Priority of Analysis and the Predicates of "O"-form Sentences

PRIORITY OF ANALYSIS AND THE PREDICATES OF "0"-FORM SENTENCES In 1970, John J. Swiniarski observed in this journal that there is something peculiar about Ockham's doctrine that the predicates of O-form sentences have confused and distributive supposition.1 In 1973, Gareth Matthews made a similar point.2 In brief, the problem is this: Ockham defines confused and distributive supposition in such a way that a given term in a sentence has confused and distributive supposition if and only if a descent to singulars under that term is possible by a conjunctive sentence, and the original sentence cannot be inferred from any one conjunct. Thus from 'Every man is an animal' one can descend to 'This man is an animal, and that man is an animal...', and so on for all men, but one cannot ascend from any one of the conjuncts to the original sentence. Hence the term 'man' in that sentence has confused and distributive supposition.3 (For the record, we note here that for Ockham a given term in a sentence has determinate supposition if and only if a descent to singulars under that term is possible by a disjunctive sentence, and the original sentence can be inferred from any disjunct,4 and that the 1 John J. Swiniarski, "A New Presentation of Ockham's Theory of Supposition with an Evaluation of Some Contemporary Criticisms," Franciscan Studies, 30 (1970), 181-217. 8 Gareth B. Matthews, "Suppositio and Quantification in Ockham," Nous, 7 (1973). 13-24· 8 William of Ockham, Summa Logicae, critical ed. by P. Boehner, G. Gal, and S. Brown, (St. Bonaventure, N.Y.: The Franciscan Institute, 1974), pars I, ca. 70, lines 62-68: "Suppositio confusa et distributiva est quando contingit aliquo modo descenderé copulative, si habeat multa contenta et ex nullo uno formaliter infertur. Sicut est in ista Omnis homo est animal,' cuius subiectum supponit confuse et distributive: sequitur enim Omnis homo est animal, igitur iste homo est animal et ille homo est animal,' et sic de singulis; et non sequitur formaliter 'iste homo est animal,' quocumque demonstrato, 'igitur omnis homo est animal'." (All references to Ockham will be to this edition, pars prima, by chapter and line numbers.) 4 Ibid., 70, 28-31: "Est igitur regula certa, quod quando sub termino communi contingit descenderé ad singularia per propositionem disiunctivam, et 264PAUL VINCENT SPADE term has merely confused supposition [what Swiniarski calls "purely confused" supposition] if and only if a descent to singulars under that term is not possible by a disjunctive sentence, but one is possible by a sentence with a disjoined term, and the original sentence can be inferred from any singular. Thus from 'Every man is an animal' one cannot descend to 'Every man is this animal or every man is that animal, etc.,' but one can descend to 'Every man is this animal or that animal, etc.,' and from any singular — e.g., from 'Every man is that animal' — one can infer the original sentence. Hence the term 'animal' in that sentence has merely confused supposition.6) From the above definition of confused and distributive supposition , it follows that the predicates of O-form sentences have confused and distributive supposition. For from the O-form sentence 'Some man is not a Greek' one can descend to 'Some man is not this Greek, and some man is not that Greek, etc.,' but one obviously cannot infer the original sentence from a single one of those conjuncts alone. This fact, however, is incompatible with the view that descent to singulars is meant to be a kind of analysis, so that the original sentence is meant to be equivalent to the expanded sentence descended from it. For suppose that Socrates and Plato, both Greeks, are the only men. Then it is true that some man (namely, Socrates) is not this Greek (namely, Plato), and some man (namely, Plato) is not that Greek (namely, Socrates), and yet it is false that some man is not a Greek. ex qualibet singulari infertur talis propositio, tunc ille terminus habet suppositionem personalem determinatam." 8 Ibid., 70, 44-61: "Suppositio personalis confusa tantum est quando terminus communis supponit personaliter et non contingit descenderé ad singularia per...