KLAUS JACOBI
T h o s e who s c c i n F r e g e ' s l o q i c a s t r o n q c o n t r a s t t o t r a d i -
t i o n a l L o g i c commonly r e g a r d t h e t h r e e - p a r t a n a l . y s i s o f t h e p r o -
p o s i t i o n , r e s o l v i n q i t i n t o two t e r m s bound t o g c t h e r by t h e
90 KLA 1.I.S JACORI
c o p u l a , a s t y p i c a l f o r t r a d i t i o n a l l o q i c . And I d o i n f a c t f i n d
t h a t Abclard a l o n e of t r a d i t i o n a l l o g i c i a n s weighs and q i v e s
h i s p r e f c r c n c e t o t h c t w o - p a r t a n a l y s i s . T h a t t h i s a n a l y s i s was
a t a l l t h i n k a b l e a n d c o u l d b e f o r m u l a t c d w i t h i n t h c framework
o f t r a d i t i o n a l l o g i c s u f f i c c s t-o u n s e t t l e many a n a l l t o o a u d a -
c i o u s a n d a l l t o o s l i c k c o n c e l ~ t i o no f t h c C o u r s e o f t h c h i s t o r y
of loyic.
I would l i k e t o q o b a c k t o A b e l a r d ' s d i s t i n c t i o n bct-wccn
s i g n i f i c a L i o i n ~ cl.cG~us
l and s i g n i f i c a t i o rei once a g a i n i n o r -
d e r t o t h r o w l i g h t o n a n o t h c r p o i n t . H e r e , t:oo, t h e ttieme i s
e x p l a n a t i o n w h y - l o g i c a l a n a l y s i s must t a k c intelligible meanin~
a s i t s s t a r t i n q p o i n t . A b c l a r d a r g u e s a s I o l l o w s : On t h c l e v e l
o f s i q n s , a propos.i..t.ion c o n s i s t s m i n i n i a l l y oT a noun a n d a v c r b .
A p r o p o s i t i o n i s u n d e r s t o o d by j o i n i n g t o q c t h e r t h e u n d c r s C a n d -
i n g s o f i,ts p a r t s ( I n t c l l e c t u s p r o p o s i t i o n i s i u n g i t u r e x-i- ntel-
l e c t i h u s p a r L i i i m ) . But o n c c a r i n o t c a r r y t h e p a r a l l e l r u r t h e r
a n d s a y t - h a t " t h e t h i n q o f t h c p r o p o s i t i o n " " i s made u p o f " Lhc
t h i n g s d e s i q n a t c d by t h c u n i t s o f s p c c c h . P o r " t h e p r o p n s i t i n n , "
s a y s ~ b e l a r d ," i s n o t b a s c d on a t h i n g " ( X a u t c m p r o p o s i t i o ~ ,
cum n u l l a m t i a b e a t p r o p o s i t i . 0 r c m s u b i e c t a m , e x r e b u s vi,cahuloriim
non c o n s i s t i t ) . T h u s , o n l y t h c i n t i c l l i g i b l e mcani n g s o f t t i e neun
and t h e v e r b hclonq t o t h c c o n s t i t u t i o n of a p r o p o s i t i o n . (Super
P c r i erni., 308, 3 4 - 4 0 ) .
