In his dispute with Malebranche about the nature of ideas, Arnauld endorses a form of direct realism. This appears to conflict with views put forward by Arnauld and his collaborators in the Port-Royal Grammar and Logic where ideas are treated as objects in the mind. This tension can be resolved by a careful examination of Arnauld's remarks on the semantics of ‘perception’ and ‘idea’ in light of the Port-Royal theory of language. This examination leads to the conclusion that Arnauld's ideas (...) really are objects in the mind, and not perceptual acts as many commentators hold. What Arnauld denies is that these mental objects are really distinct from the external objects they represent. Instead, Arnauld holds that, by the act of conception, the external objects themselves—not copies—come to be present in the mind and are therefore called ‘ideas’. (shrink)

Call the idea that states of perceptual awareness have intentional content, and in virtue of that aim at or represent ways the world might be, the ‘Content View.’ I argue that though Kant is widely interpreted as endorsing the Content View there are significant problems for any such interpretation. I further argue that given the problems associated with attributing the Content View to Kant, interpreters should instead consider him as endorsing a form of acquaintance theory. Though perceptual acquaintance is controversial (...) in itself and in attribution to Kant, it promises to make sense of central claims within his critical philosophy. (shrink)

Philosophers of the modern period are often presented as having made an elementary error: that of confounding the attitude one adopts toward a proposition with its content. By examining the works of Locke and the Port-Royalians, I show that this accusation is ill-founded and that Locke, in particular, has the resources to construct a theory of propositional attitudes.

This is a critical examination of Antoine Arnauld's Logic or the Art of Thinking (1662), commonly known as the Port-Royal Logic. Rather than reading this work from the viewpoint of post-Fregean formal logic or the viewpoint of seventeenth-century intellectual history, I approach it with the aim of exploring its relationship to that contemporary field which may be labeled informal logic and/or argumentation theory. It turns out that the Port-Royal Logic is a precursor of this current field, or conversely, that this (...) field may be said to be in the same tradition. (shrink)

To understand pre-Fregean theories of judgment and proposition, such as those found in Locke and the Port-Royal logic, it is important to distinguish between propositions in the modern sense and propositions in the pre-Fregean sense. By making this distinction it becomes clear that these pre-Fregean theories cannot be meant to solve the propositional attitude problem. Notwithstanding this fact, Locke and Arnauld are able to make a distinction between asserted and unasserted propositions (in their sense). The way Locke makes this distinction (...) turns out to be very different from the way it is made by Arnauld. (shrink)

This article canvases the main areas of controversy: the nature of Lockean signification and his position on propositions and particles.

Logical reflection in early modern philosophy (EMP) is marked by the instability of the period, although it is more lasting (the Port-Royal Logic was nevertheless used as a handbook in philosophy courses until the end of the nineteenth century). It started in the sixteenth century and ended in the nineteenth century, a period of 300 years during which there were deep transformations in the conceptions of authority and scientific method. For the history of twentieth-century philosophy, it was the period of (...) “classical logic,” which lasted from the Renaissance to the linguistic turn conducted by Gottlob Frege. The period was used to be thought of as centuries of little or no original contribution to logic, in which conceptions of logic were tainted by rhetoric, epistemology, and psychologism in the worst sense (Kneale and Kneale 1962; Michael 1997). From the last decades of the twentieth century, however, scholars began to regard this period more accurately with respect to reflection and changes in logic and semantics. It has recently become a promising field for historical and conceptual research; today we can say that the legacy of early modern logical reformism has a philosophical, logical, and semantic value in itself. (shrink)

Este artículo tiene camo finalidad estudiar la noción de aserción en dos obras del sigla XVII francés: La Logique ou l’art de penser (conocida como Lógica de Port-Royal), de Antoine Arnauld y Pierre Nicole, y la Grammaire générale et raisonnée, de Antoine Arnauld y Claude Lancelot. Se ha dividido el artículo en dos apartados dedicados respectivamente a la concepción de Port-Royal acerca del juicio, y a la teoría del verbo. A lo largo de la reflexión en torno a estos importantes (...) conceptos en la teoría del lenguaje de Port-Royal, pretendemos probar que sus autores efectuaron la distinción entre contenido proposicianal y actitud proposicianal antes de que Frege la estableciera de forma sólida y definitiva.The present paper sets out to examine the notion of assertion within two French 17th century works: Antoine Arnauld and Pierre Nicole’s La Logique ou l’art de penser (known as the Port-Royal Logic), and Antoine Arnauld and Claude Lancelot’s Grammaire générale et raisonnée. This article has been divided into two sections. The first section is devoted to the Port-Royalian doctrine about judgment; the second section analyzes the theory of verb. On our account of these important notions of Porl-Royal’s theory of language, we intend to prove that its authors had made out the distinction btween propositional content and propositional attitude before Frege could set it forth in a solid and definitive way. (shrink)

