Semantics and Mental Representation in Aristotle’s Peri Hermeneias by Rodmon Cedric King Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy Supervised by Professor Deborah Modrak Department of Philosophy Arts, Sciences and Engineering School of Arts and Sciences University of Rochester Rochester, New York 2012 ii   For Edith Virginia King “We must strive to make each generation better than the last” Joshua, Josiah, Jeremiah, and Jared King May you live lives worthy of the excellence within you iii   Curriculum Vitae Rodmon Cedric King was born in Rochester, New York on October 24, 1967. He attended Roberts Wesleyan College and graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Religion and Philosophy in 1998. He came to the University of Rochester in the fall of 2000 and began graduate studies in philosophy. He received a University Fellowship in 2000, a teaching assistantship in 2001, and a Writing Fellowship in 2002-2003. He received a Consortium for Faculty Diversity Fellowship in 2006- 2008. He was nominated for the Edward Peck Curtis Award for Teaching Excellence in 2005. He received the Edward Peck Curtis Award for Teaching Excellence in 2006. He pursued his research under the direction of Professor Deborah Modrak and received the Master of Arts degree from the University of Rochester in 2007. He is currently an Instructor of Philosophy at Hobart & William Smith Colleges. He is the father of four amazing sons. iv   Acknowledgements My deepest and most sincere thanks to my committee: Deborah Modrak, Randall Curren, and Edward Wierenga. They have provided me crucial support and assistance in my research and writing. My advisor Deborah Modrak has been particularly supportive of my efforts with countless hours of vital feedback, and encouragement. This thesis would not have moved from potentiality to actuality without her sound guidance. I could not have wished for a more dedicated mentor and advisor. I thank the current and former members of the University of Rochester Philosophy Department for the hours they spent mentoring and inspiring me. In particular, I thank Amy Bray for everything she does (often without recognition) so that work such as this sees the light of day. In addition, I thank Gabriele Uzquiano, David Braun, Richard Feldman, John Bennett, Ralf Merebote, and Earl Conee who have each played a vital role in my intellectual development. I also thank my former student colleagues Jacqueline Augustine, Stefan Forrester, Pat Kenny, Gregory Jansen, Todd Long, and Eva Cadavid. Their support and friendship helped to sustain me through this process. In particular, I am grateful to Eva Cadavid for simply being the wonderful friend and person she is. I also thank the staff and librarians at Rush-Rhees library. I am especially grateful to Eileen Daly for her vital research assistance. I extend thanks to my colleagues and peers at Hobart & William Smith Colleges: Scott Brophy, Steven Lee, Karen Frost-Arnold, Eric Barnes, Greg Frost- v   Arnold, Carol Oberbrunner, and Eugen Baer. In particular, I thank Scott Brophy for endless support and advocacy. I am also grateful to President Mark Gearan, Interim Provost Pat McGuire, and former Provost Teresa Amott. In addition, I thank Pat Cool, Kelly Switzer, Tina (Phillip) Smaldone, Judy Mahoney-Benzer, and J.J. Smaldone for keeping me grounded. I express my appreciation and gratitude to the Consortium for Faculty Diversity. My thanks go to Paul Livermore and David Basinger at Roberts Wesleyan College for restoring my love of learning and providing me the skills necessary for graduate studies. I am grateful to my family for their prayers, support, and encouragement. I especially want to thank my parents Roy and Lucille King for instilling in me the strength to pursue my dreams. Also, I am grateful to my sons Joshua, Josiah, Jeremiah, and Jared for their patience throughout this process. In addition, I thank my siblings Rashid Muhammad, Lisa Harris, and Philip King for their love and support. I also want to thank my extended family for their