DOCSLIB.ORG

Ascoli, Wylton, and Alnwick on Scotus's Formal

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ascoli, Wylton, and Alnwick on Scotus's Formal ASCOLI, WYLTON, AND ALNWICK ON SCOTUS’S FORMAL DISTINCTION: TAXONOMY, REFINEMENT, AND INTERACTION Timothy B. Noone (Washington, DC) Historians of philosophy as well as philosophers of a realist inclination have devoted considerable study to Scotus’s formal distinction. Th e former have explored the origins of the formal distinction, locating its source in the writings of such thirteenth-century fi gures as St. Bonaven- ture, Richard Rufus, and Peter John Olivi.1 Th e latter have emphasized the importance of the formal distinction for establishing an ontological foundation for moderate realism in epistemology. Fr. Allan Wolter, O.F.M., for example, has argued that the formal distinction, rightly understood, has its analogue in the philosophy of Aquinas in the form of a distinction of reason with a basis in the thing. Furthermore, he claims that the ontology of the formal distinction allows a moderate realist to account for the partial nature of our knowledge inasmuch as each of the formally distinct features of a thing may be conceived without another being adequately understood.2 Yet among both historians of philosophy and philosophers there has been considerable disagreement about whether the formal distinction should be understood as a subtype of the real distinction, as a unique subtype of the distinction of reason 1 F. Pelster, “Die älteste Abkürzung und Kritik vom Sentenzenkommentar des heiligen Bonaventura. Ein Werk des Richardus Rufus de Cornubia (1253–1255)”, Gre- gorianum 17 (1936), pp. 218–220, and G. Gál, “Viae ad exsistentiam Dei probandam in doctrina Richardi Rufi , OFM”, Franziskanische Studien 38 (1956), pp. 182–186, showed the signifi cance of the background in Rufus, while the masterful study of B. Jansen, “Beiträge zur geschichtlichen Entwicklung der Distinctio formalis”, Zeitschrift für katholische Th eologie 53 (1929), pp. 317–344 and 517–544, traced the history of the distinction through Continental fi gures such as Bonaventure, Peter John Olivi, Petrus de Trabibus, and Matthew of Aquasparta. 2 A.B. Wolter, “Th e Formal Distinction”, and “Th e Realism of Scotus”, in Th e Philosophical Th eology of John Duns Scotus, ed. A.B. Wolter – M.M. Adams, Ithaca, NY – London 1990, pp. 27–53. “Th e Formal Distinction” originally appeared in John Duns Scotus, 1265–1965, ed. J.K. Ryan – B.M. Bonansea, Washington, DC 1965 (Studies in Philosophy and the History of Philosophy, 3), pp. 45–60; “Th e Realism of Scotus” originally appeared in Th e Journal of Philosophy 59 (1962), pp. 725–736. Cf. M.J. Gra- jewski, Th e Formal Distinction of Duns Scotus. A Study in Metaphysics, Washington, DC 1944, p. 101. 128 timothy b. noone or as introducing a third type of distinction, intermediate between a real distinction and a distinction of reason. Such a disagreement fi nds resonances in the understanding and characterization of the formal distinction from the fourteenth cen- tury onwards. In his baccalaureate thesis published in 1663, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, drawing upon a medieval tradition of which he was probably unaware, described John Duns Scotus’s formal distinction as one “intermediate between a real distinction and one of reason”.3 Likewise, in his notes to his personal copy of Daniel Stahl’s Compen- dium Metaphysicae in the section on the ‘Explanation of the Types and Modes of Distinction’, Leibniz writes that “the Scotists posit a kind of distinction that is intermediate between a real distinction and a distinc- tion of reason, calling it a formal distinction ex natura rei . .”.4 What I would like to explore here is part of the medieval discussion behind Leibniz’s identifi cation, or, as we shall see, possible misidentifi cation of the formal distinction as an intermediate distinction by focusing upon two of the more prominent fi gures in the early history of Scotism, James of Ascoli and William Alnwick, and a non-Scotist supporter of the formal distinction, Th omas Wylton.5 3 “Tribuitur [distinctio formalis] communiter Scoto ut media inter realem et ratio- nis . .” (G.W. Leibniz, Disputatio metaphysica de principio individui, § 24 in Sämtliche Schrift en und Briefe, hg. von der Deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaft en zu Berlin, VI. Reihe, Bd. 1, Berlin 1971, p. 18). 4 “A Scotistis statuitur genus distinctionis medium inter realem et rationis distinctio- nem, vocaturque formalis ex natura rei . .” (G.W. Leibniz, Notae ad Danielem Stahlium, W. Tab. XXI, in Sämtliche Schrift en und Briefe, VI. Reihe, Bd. 1, p. 30). 5 James of Ascoli was known to have been present among the masters of theology who approved the proceedings against Marguerite de la Porée in May, 1310; hence his Quodlibeta are placed either in that year or the preceding year (1309–1310). In addition to his Quodlibeta, he is known to have authored some ordinary questions, a Commentary on the Sentences, and a Tabula of Scotus’s writings. Th omas Wylton, also known as Th omas Anglicus, was a member of Merton College, Oxford from 1288–1301 where he was probably associated with Walter Burley and may also have studied under Th omas Sutton prior to the latter’s entry into the Dominican order. Receiving permis- sion from his bishop, Wylton went to Paris to study theology in 1304; he obtained his mastership in theology in 1312. Th ough he probably remained in Paris until 1316, he returned to St. Paul’s shortly thereaft er. He did return to Paris once more in the period 1320–1322 before returning to England; he died in 1327. William of Alnwick is known to have been living in the house at Paris (probably for his lectorate) during the academic year 1302–1303, for in June of 1303 he sided with the King of France and against the Pope during the crisis at the University of Paris in 1303. He taught at both Paris and Oxford in the period 1314–1318 and thereaft er taught at Bologna (ca. 1322) and Naples. He died at Avignon in 1333..
