello a quella spada? Dall’EQUIVOCO [H. P. Grice: aequi-vocality thesis] procede spesso i motti freddi ed insulsi, ma spesse volte ancora gli arguli. Argulo parmi il seguente in biasimo di una donna, che fosse di molli. Ella è donna d'assai: il qual molio potrebbe ancora essere usato per lodare alcuna femmina prudente e buona. Molla venustà è in que’ delli, che invece di esprimere due cose ne esprimono una sola, per la quale l'altra s'intende (IMPLICATURA, SOTTITESSO). Assai leggiadro è questo  in cui si favella di un'amazzone dormiente, recato ad un esempio da Demetrio Falereo: in terra aveva posto l'arco, piena era la faretr, e sotto il capo aveva lo scud: il cinto esse non isciolgono mai. Similmente è grazioso il nominare con buone parole le cose non buone, come fece lo Scipione, secondo che narra M. Tullio, con quel centurione, che non si era trovato al conflitto di Paolo Emilio contro Annibale. Il centurione scusasi di sua negligenza col dire. Io sono rimasto agli alloggiamenti per farli sicuri; perchè, o Scipione, vuoi dunque tormi la civiltà? Cui rispose Scipione. Perchè non amo gl;uomini troppo diligenti. Sono assai argute quelle risposte, per le quali si DEDUCE da una medesima cosa il contrario di quello che altri deduceva. Appio Claudio dice a Scipione. Lo maraviglio che un uomo ďalto affare, quale tu sei, ignori il nome di tante persone. Non maravigliare, rispose Scipione, perocchè io non sono mai 69 blato sollecito d’imparare a conoscer molti, ma a far si, che molti conoscano me. Per egual modo Parnone rispose a colui che chiamava sapientissimo il tempo

Costanzi, L’equivoco della filosofia cristiana.

CROCE, Di un equivoco concetto storico.

Dizionario etimologico. Equivoco: b. Lat. Aequivocus comp. Da temi di aequ-us uguale, simile e di VOX = VOCs-s voce vocabolo, ond’anche VOC-are chiamare (v. Voce). Che puo intendersi o interpretaris in piu modi e dar lugo ad errore, altrim. Ambiguo, dubbioso, incerto. Nel linguaggio delle scuole dicesi di vocabolo, definizione e simili, e vale Che e comue a piu cose o concetti, ma solo nella parola. Come some sost. Propriamente significa lo scambiare o tagliare un nome o una voce per un’altra; ma si dice anche di sbaglio che altri prenda, ingannato dalla somiglianza. Deriv. Equivocare, onde equivocazione, equivocamente.

Duni ſoſtenere la sognata monarchia di Romolo caddero in tun'altro EQUIVOCO [H. P. Grice: aequi-vocality thesis] nell'apprendere l'espressione di Pomponio di ferre legem ad populum in fente D2 d'ef d'eſſerſi comandate le leggi da Romolo

Duso

Ercole, Equivocazione.

Evola, L’equivoco dell’immanenza.

Fasso Croce, Filosofia della pratica. Economica ed etica, Tarantino, con una nota al testo di Sasso, Napoli, Bibliopolis. Contraddittorio è altresì il concetto di un codice eterno, di una legislazione-limite o modello, di un diritto universale, razionale o naturale, o come altro lo si è venuto variamente intitolando. Il diritto naturale, la legislazione universale, il codice eterno, che pretende fissare il transeunte, urta contro il principio della mutevolezza delle leggi, che è conseguenza necessaria del carattere contingente e storico del loro contenuto. Se al diritto naturale si lasciasse fare quel che esso annunzia, se Dio permettesse che gli affari della Realtà fossero amministrati secondo le astratte idee degli scrittori e dei professori, si vedrebbe, con la formazione e applicazione del Codice eterno, arrestarsi di colpo lo svolgimento, concludersi la Storia, morire la vita, disfarsi la realtà. Sulla presa esplicita di distanza di F. da Croce, cfr. Società, legge e ragione. Ho continuato a ripetere la stessa cosa. Il diritto nasce dalla natura umana, la quale è natura storica e natura sociale. Ho rifiutato dapprima, sotto la suggestione dell'anti-gius-naturalismo del tempo in cui ero cresciuto, di chiamare naturale un siffatto diritto. Più tardi, dopo avere approfondito la conoscenza storica del gius-naturalismo ed essermi meglio chiarito la parte che esso ha avuto nella difesa della libertà contro l'assolutismo politico, mi sono deciso a designare con quell’AGGETTIVO in realtà EQUIVOCO [H. P. Grice: aequi-vocality thesis] il diritto che la ragione trova nella natura della società. Laddove, invece, si è riscontrata coincidenza cronologica, si è preferito seguire l'ordine alfabetico. 

