Encyclopedia of Medieval Philosophy

Living Edition
| Editors: Henrik Lagerlund

Adam Wodeham

Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-1151-5_11-2

Abstract

Adam Wodeham (d. 1358) is an Oxford Franciscan protégé of Ockham and influential adherent of Ockham’s philosophical approach in the years of Oxford’s “Golden Age” of theology. Wodeham’s most important philosophical innovation was the “complex significable,” akin to the contemporary idea of States of Affairs. He developed this in his epistemological project of ascertaining what we understand when we claim knowledge of things in the world. Ockham had held that the objects of scientific knowledge are mental propositions in which the concept naturally signifies the perceived objects, which led to questions about whether we make judgments about mental propositions or things. Wodeham’s innovation was to argue that we formulate judgments about things in the world when things conform to the way the mind formulates propositions about them. While this does not introduce a new layer of ontological complexity to the extramental world, it does focus attention on the natural method by which we propositionalize what we perceive. Wodeham’s doctrine of complex significables was to be influential in later scholastic epistemological discourse, and it contributed importantly to the logico-semantic approach of Oxford theology. Wodeham was also an important opponent of spatiotemporal atomism, a view that arose within the philosophical speculation about how to mathematize our understanding of the physical world that characterizes the thought of the Mertonian “Calculators.”

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access

Bibliography

Primary Sources

  1. Mair, J. (1512). Super Quattuor libros sententiarum: Abbrevatio Henrici Totting de Oyta, Abbreviated Oxford lectures. In J. Mair (Ed.). Paris.Google Scholar
  2. Mair, J. (1966). Quaestio de divisione et compositione continui. In J. Murdoch (Ed.), Two questions on the continuum. Francisc Stud 26:212–288.Google Scholar
  3. Mair, J. (1988). In R. Wood (Ed.), Tratatus de indivisibilibus. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  4. Rega, W., & Gideon, G. (Eds.). (1990). Lectura secunda, 3 vols (Norwich lectures). St. Bonaventure: Franciscan Institute.Google Scholar

Secondary Sources

  1. Brower-Toland, S. (2006). Facts vs. things: Adam Wodeham and the later medieval debate about objects of knowledge. The Review of Metaphysics, 60, 597–642.Google Scholar
  2. Courtenay, W. (1978). Adam Wodeham. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
  3. Gál, G. (1977). Adam of Wodeham’s question on the ‘complexe significabile’ as the immediate object of scientific knowledge. Franciscan Studies, 73, 66–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Gelber, H. (1974). Logic and the trinity: A clash of values in scholastic thought, 1300–1335. PhD dissertation. University of Wisconsin.Google Scholar
  5. Grassi, O. (1986). Intuizione e significato: Adam Wodeham ed il problema della conoscenza nel XIV secolo. Milan: Editoriale Jaco.Google Scholar
  6. Karger, E. (1995). William of Ockham, Walter Chatton, and Adam Wodeham on the objects of knowledge and belief. Vivarium, 33(2), 171–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Karger, E. (2004). Ockham and Wodeham on divine deception as a skeptical hypothesis. Vivarium, 42(2), 225–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Keele, R. (2003). The so-called ‘Res’ theory of Walter Chatton. Franciscan Studies, 61, 37–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kretzman, N. (1984). Adam Wodeham’s anti-Aristotelian anti-atomism. History of Philosophy Quarterly, 4, 381–398.Google Scholar
  10. Lenz, M. (2001). Adam de Wodeham und die Entdeckung des Sachverhalts. In B. Mojsisch (Ed.), Umbrüche: Historische Wendepunkt der Philosophie von der Antike bis zur Neuzeit (pp. 99–116). Grüner: John Benjamins Publishers.Google Scholar
  11. Nuchelmans, G. (1980). Adam Wodeham on the meaning of declarative sentences. Historiography Linguistics, 7(1/2), 177–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Perler, D. (2005). Emotions and cognitions: Fourteenth century discussions of the passions of the soul. Vivarium, 43(2), 250–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Reina, M. E. (1986). Cognizione intuitiva ed esperienza interiore in Adamo Wodeham. Rivista di Storia della Filosofia, 41, 19–49. 211–244.Google Scholar
  14. Schabel, C. (2002). Oxford Franciscans after Ockham: Walter Chatton and Adam Wodeham. In G. R. Evans (Ed.), Medieval commentaries on the ‘sentences’ of Peter Lombard, Current research (Vol. I, pp. 359–377). Brill: Leiden.Google Scholar
  15. Spade, P. V. (1988). Anselm and the background to Adam Wodeham’s theory of abstract and concrete terms. Rivista di Storia della Filosofia, 2, 261–271.Google Scholar
  16. Sylla, E. D. (1998). God, indivisibles, and logic in the later Middle Ages: Adam Wodeham’s response to Henry Harclay. Medieval Philosophy and Theology, 7, 69–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Tachau, K. (1988). Vision and certitude in the age of Ockham. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
  18. White, G. (1993). William Ockham and Adam Wodeham. Heythrop Journal, 34(3), 296–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Wood, R. (1982). Adam Wodeham on sensory illusions. Traditional, 38, 214–252.Google Scholar
  20. Wood, R. (1989). Epistemology and omnipotence. In S. Chodorow & J. Sweeney (Eds.), Popes, teachers and canon law in the Middle Ages (pp. 160–178). Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Wood, R. (1991). The Wodeham edition: Adam Wodeham’s ‘Lectura Secunda’. Franciscan Studies, 51, 103–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Wood, R. (2003). Adam of Wodeham. In J. J. E. Gracia & T. B. Noone (Eds.), A companion to philosophy in the Middle Ages, Blackwell companions to philosophy (Vol. 24, pp. 77–85). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  23. Zupko, J. (1994a). Nominalism meets indivisiblism. Medieval Philosophy and Theology, 3, 158–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Zupko, J. (1994–1997). How it played in the rue de Fouarre: The reception of Adam Wodeham’s theory of the complex significable in the arts faculty at Paris in the mid-fourteenth century. Franciscan Studies, 54, 211–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Medieval Philosophy and TheologyBoston CollegeChestnut HillUSA
  2. 2.Department of Classics and Religious StudiesUniversity of NebraskaLincolnUSA