prayers and encouragement throughout this process. Lastly and most importantly, I want to thank Sarah Berry without whose love and support I would never have been able to complete this thesis. I cannot imagine a more caring and supportive life partner. Each and everyday I am thankful that we found each other. vi   Abstract This dissertation is a careful examination of the first six chapters of Peri Hermeneias. This text contains what many consider to be Aristotle’s most explicit claims concerning language and meaning. In the first half of the last century, Aristotle’s claims in Peri Hermeneias came under withering criticism. Recently, Aristotelian scholarship has entered an exciting period as it has been argued that his linguistic claims in Peri Hermeneias are deep, sophisticated, and defensible. This recent work has successfully debunked various misinterpretations of Aristotle’s claims in Peri Hermeneias. With significant amounts of the turbid air surrounding Peri Hermeneias cleared, the path is open for renewed investigations into and interpretations of Aristotle’s claims. My intervention on one hand is to critically evaluate the interpretations of Aristotle’s claims in Peri Hermeneias 1-6. Simultaneously, on the other hand, my intervention is to present a new interpretation of Aristotle’s concept of signification and explore its implications. The first chapter of this thesis is a focused discussion of Plato’s analysis of conventionalism and naturalism in Cratylus and the way in which this analysis sets the stage for Aristotle’s discussion of language in Peri Hermeneias. The second chapter critically examines the issues with which the early Greek commentators were concerned. Specifically, I examine their interpretations of affections of the soul (παθήµατα), ‘sign,’ ‘symbol,’ ‘likeness,’ and the connection between Aristotle’s claims in Peri Hermeneias and his other works. In the third chapter, I argue for vii   specific interpretations of the sign, symbol, and likeness relations based upon a balanced view of the philological and philosophical evidence. Also, I argue for φαντάσµατα as the affections of the soul (παθήµατα) referenced by Aristotle in Peri Hermeneias 1, and I connect this interpretation to Aristotle’s work in the Categories and his account of perception. In the fourth chapter, I argue for an interpretation of Aristotle’s concept of signification that centers on the representational power of φαντάσµατα and I apply this interpretation to the linguistic phenomena Aristotle discusses in Peri Hermeneias 1-6. Lastly, in the fifth chapter, I summarize my interventions and suggest possible applications of my interpretive work. viii   Table of Contents Chapter 1 Platonic Background 1 1.1 Outline and Summary of the Cratylus 5 1.2 The Correctness of Names and the Truth-Value of Statements 7 1.3 The Correctness of Names and Conventionalism 15 1.4 Language and Ontology 23 1.4.1 The Tool Analogy 23 1.4.2 The Memetic/Onomatopoetic Theory 30 1.5 Summary and Findings 40 Chapter 2 The Early Greek Commentary Tradition and Peri Hermeneias 1-6 42 2.1 Peri Hermeneias 1-6 44 2.2 The Early Greek Commentary Tradition 45 2.2.1 The Schema of Chapter One of Peri Hermeneias 47 2.2.2 Φωναί (Spoken Sounds): Names (ὄνοµατα) and Verbs (ῤῆµατα) 2.2.3 Sentences and Affirmations 69 2.3 Findings and conclusions 73 Chapter 3 Modern Commentators and Peri Hermeneias 1-6 76 3.1 Sign and Symbol 80 3.2 Likeness (ὀµοίωµατα) and Affections in the Soul (παθήµατα) 85 ix   3.3 Real Things 113 Chapter 4 Signification and Semantic Import 121 4.1 The relations in Peri Hermeneias 1 123 4.2 Likeness and Signification 129 4.2.1 Likeness 129 4.2.2 Signification 134 4.3 Signification and Peri Hermeneias 1-6 142 4.3.1 Ὄνοµατα (Names) 142 4.3.2 Ρῆµατα (Verbs) 146 4.3.3 Indefinite Names and Verbs 148 4.3.4 Λόγοs (Sentence) 150 Chapter 5 Conclusions and Implications 154 Bibliography 163 x   List of Tables Table Title Table 1 Tool Analogy 27 Table 2 Schema for Aristotle’s Categories 117 Table 3 Relations in Peri Hermeneias 16a3-8 124