Fazzini Per esempio, il dizionario etimologico del Pianigiani afferma che il fine della Massoneria è il perfezionamento dell'umanità; e non soltanto molti profani ma anche molti massoni accettano questa seconda definizione. A prima vista può sembrare che perfezionamento dell'uomo e perfezionamento dell'umanità significhino la stessa cosa; di fatto si riferiscono a due, concetti profondamente diversi, e l'apparente sinonimia GENERA UN EQUIVOCO [H. P. Grice: aequi-vocality thesis] e nasconde una incomprensione. Altri adopera l'espressione: perfezionamento degli uomini, anche essa equivoca. Ora, evidentemente, non è possibile sentenziare quale sia l'interpretazione giusta, perché ogni massone può dichiarare giusta quella che si confà ai suoi gusti, e magari può compiacersi dell'equivoco. Se però si vuole determinare quale sia, storicamente e tradizionalmente, la interpretazione corretta e conforme al simbolismo muratorio, la questione cambia aspetto e non è più questione di gusti. Il manoscritto rinvenuto dal Locke nella Biblioteca Bodleyana e pubblicato solo nel 1748 e che è attribuito alla mano di Enrico VI di Inghilterra, definisce la Massoneria come «la conoscenza della natura e la comprensione delle forze che sono in essa»; ed enuncia espressamente l'esistenza di un legame tra la Massoneria e LA SCUOLA ITALA, perché afferma che Pitagora, un greco, viaggiò per istruirsi in Egitto,

FERRANDO . Di quale porta si tratti, non si sa. I testi non hanno alcuna didascalia per questa scena; si capisce, tuttavia, che essa si svolge presso una porta di Roma. La plebe: Coriolano l’ha chiamata così prima.  “... with precepts that would make invincible...”: il “would” è palesemente riferito alle intenzioni della madre nel dare al figlio i precetti; il che giustifica, nella traduzione, il “dovevano”. “Ti ricordi?” non è nel testo. Il testo ha “... with one / that is umbruised”,“... con uno che non è contuso”, e prosegue la metafora del corpo (di Cominio) sopraffatto (“too full”) dalle fatiche della guerra. Il testo ha “Ora che abbiam mostrato il nostro potere” (“Now we have shown our power”). “Are you mankind?”. C’è chi ha creduto di vedere in questa battuta di Sicinio UNA SOTTILE INTENZIONE DI EQUIVOCO [H. P. Grice: aequi-vocality thesis], perché la frase significherebbe anche “Siete matte?”. Ma il senso di “matto” in “mankind” non si trova in alcun testo; e del resto la risposta di Volumnia sarebbe diversa, perché la donna avrebbe capito l’allusione. Giunone è il simbolo dell’ira femminile vendicativa. Prese parte alla sommossa degli dèi contro lo stesso suo marito, Zeus (cfr. VIRGILIO (si veda), “Eneide”: “saeve memorem Junonis ob iram”). “Strange insurrections”: “strange” qui ha il valore di “abnormal”, “unknown”, “unfamiliar”. “I have deserved no better entertainement / in being Coriolanus”: “Non m’aspettavo miglior trattamento, essendo Coriolano”; ma mi pare grammaticalmente errata (“I would have...” sarebbe stato d’obbligo) e incongrua di senso (il servo non sa di trovarsi di fronte a Coriolano). “Under the canopy”: “canopy” è il baldacchino sospeso su un trono, un letto, un altare, tradizionale segno di regalità; ma in senso figurato vale “cielo”, “firmamento” (il baldacchino del cielo). Coriolano, giocando sul doppio senso, si attribuisce la regalità. Che cosa sia questa città, nella mente di Coriolano, è incerto; forse egli allude all’esilio o al campo di battaglia

