u~iyfrsjdad compjjute1~se be madrid 11 - Biblioteca Complutense

42nuevas visiones de su finalidad y naturaleza. Sintéticamentelas resume Ivan Boh, presentando la opinión de los autoresmás significativos: Ph. Boehner, R. Oreen, L,M. De Rijk, A.Perreiah, 1. Angelelli, E. Stump, P.V. Spade, E.J. Ashworth.38 La opinión de esta última estudiosa puede ser consideradacomo resumen de las posturas de los demás:Insofar as ¿he treatises described a routine ¿o be followedin classroom disputations, ¿he purpose covíd onlyhave been that of tes¿ing a s¿udent’s skill in formal logic,since truth was explicitly not an issue, but ¿he authors andreaders of such treatises obvíously welcomed ¿o opportunity¿o discuss other matters in sorne depth,3938 Ihe investigatora in ¿he field are not in agreement about ¿he natupeand purpose of obligationes; several different views on ¿ibiswere expressed casual y and sorne were worked oid in detall ami defendedin detail.One of ¿he earliest historian of medieval logic, Pibilotibeus Boehner,suggested that tibe rules of obligation contain a nucleus ofrules for axiomatic method, thougib in a ratiber crude form. R.Creen and L.M. De Rijk incline to tibink of obligational disputationsas scibool exercises designed ¿o improve student’s knowledgeand use of logic ¿md ¿o provide a practical introduction ¿o formaldisputation. Similar view was expressed by A. Perreiah who alsos¿resses tibe pedagogical side of ¿he games and calís attention ¿otibe mnemoníc features of obligationes.O¿ibers, for example, 1. Angelelli, concentrated on the technique—side of obligational disputation...., Eleonore Stump, stressed ¿hemultiple concern of obligational disputation, including epistemiclogic, indexicals, propositional attitudes, ¿md otiber issues intibe philosophy of language..., E.J. Ashwort... recognized ¿he varietyof functions which ¿he teory of obliga tions was in fact performing;but in ¿he Introduction to her edition of tibe Obligationesof Paul of Venice sAe also calís at¿ention ¿o ¿rio points,both, 1 ¿hink, very important and in¿eresting for further researchon ¿he subject. Tibe first is ¿he link between treatises on obligationsaná treatises on insolubles; ¿he o¿her is ¿he importance ofsopibisms in tibe obligations literature, wich, in her words, rein—forces ¿he link ruth insolubles, but also suggest links ritA fa—llacies and ruth pragmatic paradoxes...Peribaps ¿he most conimital and definitive interpretation of wibatoblitgational disputation is supposed ¿o be was put foreward ¿mddefended by PA’. Spade, in his ‘7’hree Tibeories of Obligationa...In this paper tibe autibor defends ¿he viei¡ tibat obligational reaso—ning Ls really a fon of counterfactual reasonig. (Boh, ¡van. Qnmedieval Rules..., p. 46—48>.3~ Ashwort, EJ., Paul of Venice..., p. XIV.