Doctrines

The most important part of Ralph’s legacy is to be found in the four major treatises. The treatise on supposition actually deals with two doctrines, set out at the start: supposition and exponible terms. Supposition, or the reference of a term, is the function of representation that the term performs in a proposition: when it stands for itself or for another similar term, Ralph says that it has material or simple supposition (like Buridan before him, discarding the traditional distinction of the two functions; there may be a reference to Ralph in the ‘‘Rudolfus Anglicus’’ who is associated with Buridan in identifying a simple with a material supposition, as indicated in an unpublished text quoted in Maierif 1982:97n.); when the term stands for something other than itself, Ralph attributes personal supposition to it. Then, he illustrates how to distinguish the various forms of personal supposition and how they function. He goes on to treat the various exponible terms (exclusive and exceptive, incipit and desinit; differt; positive and comparative degree, superlative, with maximum et minimum, and reduplicative) and the propositions they give rise to, including the universal proposition. The use of exponible terms is particularly important in dealing with themes of natural philosophy: since the medieval masters made little effort to seek tools for measuring and evaluating natural phenomena, but concentrated rather on seeking adequate linguistic formulae, with the result of creating a highly technical language, governed by precise rules.

The treatise on consequences undertakes the distinction between formal and material consequence. For Ralph, any valid material consequence is an inference from the antecedent to the consequent, while a formal consequence also implies a connection of signification between antecedent and consequent: anyone who understands that you are a man, understands that you are an animal, because animal follows from the formal intellection (de formali intellectu) of man (Kneales and Kneales 1962:292, refer to Abelard in this connection). It hence follows that any formal consequence is material, but not vice versa. An example of a material consequence is a man is a donkey, so the stick is in the corner. Ralph supplies an extensive review of general and special rules, with a list of the various rules introduced into mediaeval tradition on the basis of Prior Analytics and Topics.

The treatise on Obligationes concerns the procedures for developing a scholastic dispute for two actors: the arguens or opponens is the one who starts the dispute and proposes the difficulties, and the respondens is the one who sustains the dispute, trying to avoid the difficulties, compared by Ralph to two combatants; according to Ralph, the aim of the exercise is mainly that of sharpening the novice’s ability and testing his competence in not falling into contradiction with the premises accepted. In fact, the dispute starts from the position of a case and the corresponding utterance, which the respondent accepts and which he must not contradict, accepting (conceding) or denying the steps, later proposed by the other speaker, as he sees fit. The time of obligation lasts from when the case is admitted until the challenger gives the signal to interrupt the game (but everything concerning the dispute is regarded in relation to the initial moment of it): in the time of obligation, the respondent has to concede everything possible that is not contrary to what has already been admitted and conceded; but outside that time, he must reply truthfully. As the dispute unfolds between two speakers, Ralph claims that one needs to consider only what has been explicitly admitted vocally and not what emerges mentally, which has not come into play as such. Ralph’s position seems to be in line with the tradition that regards this exercise as a test for the novice. But there is another use recognized for this activity, that of exploring what follows a hypothesis made in any discipline, so as to know what to do when a situation arises corresponding to the case examined. This aspect does not seem to be considered by Ralph (Ashworth 1993).

The final lengthy treatise on Insolubilia is divided in three parts: the first discusses the various positions, the second proposes to bring out the true opinion from them, while the third illustrates various kinds of insolubles (insoluble, the author explains, has sense of a logical difficulty that is difficult to solve, but not absolutely insoluble). Ralph starts by presenting the opinions of the ancients and then goes on to examine those of the moderns, starting from Thomas Bradwardine’s treatise, which he discusses in detail; he then examines the position of Roger Swyneshed and then two other modern positions (those of Dumbleton and Kilmington, not attributed, but identified by Spade 1975, to whom we also owe the discovery of the Erfurt MS, 4°255, conserving much of the authentic text; for the Oxford MS, Maierii 1982:103-110). The fifth opinion is Heytesbury’s and the last that of Robert Fland, again not attributed. In the second part, Ralph evaluates the positions of Bradwardine, Swyneshed, and Heytesbury: he regards Bradwardine’s conclusions as probable, presents nine conclusions, most of them drawn from Fland, against Swyneshed, and agrees with Heytesbury that an insoluble cannot signify as the terms in which it is formulated precisely demand, but that one should identify a further signification of the insoluble. In the third part, Ralph applies the results so far to the various types of insoluble (those that arise from our external and internal acts; those based on properties of the voice; and those that occur as simple, or composite and molecular proposition and in one of the various propositional forms).

In conclusion, faced with the situation of logic in his time, Strode sought to provide a doctrinal synthesis, paying particular attention to the teaching tradition of the discipline.

See also:  > Consequences, Theory of > Insolubles

>  John Buridan > John Dumbleton > John Wyclif

>  Obligations Logic > Peter Abelard > Richard Billingham > Richard Kilvington > Richard Swineshead

>  Supposition Theory > Thomas Bradwardine > William Heytesbury