Franchini, Unicita della dialettica

GAGLIARDI non potevano: cflere Avari, perche non avevano mo-> do da cumulare i dove che arricchiti poffono averlo. Sem. Mà come potrà avanzare? dicendogli, che faute, che avesse il pa.  ren  rentado, averebbe goduto, e sarebbe ftato allegramente, e questo non si può tare da quelli, che vogliono cumula  Meo. VOI NON CAPICE IL PARLAR EQUIVOCO [H. P. Grice: aequi-vocality thesis] DELL’AVARIZIA; ella non già intende il godere, e stare allegramente dispendiofo, ma bensì quello di cumulare, creduto da efla, e suoi seguaci piacere, e contento maggiore di tutti gli alori"; è ben vero però, che in questi cali rimane ella fovente delusa ; posciache i giovani dislipano tanto in tali occalioni, che bene spesso si pente l’A. varizia di esservisi ingerita.  Semi Com'entra la Bugia ne'matri. monj?  Mec. In quanti se ne fanno, senza le direzioni della Prudenza essa vuole-ingerirsi, e per un verso; d per Palero ci vuole avere in questi la sua parte. 7  Sem. Si dice però communemente, che la Bugia abbia le gambe corte, onde fi fcoprirà, e non potrà perciò fare breccia. diri  Mele 1  Mec. Non è così perche non opera già sola. Se Amore per esempio trarre. rà un parentado, essa pronta vi accorre, e si affatica tanto per fare apparire

GALIMBERTI Ma il corpo, per G., è portatore di un messaggio ambivalente (non equivoco, ci tiene a precisare), secondo il quale mostra di essere questo, ma anche quello.

GENTILE L’equivoco

Geach, P. T. Aquinas on esse. The Aristotelian Society.

GHEZZI teoria che la regge ed è proprio questa la conclusione a cui giunge Geiger. La differenza appare minima, ma non irrilevante e tutta impostata sul piano del discorso svolto e sui tempi cui si riferisce l’affermazione (prima o dopo la verifica empirica). Del resto, il tema fu affrontato in senso generale anche da Heisenberg, riguardo alla costruzione di teorie attraverso l’accoppiamento di simboli a fenomeni: Il procedimento della scienza naturale è raffigurato come l’applicazione di simboli a fenomeni. I simboli possono, come in matematica, essere combinati secondo certe regole, in tal modo le affermazioni sui fenomeni possono essere rappresentate da combinazioni di simboli. Perciò una combinazione di simboli in disaccordo con le regole non è falsa ma priva di significato. L’ovvia difficoltà di questo ragionamento è la mancanza di un criterio ge- nerale che indichi quando una proposizione debba essere considerata priva di significato. Una chiara decisione è possibile soltanto quando la proposizione appartiene ad un sistema chiuso di concetti e di assiomi, il che nello sviluppo delle scienze naturali costituisce piuttosto l’eccezione che la regola. L’EQUIVOCO [H. P. Grice: aequi-vocality thesis], dipendente sia dalla difficoltà di definizione dei concetti, in quanto legati alle teorie di cui sono figli, sia dall’impossibilità di verifica empirica degli assiomi su cui si fondano le teorie (concetti ed assiomi non chiusi), non può stupire. Infatti, come afferma Foucault, le parole simboli e le cose fenomeni non coincidono dal crollo della Torre di Babele in poi: Nella sua forma originaria quando fu dato agli uomini da Dio stesso, il linguaggio è un segno delle cose assolutamente certo e trasparente poiché assomiglia ad esse. I nomi erano deposti su ciò che indicavano, come la forza è scritta nel corpo del leone, la regalità nello sguardo dell’aquila, come l’influsso dei pianeti è stampato sulla fronte degli uomini: mediante la forma della similitudine. Tale

