BASA

Two «new» criitiques of the Onto!. Argument 61 impossibles and another world made up of genuine beings ». 17 Rather, these fictive expressions signify nothing, or, better, they do not signify at all. « Chimaera », unlike the terms « vacuum » and « infinitus », was thought by most medieval writers to be an impos– sible concept, i.e. a contradictory expression, somewhat like 'round square'. Thus « Chimaera est non-ens », strictly speaking, is not true, for it implies that 'Chimaera' does refer to something, and this something is a non ens. 18 But this, Occam remarks, is a confusion. 'Infinitus' is similarly a non-personally referring expression, although it would not be considered by Occam as a contradictory expression, even though it is inconceivable. In this chapter from the Summa Logicae Occam considers the objection that surely the proposition « Chimaera est Chimaera » is true, and necessarily true, for, as Boethius has said, « no propo– sition is more true than that in which the same thing is predicated of the same thing ». 19 Occam's response is exactly similar to his second point in the passage from the Sentence Commentary. If it can be assumed that we are using the term 'Chimaera' significatively or personally, then it can be assumed that we are allegedly talking about some distinct and definite reality. But 'chimaera' is a contradic– tory expression, there can be no such reality signified by it. Hence, since any statement utilizing this expression assumes that the impossible is possible, all such statements are false. Thus, « Chimaera est chimaera », « The chimaera is the chimaera » is a false state- 17 « Unde non est imaginandum, quod sicut sunt quaedam entia significata per tales terminas 'homo', 'animal', 'album', 'calidum', 'breve', 'longum' et huiusmodi, ita sunt quaedam non-entia et impossibilia distincta totaliter ab entibus significata per tales terminos 'chimaera', 'hircocervus' et huiusmodi, quasi esset unus mundus ex impossibilibus sicut est unus mundus ex entibus », op. cit. p. 259, v. 21-26. 18 « Ista enim falsa de virtute sermonis: 'Chimaera est non-ens', et quaelibet consimilis 1 quia quaelibet talis habet istas exponentes: 'Chimaera est aliquid', et: 'Illud est non-ens', quarum prima est falsa », op. cit. p. 259, v. 34-36. lt should be remarked that Occam's listing 'Chimaera' along with these other expressions, e.g. 'vacuum', and 'infinitus' may be evidence that he did not think of 'chimaera' as a contradictory expression; for, surely, he did not think of 'infinitus' as a contra– dictory expression, since it is part of the nominal definition of « Deus ». 19 «Et si dicatur: numquid ista est vera: 'Chimaera est chimaera'? Videtur, quod sic, eo quod praedicatur idem de se, et Boethius dicit, quod nulla propositio est verior illa, in qua idem praedicatur de se», op. cit. pp. 259-260, v. 37-40. Occam's response: « Dicendum est quod de virtute vocis ista falsa: 'Chimaera est chimaera', si termini supponant significative, eo quod falsum implicatur », viz. that a Chimaera is a being or a non-being.