A t t h i s p o i n t , somcone w e l l - v c r s c d i n F r e g c would s u r e l y Cry
o u t t h e f o l l o w i n g t - r a n s l a t i o n o f A b e l a r d ' s a r g u m e n t : On t h c
l e v e l o f s i g n s , a s e n t e n c c c o n s i s t s o f a p r o p e r narnc a n d a p r e -
d i c a t o r . To t h e e x t e n t t h a t t t i c " q u c s t i o n ( i s ) o n l y , o f t h c
s e n s e oF t t i e s c n t e n c e , t h c t h o u g h t , i t woiild b e u n n e c c s s s r y t o
b o t h c r w i t h t h c r e f e r e n c e o f a p a r t 01 a s e n t e n c c ; o n l y t h e
sense, not t h e rcIcrence, of t h e p a r t is relevant t o t h c scnsc
o f t h e wtiolc s c n t e n c e . " ( i i b e r S i n n und n c d e u t u n q , S . 3 3 ) . In
t-his suggcsted t r a n s l a t i o n lies a c h a l l e n q e t o Ahclard n o t t o
s t o p w i t h t h e s i q n j f i c a t i o i n t e l l e c t u u m . A s s o o n a s a judgmcnt
n i u s t b c made a s t o t h e t r u t i h o r f a l s i t y o f t t i e t t i o u g h t e x p r e s s e d
i n a s c n t e n c e , one must a s c c r t a i n , s a y s Yrcge, t h a t "cvcry
p r o p e r nme ... (tias) n o t o n l y a s e n s e , b u t a l s o a rcfererice"
(ibd.).
I n t h e r e m a r k s t o f o l l o w , I w i l l g o o n t h e assu:nption t h a t
t h e s u g g c s t e d t r a n s l a t i o n i s r c l i a b l e , a n d s o I w i l l now a d d r c s s
m y s e l f t o t h e c h a l l c n g c p o s e d i n i t . What i s A h c l a r d ' s t h e o r y
o n t h e s i ~ n i f i c a t u mp r o p o s i t i o n s ? Wlint d o e s h c mcan i n s a y i n g
t h a t t h e p r o p o s i t i o n h a s no rtt:; s ~ ~ b i c c t Oncc i? a g a i n I must
l i m i t r n y s c l f t o p r o v i d i n q you wit.h a sununary o f t t i e r e s u l t s oT
Abelard's invcstiqations:
1 ) A word s t r i n q s u c h a s ' S ~ a t c ss e d e n s ' , a s e n t e n c e nomi-
n a l i z a t i o n s u c h a s 'Socratcm s c d e r e ' ( ' Lhat S o c r a t e s i s s i t t i n q ' ) ,
a "completc s e n t e n c e " such a s ' S o c r a t e s sedrt:' o r even c o r r c s -
ponding imgerativc, i n t e r r o g a t o r y , o r wish sentenccs a r e n o t
d i f f e r e n t i n r e s p e c t t o t h e i r u n d e r s t a n d a h l e c o n t e n t s . The p r o -
p o s i t i o n ' S o c r a t e s s e d e t ' h a s n o new i i n d e r s t a n d a b l c c o n t e n t o v e r
' S o c r a t e s s e n d e n s ' . I n t h e word s t r i n y ' S o c r a t c s s e n d e n s ' , t h e
two c l e m e n t s ' S o c r a t e s ' and ' s e d e r c ' a r e rerjardcd a s a l r e a d y
b e i n g j o i n e d t o q c L h c r . Thev a r c n o t j o i n e d f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e
i n a proposition of corresponding character. It is c l e a r t h a t
t h i s t h c o r y came a s a r e s u l L o f t l i e d e b a t e A b c l a r d c o n d u c t e d
ABELAKLI A NLI IXLGK 91
thouqht, the way things rclatc to cach nthcr (cerum modus habcn-
di se, W . , 160, 3 5 ) , the assertion - cannot be understood
alonc. They can be understood only in the context of the pro-
position. The theories of the proposition with which Abelard
contended bcgin with thc false assuumption that some or a1.L of
thc various aspects of the proposition are independent and in
themselves understandable elcmcnts which should thus servc as
thc basis for a semantics of the proposition.
Lct us turn once again to Frege in closing. His notaiiion of-
fers itself here, too, for the symbolic expression of the dif-
ference between the assertivc aspcct of thc proposition and
what can be evaluated. It is not my purpose here to elucidate
the difference betwecn Frcge's introduction early on of the
content and judgmcnt strokes and their later reinterpretation,
nor to elucidate what is needcd in ordcr to asscrt a proposition
of event on the one hand and a matheniatical proposition on the
other (compare Der Gedanke, C. 64). Thcsc arc susidiary qucs-
tions which would play a part in an extended comparison. For
the present I wish mcrcly to mark the point of comparibility.