GIAMETTA . Binni sull'"amore del concreto" che nutrì tutta la ricerca desanetisiana e che problematizzò i suoi rapporti con l'hegelismo e di Getto sulla Storia, "in cui la letteratura era studiata nel suo autonomo valore e insieme nel suo necessario legame con tutta la vita e la cultura. Infine, presentando una importante antologia di scritti desanctisiani, Contini dichiara, a nome di un'intera generazione di studiosi, l'uscita dall’ “equivoco [H. P. Grice: aequi-vocality thesis] formalistico” della riduzione crociana di D. e la necessità di tentare finalmente una comprensione filologica dei testi desanctisiani, con tutta la loro problematicità anche irrisolta. Ma lo spostamento ideologico dell'intero dibattito critico mosse dalla pubblicazione dei Quaderni di Gramsci (Letteratura e vita nazionale, Torino) e dalla sua celebre affermazione che il tipo di critica letteraria proprio della filosofia della prassi è offerto da Sanctis. Da qui appunto si partì per un'ampia verifica dell'"impegno" di D., del carattere militante della sua critica, dei "saldi convincimenti morali e politici" che, secondo Granisci, la sostanziavano: era una verifica, evidentemente, molto correlata al bisogno della cultura d'incidere sul presente storico, dopo e contro il "disimpegno" teorizzato

GIGLI Voci di più Significati In ogni Lingua esistono delle Voci aventi più Significati; come in Italiano «essere, avere, fure, ancora, per ec.». Potendo facilmente derivarne EQUIVOCO [H. P. Grice: aequi-vocality thesis] e Confusione, deve ciò ritenersi •difetto notabile di Lingua - Quindi il Linguaggio deve a ciascuna Voce assegnare un solo Valore, o per lo meno precisare in quali circostanze una Voce à uno piuttosto che un altro Valore. III.* OssevazIonE Espressioni Sentimentali  229. L'Uomo vivamente penetrato e soprafatto  quasi da qualche forte Sensazione Passione o Sentimento qualunque, è molte volte obbligato ad esternare la Situazione dell'animo suo. Tal Esternazione generalmente succede col mezzo di Suoni Gutturali prolungati, e aventi l'impronta di ciò che l'Anima sente: E questi Suoni son quelli, che formano le da noi chiamate Espressioni Sentimen-cali -Quindi il Linguaggio avrà

Grandy, R. E. and R. O. Warner (1986). Philosophical grounds of rationality: intentions, categories, ends. Oxford: Clarendon.

Grice, H. P. (1968). Utterer’s meaning, sentence-meaning, and word-meaning, Foundations of Language. Repr. in WoW.

Grice, H. P. (1969). ‘Vacuous Names’, in Donald Davidson and Jaako Hintikka, Words and objections: essays in the work of W. V. O. Quine. Reidel: Dordrecht.

Grice, H. P. (1975). Method in philosophical psychology: from the banal to the bizarre. Presidential address. Proceedings and addresses of the American Philosophical Association, repr. In The Conception of Value, Oxford, Clarendon.

Grice, H. P. (1981). Presupposition and conversational implicature, in Peter Cole, Radical Pragmatics. New York and London: Academic Press. Repr. In WoW.

Grice, H. P. (1986). Repy to Richards, in Grandy and Warner, Philosophical Grounds of Rationality: Intentions, Categories, Ends. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Grice, H. P. (1988). Aristotle on the multiplicity of being. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly.

Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, Mass., and London: Harvard University Press.

Grice, H. P. (2001). Aspects of reason. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Grice, H. P. and P. F. Strawson (c. 1950). Seminar papers on Meaning. The H. P. Grice Papers, Bancroft Library.

Grice, H. P., P. F. Strawson, and D. F. Pears (1957). Metaphysics, in D. F. Pears, The nature of metaphysics, London: Macmillan.

