In his logical treatises, John Mair develops a method and a set of rules for the verification of modal propositions, which is in the spirit of his predecessors Ockham and Buridan, but ultimately goes beyond them. He calls this method positio de inesse. It is also by this method that the truth conditions for divided modal propositions are set out. There is a standard interpretation of it as a form of reductionist method, and scholars have been tempted to think that (...) it was motivated by an implicit rejection of de re modal properties shared by Mair and other sixteenth- century nominalists. After presenting the background to Mair’s writings on the semantics of modal propositions, in this paper we revisit Mair's version of the method of positio de inesse. We argue that it is based on some basic semantic rules and contend that this procedure analyzes divided modal propositions into singular de re sentences referring to possible objects. Consequently, we conclude that this method does not reflect a reductionist approach to modal discourse. We instead provide an alternative interpretation. (shrink)

Most nominalist logicians of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries believed that we could conceive of and refer to impossible objects. The articulation of the semantics of impossibility that underlined this view is much less known than that of their fourteenth-century predecessors, and it may at first seem to conflict with that tradition’s core principle of theoretical parsimony. Here, I propose a first analysis of John Mair’s case and argue that a central part of that development concerns the theory of signification (...) itself. I will examine his views on empty reference and imaginable impossibilities in relation to John Buridan, Marsilius of Inghen, and John Dorp of Leiden, as well as an anonymous work known as the Hagenau commentary. By doing so, I intend to show that his approach to empty reference is closely connected to issues of conceptual representation. (shrink)

In his natural philosophy, John Buridan reinterprets Aristotelian conceptions of necessity using a framework derived from his logical writings. After a discussion of Buridan’s account of varieties of necessity, in this paper I shall approach some interpretative uses of that account where two natural philosophical concerns are involved. The first is connected with the relationship of modality and time in a question from the first book of his commentary to De Generatione et Corruptione addressing a consequence from possibilities of alteration (...) to possibilities of generation. The content of that question hinges on the metaphysical connection between alteration and substantial changes. In the third section, I shall explore a quasi-definition of causal necessity and contingency Buridan discusses in the second book of his commentary to the Physics. Buridan’s discussion of alternative descriptions of causal necessity and contingency in that context reveals competing pictures of the role of essences in causal explanation associated with Avicenna and Averroes respectively. (shrink)