It sccms to me worthy of noticc that Freqe introduces his dis-
tinction analytically. The content strokc dcsignates what re-
mains when the judgment stroke is "omitted" (~e~riffsschrift,
6
" 2 .) .
Frcgc formulates the propositional approach of his semantic
theory in the second methodological principle of the Grundla-
gen, which states that "onc must ask for the meaninq of words
in the contcxt of a proposition and not in their isolation"
(Grundlaqen der Ari.thmetik, S. XXII). Seeing that conccpts are
nothing other than predicates, the semantics oF thc proposition
cannot be built upon a semantics of words which pretends to bc
prior to and independcnt of it. (Compare Frecje ' s Briefwechsel,
C . 1641.
- - ~
would c o u n t e r t h a t naming i s a l s o b a s e d u p o n t h c a c t of p r c -
d i c a t i o n , a t l e a s t t o t t i e e x t e n t t t i a t t h e name h a s a n u n d c r -
s t a n d a b l e s e n s e and n o t merely a r e f e r e n c e f u n c t i o n .
Note :
I h a v c p r e s e n t c d t h i s p a p e r a s a r e p o r t o n c u r r e n t a n d on-
g o i n g work. I t i s i n t e n d e d t o be a s t i m u l u s t o d i s c u s s i o n .
It d i d n o t s c c m a p p r o p r i a t e t o r e w o r k i t i n t o a f o r m a l e s s a y
a f t e r t h e f a c t . I have t h u s d i s p e n s e d w i t h t h e u s u a l s c h o l a r l y
a p p a r a t u s a n d p r o v i d c s i r n p l y a b i b l i o g r a p h y of t h c w o r k s c o n -
s u l t c d i n t h e c o u r s c o f my r c s c a r c h .
P c t r u s Abaelardus: Dialectica. Ed. L.M. d e R i j k . A s s e n 1956
P e t r i A b a e l a r d i C l o s s a e s u p e r P e r i e r i n e n i a s . Ed. B. G c y c r
( P e t e r A b a e l a r d s P h i l o s o p h i s c h e S c h r i f t e n , I. D i e Logica
'Ingredientibus' ) .BGPhTtiMA 2 1 , 3 . M n s t e r 1927
P e t r i A b a e l a r d G l o s s a e s u p e r P e r i e r n i e n i a s B, carip. X I 1 - XIV.
Ed. L. M i n i o - P a l u e l l o ( T w e l E t h C e n t u r y L o q i c . T e x t s a n d S t u d i e s
11: A b a c l a r d i a n a I n e d i t a ) .
Roma 1 9 5 8
K l a u s J a c o b i : P e t e r A b e l a r d ' s I n v c s t i g a t i o n s i n t o t h e Meaning
a n d F u n c i i o n s o f t h e S r ~ e e c t iS i g n 'e'. E r s c h e i n t i n : J.
H i n t i k k a a n d S. K n u u t t i l a ( e d s . ) : S t u d i e s i n t h e L o g i c o f B e i n g
C. Nuchelmans: T h e o r i e s of t h c P r o p o s i t i o n . A n c i e n t a n d m e d i e v a l
c o n c e p t i o n s o i t h e b e a r e r s o f t r u t h a n d f a l s i t y . Amstcrdam 1973
I,.M. d e R i j k : f n t r o d u c t i o n t o t h e e d i t i o n o f A b a i l a r d ' s D i a l e c -
t i c a . Asscn 1956
L.M. d e R i j k : La s i g n i f i c a t i o n d e l a p r o p o s i i i o n ( d i c t u m p r o -
p o s i t i o n i s ) chez ~ b h l a r d . I n : P i c r r c Abhlard - P i e r r e l e
V c n h r a b l e . A c t c s du c o l l o n u e i n t e r n a t i o n a l , C l u n y , 2-9 j u i l l e t
1 9 7 2 . Ed. R. L o u i s , J . J o l i v c t , J . C h a t i l l o n . P a r i s 1 9 7 5 ,
p p . 547-555