Hardie, F. (1950). Aristotle’s moral theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

MAIERU Gli Elenchi, commentati a Costantinopoli da Michele di Efeso, tradotti e commentati da Giacomo Veneto, rappresentano in Occidente il contributo di Aristotele e della tradizione greca e bizantina mediata dal Chierico Giacomo alla chiarificazione dei problemi che traggono la loro origine dall'uso equivoco EQUIVOCO GRICE delle parole nel discorso. Essi sono il primo dei testi nuovi di Aristotele ad entrare in Occidente, e innanzi tutto IN ITALIA, per poi passare in Francia, dove e già in atto lo sviluppo delle dottrine logico-linguistiche, e quindi nel resto d’Europa. Lungo tutto questo arco, da un lato l’analisi delle parti del discorso proposto dalle grammatiche di Donato e di Prisciano, dall’altro l'indagine sui termini di cui si compone l’enunciato, quale è nel De interpretatione e nei commenti boeziani ad esso, contribuirono

MASI, G. L’uni-equivocita dell’essere in Aristotele.

Minnio-Paulello. Aristoteles latinus.

MORSELLI Anfibolia: designa l'EQUIVOCO [H. P. Grice: aequi-vocality thesis] di senso prodotto dall'uso di termini  forniti di doppio significato, oppure di una speciale costruzione  sintattica d'uua frase; dal greco A;isp£-PoAog, elio va da due  parti, dubbio, da cui anfibologia parlare clic può prendersi in  duo significati anche opposti, es. : aio te Hannibalen vincere  posse.   Antecedente e conseguente: in un rapporto logico dicesi antecedente  il primo termine, conseguente il secondo; cosi la causa è l’antecedente, l'effetto il conseguente. Apodittico

NARDI Politicorum, est melior quam politica non est actus qualitativus inhaerens intellectui aut voluntati: quia si sic, tunc non tenderent intellectus et voluntas in félicitatem tamquam in ultimum finem. Secundo, quia ille actus non est perfectissimum. Quia oporteret ponere ¥>  NiFO,  De  intell. Sigieri duas felicitates: imam formalem et intrinsecam, et aliam obiectivam et extrinsecam; et sic  Aristotelem et Commentatorem indistincte processisse in aequivoco EQUIVOCO [Grice: aequi-vocality thesis], cum dixeriint felicitatem esse ultimum fineni et operationem  animae. Quia ex quolibeto non datur accidens inhaerens intellectui. Concludo igitur quod tantum una est felicitas, et quod ea omnia vere felicitabilia felicitantur; et ista est deus. Hanc sententiam ponit Commentator, Etliicoritm, capite in Deo esse felix est  in speculatione sui, in nobis esse felix est in eo in quo est sibi, prout nobis

 

Lamanna, L’unita della ragione

Lener, Equivocita, univocita, o analogia?

Owen, G. E. L. (1957). Logic and metaphysics in some earlier writings of Aristotle, originally a paper presented at the symposium Aristotelicum at Oxford, in August 1957. File Reference Code: GBR/3437/OWEN/3/54 Published in Aristotle and Plato in the Mid-Fourth Century, ed. I During and Owen, Goteborg Studia Graeca et Latina Gothoburgensia XI, 1960.

Owen, G. E. L. (1965). Aristotle on the snares of ontology, in Renford Rambrough, New essays on Plato and Aristotle. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, pp. 69-98.

Owen, G. E. L. (1977). [Obituary of] Gilbert Ryle. The Aristotelian Society. 77 (1) 265-270.

PASCOLI Alessandro Pascoli. Keywords: fisiologia, corpo, galileo, il fuco di Girgenti, Cicerone, Bianchini. Verissimo, non mi piace medicar le donne, ma non le regine” spiegazione dell’entimema in termini dell’intenzione dei communicatori – chi da il segno e chi lo receve – il segno sensibili dell’idea della cosa. Equivoco se il termine e dunque la proposizione rippresenta due idee.

Peano, Recursione.

Pirandello, Luigi (1901). Dissertation.

Prospero, L’equivoco reformista.