The Port-Royal Logic includes a brief discussion of modal propositions, containing several mnemonic devices for rules of equivalence governing the possibility, necessity, impossibility, and contingency of propositions. When the mnemonics are decoded, it can be seen that these rules treat possibility and contingency as formally equivalent modes. The aim of this paper is twofold: to show that this identification of possibility and contingency follows from the Logic’s formal treatment of those modes; and to show that such a treatment of these (...) modes conflicts with claims the authors make in other contexts. In particular, the equivalence of possibility and contingency conflicts with the Cartesian principle that whatever is clearly and distinctly conceivable is possible—a principle that Arnauld and Nicole explicitly endorse elsewhere in the Logic. Why, then, would the authors adopt such equivalence rules? The paper concludes with a discussion of the historical precedents for these rules: they were a standard feature of Scholastic logic textbooks in seventeenth century France. It is likely that Arnauld and Nicole simply reproduced the rules for this reason, without recognizing that they were a poor fit for a Cartesian logic textbook like the Port-Royal Logic. (shrink)

Este artículo tiene como finalidad estudiar la noción de aserción en dos obras del siglo XVII francés: La Logique ou l’art de penser, de Antoine Arnauld y Pierre Nicole, y la Grammaire générale et raisonnée, de Antoine Arnauld y Claude Lancelot. Se ha dividido el artículo en dos apartados dedicados respectivamente a la concepción de Port-Royal acerca del juicio, y a la teoría del verbo. A lo largo de la reflexión en torno a estos importantes conceptos en la teoría del (...) lenguaje de Port-Royal, pretendemos probar que sus autores efectuaron la distinción entre contenido proposicional y actitud proposicional antes de que Frege la estableciera de forma sólida y definitiva. The present paper sets out to examine the notion of assertion within two French 17th century works: Antoine Arnauld and Pierre Nicole’s La Logique ou l’art de penser, and Antoine Arnauld and Claude Lancelot’s Grammaire générale et raisonnée. This article has been divided into two sections. The first section is devoted to the Port-Royalian doctrine about judgment; the second section analyzes the theory of verb. On our account of these important notions of Port-Royal’s theory of language, we intend to prove that its authors had made out the distinction between propositional content and propositional attitude before Frege could set it forth in a solid and definite way. (shrink)

Arnauld follows Descartes in denying that sensible qualities like color are modes of external objects. Yet, unlike Malebranche, he resists the apparent implication that ordinary statements like ‘this marble is white’ are false. Arnauld also follows Descartes in saying that we perceive things by having ideas of them. Yet, unlike Malebranche, he denies that this sort of talk implies the existence of intermediaries standing between the mind and its external objects. How can Arnauld avoid these implications? I argue that the (...) answer lies in Arnauld’s sophisticated theory of mental and linguistic representation and, in particular, his account of extrinsic denomination. (shrink)

RÉSUMÉ: Les philosophes de la période moderne sont souvent présentés comme ayant commis une erreur élémentaire: celle de confondre la force propositionnelle avec le contenu propositionnel. Par l'examen de deux cas saillants, à savoir les philosophes de Port-Royal et John Locke, je montre que l'accusation n'est pas fondée, et que Locke en particulier a les ressources requises pour construire une théorie des attitudes propositionnelles.

This article presents a novel reading of Descartes’s critique of the traditional syllogistic. The reading differs from those previously presented by scholars who regard Descartes’s critique as a version of a well-known argument: that syllogisms are circular or non-ampliative and thus trivial. It is argued that Descartes did not see syllogisms as defective in themselves. For him the problem was rather that anyone considering a valid and informative syllogism must already know, by an intuition wholly independent of the syllogism, that (...) the conclusion follows from the premises. Moreover, without such an intuition the syllogistic on its own is incapable of determining whether the consequence truly holds. Thus the syllogistic is useless unless accompanied by an intuition that renders it otiose. This reading of Descartes’s view is supported and explained by examples drawn from Descartes’s writing and from the Port-Royal Logic—one of the first attempts to develop a logical system on Cartesian principles. (shrink)