Quinto, Equivocale

Ranzoli . Equivoco. T. Aequivok ; I. Equivocation; F. Équivoque. E equivoca una parola quando ha più significati diversi, univoca quando non no ha che uno. Sopra il significato equivoco d’una parola si possono fondare molti sofiemi verbali, come l’anfibologia, la fallacia divisioni, l'accento, ecc. Cfr. Aristotele, Categ., I; Metaph., IV, 4 (v. omonima). ‘Univoco. Parola introdotta nella logica da BOEZIO, sebbene con significato alquanto diverso dal presente. Univoco si oppone ad equivooo, e designa un attributo che può essere applicato a più soggetti nel medesimo significato, mentre è equivoco quando può essere applicato in più significati allo stesso soggetto. Si dicono quindi univoche le coso che hanno comune il vocabolo ο l'essenza, equivoche quelle che hanno comune il vocabolo ma non l'essenza. Gli scolastici, oltre le uniroca ed aequivoca, distinguono anche le analoga, ossia le cose ad una delle quali conviene un predicato propriamente, ad un’altra impropriamente, come uomo vivo © nomo dipinto; queste si dicono anche anaUma.

Romagnosi, Unificazione matemtica sia logica che morale

SEMERANO: Un equivoco millenario.

Semprini Poliziano  sta  con  Aristotile che  ne  aveva  sostenuta  l'identità  e  il  Magnifico coi  Platonici  che  si  erano  pronunziati  per  la  disparità.   Pico  si  schiera  decisamente  coi  primi  e  viene  a  dimostrare  che  anche  Platone  identifica  l'essere  con  l'uno.   Dove  Pico  trova  la  più  rassicurante  risposta  alla  sua  tesi,  che  nella  mente  di  Platone  l'essere  e  l'uno  si  convertono,  è  nel  dialogo  del  Parmenide, ove  Platone  dimostra  non  già  la  superiorità  dell'uno  sull'essere,  ma  la  loro  identità.  Perciò  Aristotile,  che  parte  dal  cuore  della  filosofia  platonica e  vi  scorge  questa  identità  dei  due  principi, non  dissente  aflatto  dal  suo  maestro.   Tuttavia  Pico  che  non  era  un  superficiale  conoscitore  della  filosofia  aristotelica,  non  poteva  nascondersi  che  il  pensiero  dello  Stagirita  è  stato  sempre  su  questo  argomento  ondeggiante,  sia  quando  disse  che  “l'essere  non  è  assolutamente  uno,”  sia  quando,  parlando  dello  stesso  essere,  l'ha  definito  ora  in  un  senso  ora  in  un  altro.  Lasciando stare  l'EQUIVOCO [GRICE AEQUIvocality] di  linguaggio  a  proposito della  parola  “essere,” che  è  impiegata  in  numerosi sensi,  e  che  quella  di  sostanza  è  impiegata  almeno  in  quattro,  sta  di  fatto  che  la  contraddizione è  flagrante  e  ogni  tentativo  per  eliminarla  riuscirebbe  vano.  Ma  Pico,  tendendo  alla  conciliazione ad  ogni  costo,  concepisce  quella  superessenza  che  in  sé  comprende  l'essere  e  l'uno,  sorvolando sopra  a  tale  contraddizione  con  un  ragionamento che  non  è  privo  di  acume.   L'essere,  egli  dice  nel    quarto,  si  deve  considerare  come  concreto  e  come  astratto;  nel  primo  caso  l'essere,  come  partecipazione  di  qualcosa, è  inferiore  all'uno;  ma  nel  secondo,  cioè  l'essere  per  sé,  é  un  essere  uno,  superiore  ad  ogni  ente  (adeo  est  ut  sit  ipsum  esse,  quod  a  se  est  et  sit  ipsum  esse,  quod  a  se  et  ex  se  est  et  cuius  partecipazione  omnia  sunt).   È  evidente  che  in  questo  caso  l'essere  è  Dio,  il  quale,  come  l'unità,  é  principio  di  tutte  le  cose  (Tale  autem  est  Deus  qui  est  totius  plenitudo,  qui  solus  a  se  est,  et  a  quo  solo  nullo  intercedente  medio  ad  esse  omnia  processerunt).   Così  il  Pico  si  spiega  non  solo  la  convertibilità dell'essere  nell'uno,  ma  anche  come  l'essere  e  l'uno  siano  in  Dio,  il  quale  é  un  superessere  e  un   171  superuno,  e,  come  dice  Dionigi,  quia  unice  est  omnia.   V  indirizzo  mistico  dei  suo  pensiero  porta  il  Pico  ad  operare  la  conciliazione  di  Piatone  e  di  Aristotile  mediante  Dionigi  e  a  convertire  l'ontologia  in  una  concezione  teologica. 

Severino Ma ora è tempo che io ringrazi nuovamente tutti Loro, con  ammirazione per il livello intellettuale degli interventi e direi  quasi con invidia per la generosità che Loro hanno avuto nei  miei riguardi. Grazie!   Debbo tener presente, oltre alle considerazioni  estremamente interessanti di Enrico Berti, quelle di Brianese,  e del professor Pagani ieri (ottima la sua relazione), che  hanno parlato dopo il mio primo intervento. Era solo per  ricordare come sia rimasto interessato di questi tre interventi.   A mezzogiorno, anzi, all’una, eravamo insieme, con Berti, e  parlavamo della sua evoluzione verso la filosofia analitica. Gli  chiedevo che differenza può produrre, tale evoluzione,  rispetto all’affermazione di Aristotele, che il semantema (il  significato) essere non solo non è detto monachos, ossia  univocamente, ma non è nemmeno un significato equivoco.  L’osservazione che facevo all’amico Berti era questa: il tuo  avvicinamento alla filosofìa analitica è una ulteriore  sottolineatura delle differenze di significato della parola  essere. Anche se l’obiezione può sembrare formale (mi pare  che la reazione dell’amico Vincenzo Vitiello volesse dire  questo, cioè che facevo un’obiezione formale), però non possiamo prendere sottogamba la circostanza che le  differenze (il lampadario, Ca’ Dolfin, il tavolo, io, le galassie  ecc.) hanno di identico Tesser differenze. (Tra parentesi:  perché le obbiezioni formali devono essere respinte?)   È questa l’analogia, alla quale ho sempre pensato parlando  dell’on hei on di Aristotele: che ci sia qualche cosa di identico  nelle differenze, che d’altra parte sono originariamente  manifeste (ossia non c’è bisogno di dedurle). L’analogia dei  molti sensi dell’essere, non è il risultato di una  argomentazione, ma è il contenuto del phàinesthai. Ieri si  parlava della mia distinzione tra essere e apparire. Apparire  è appunto la parola italiana con la quale traduciamo  phàinesthai. A questo senso dell’analogia non si sfugge,  perché altrimenti (negando cioè l’identità dell’esser differenze  delle differenze) il senso dell’essere diventa equivoco [H. P. Grice, Aequi-vocality]: non si  sfugge a quell’elemento identico che c’è nel pelo della barba e,  se c’è, in Dio. Qualcosa di identico.   Invitavo a tener presente l’inizio del libro IV della  Metafisica, dove quando Aristotele parla dell’essente in  quanto essente (on hei on) dice che essente in quanto essente  è qualsiasi determinazione, sia sostanza, sia accidente, e poi  arriva persino a dire che anche il non-essere è un essente.  Ecco, se noi dovessimo ancora - ma me lo auguro -  continuare a discutere, penso che il rischio che corri tu, Berti,  è quello di arrivare all’equivocità [H. P. Grice, aequivocality], per cui c’è una molteplicità  di differenze del significato essere, che vorrebbero ma non  riescono a essere pure differenze, nient’altro che differenze,  appunto perché sono anche identiche nell’ esser differenze. Poi mi ha molto interessato quello che ha detto il caro Brianese. Molto intelligente. E anche con te spero che  si continui a parlare di questo. Loro ricorderanno che  Brianese accennava alla vicinanza tra il discorso di Spinoza e quello del sottoscritto. Ma vogliamo prescindere dal il  concetto di causa (ben presente in Spinoza)?

Stefanoni Chiamasi SOFISMA ogni sillogismo il quale, sebbene lasci intendere di condurre a conseguenze assurde, pure  presentasi con certe forme sotto le quali s’è imbarazzati a scoprirlo, o almeno si  è imbrogliati a dire in qual parte il ragionamento è falso e capzioso. Varie classi di sofismi si distinguono nelle scuole, e a ciascuna classe l'antica  filosofia applicato uno special nome. La grammatica fallace o  amfibologia e una sorta di sofismi che derivano o dall' ambiguità dei termini o dall'equivoco [H. P. Grice’s aequivocality]. Esempio: Dio è dovunque; dovunque è un avverbio, dunque Dio è un avverbio. L’Ignoratio elenchi consiste nell' ignoranza del soggetto in  questione. Petizione di principio succede quando si vuol spiegare la cosa che è in questione con un' altra cosa ch’essa stessa dev' essere provata, per cui si torna ancora alla questione di  principio. Esempio: La Bibbia è infallibile perchè lo afferma la Chiesa; la  Chiesa è infallibile perchè lo afferma la  Bibbia; dunque la Bibbia e la Chiesa  sono infallibili. Si capisce facilmente  che i libri dei teologi sono pieni di  petizioni di principio. Del falso supponente,o supporre vero il falso è vizio più comune di quel che si pensa, ond'è che in questa classe di sofismi cadono facilmente i credenti, i quali deducono lo annichilate. A niuno è lecito guereggiche conseguenze da falsi principii. giare nè reclamare in giudizio la riparazione d’una ingiuria, essendo queste  cose chiaramente divietate dal vangelo, equesto principio è comune ai Qua CHERI e agli ANABATTISTI.  Sociologia, o Scienza sociale. Non causa pro causa e prendere per causa ciò che non è causa. In quest' anno è succeduta una guerra; ma la guerra è stata preceduta dalla comparsa di una cometa; dunque la cometa è stata la causa della guerra.

Strawson, P. F. (1959). Individuals: an essay in descriptive metaphysics. London: Methuen.

Tommaseo, Dizionario. Equivoco. E in Capell. E in Boez. Agg. Voce o locuzione che e o puo essere a pare quasi ugualmente adoprata a significare due idee, le quali alla chiarezza importa distinguere. Picc. Instr. Filos.

Trabalza univoco  proprio  e  appellativo;  6.  equivoco  [H. P. Grice: equivocality] proprio  o  sinonimo  appellativo;  B  secondo  la  qualità:  1.  sustanziale  a)  proprio;  b)  aggiuntivo  (epiteto);  2.  (il  sostanziale e  l'aggiuntivo  comprendono  poi)  17 

Vailati Quanto più cresce il numero  delle valenze tanto più cresce naturalmente il bisogno di speciali segni o particelle destinate ad evitare le’ambiguità  nell’assegnazione di diversi complementi a uno stesso verbo. Servono a tale scopo, nel linguaggio ordinario, le preposizioni o le flessioni corrispondenti ai diversi casi dei  nomi.  Finché il verbo, pur essendo a più valenze, è tale che, come avviene per esempio in quelli  sopra citati, i diversi nomi richiesti per completarne il SIGNIFICATO (O SENSO) appartengono a categorie cosi distinte da rendere impossibile QUALSIASI EQUIVOCO [H. P. Grice – aequivocality] – you gave Mary to the book? -- o confusione tra loro; quando, per esempio, come nel caso del verbo dare, l’un complemento deve indicare una persona, e l’altro un oggetto, può parere sempre superfluo l’impiego di  qualsiasi  preposizione

Warnock, G. J. (1951). Metaphysics in Logic, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 51 (1): 197-222. repr. In Flew, Essays in conceptual analysis, selected and edited by A. G. N. Flew. London: Macmillan & Co. Ltd., pp. 75-93.