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Duns Scotus on the Common Nature and the Individual Differentia
    c Peter King, Philosophical Topics 20 (1992), 50–76 DUNS SCOTUS ON THE COMMON NATURE* Introduction COTUS holds that in each individual there is a principle that accounts for its being the very thing it is and a formally S distinct principle that accounts for its being the kind of thing it is; the former is its individual differentia, the latter its common nature.1 These two principles are not on a par: the common nature is prior to the individual differentia, both independent of it and indifferent to it. When the individual differentia is combined with the common nature, the result is a concrete individual that really differs from all else and really agrees with others of the same kind. The individual differentia and the common nature thereby explain what Scotus takes to stand in need of explanation: the indi- viduality of Socrates on the one hand, the commonalities between Socrates * An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 26th International Congress on Medieval Studies, sponsored by the Medieval Institute, held at Western Michigan University 9–12 May 1991. All translations are my own. Scotus’s writings may be found in the following editions: (1) Vaticana: Iohannis Duns Scoti Doctoris Subtilis et Mariani opera omnia, ed. P. Carolus Bali¸cet alii, Typis Polyglottis Vaticanae 1950– Vols. I–VII, XVI–XVIII. (2) Wadding-Viv`es: Joannis Duns Scoti Doctoris Subtilis Ordinis Minorum opera omnia, ed. Luke Wadding, Lyon 1639; republished, with only slight alterations, by L. Viv`es,Paris 1891–1895. Vols. I–XXVI. References are to the Vatican edition wherever possible, to the Wadding-Viv`esedition otherwise.
    [Show full text]
  • Where Was Duns Scotus Born?
    WHERE WAS DUNS SCOTUS BORN? FRANCISCANS OF THE I MMACULATE, IN ASSOCIATION WITH A DAY WITH MARY From an article by Charles Balic, OFM, written in 1966 to commemorate Ave Maria! the seventh centenary of the birth of blessed John Duns Scotus A disputed question... Under the above head- leading to a kind of birthplace of the Subtle ing, The Berwickshire mathematical certainty. Doctor, John Duns Sco- News of Tuesday 12 Often we must be con- tus. April, 1966, printed a tent with arguments letter to the editor in which afford moral cer- which it was stated that titude or give such a we are still uncertain degree of probability as about the exact birth‑- to exclude any other place of the great Brit- hypothesis. Now it ish philosopher and seems to me quite cer- theologian, John Duns tain that the documents Blessed John Duns Scotus, hold- ing a scroll with a paraphrase Scotus... and the historical argu- of his doctrine about how the It is not necessary to ments which we pos- Immaculate Conception ties in with the absolute primacy of point out that in the sess lead us with cer- Christ: “Christ preserved the field of history one can- tainty to the conclusion Blessed Virgin from every stain of sin; otherwise He would not not always expect to that the town of Duns have been Perfect Redeemer.” have obvious evidence in Scotland was the “There is as much discussion about his birthplace as about Homer's” Questions about Scotus… An Irishman, or an Englishman perhaps? WHERE WAS BLESSED JOHN DUNS SCOTUS Two monographs on tioned the attempts to tus, qui les repousse et BORN? Duns Scotus appeared make our Doctor either les met hors de com- COULD “SCOTUS” APPLY at the end of the second an Irishman or an En- bat”; and the other wri- EQUALLY TO PRESENT- decade of this century, glishman.
    [Show full text]
  • The Univocity of Substance and the Formal Distinction of Attributes: the Role of Duns Scotus in Deleuze's Reading of Spinoza Nathan Widder
    parrhesia 33 · 2020 · 150-176 the univocity of substance and the formal distinction of attributes: the role of duns scotus in deleuze's reading of spinoza nathan widder This paper examines the role played by medieval theologian John Duns Scotus in Gilles Deleuze’s reading of Spinoza’s philosophy of expressive substance; more generally, it elaborates a crucial moment in the development of Deleuze’s philosophy of sense and difference. Deleuze contends that Spinoza adapts and extends Duns Scotus’s two most influential theses, the univocity of being and formal distinction, despite neither appearing explicitly in Spinoza’s writings. “It takes nothing away from Spinoza’s originality,” Deleuze declares, “to place him in a perspective that may already be found in Duns Scotus” (Deleuze, 1992, 49).1 Nevertheless, the historiographic evidence is clearly lacking, leaving Deleuze to admit that “it is hardly likely that” Spinoza had even read Duns Scotus (359n28). Indeed, the only support he musters for his speculation is Spinoza’s obvious in- terests in scholastic metaphysical and logical treatises, the “probable influence” of the Scotist-informed Franciscan priest Juan de Prado on his thought, and the fact that the problems Duns Scotus addresses need not be confined to Christian thought (359–360n28). The paucity of evidence supporting this “use and abuse” of history, however, does not necessarily defeat the thesis. Like other lineages Deleuze proposes, the one he traces from Duns Scotus to Spinoza, and subsequently to Nietzsche, turns not on establishing intentional references by one thinker to his predecessor, but instead on showing how the borrowings and adaptations asserted to create the connec- tion make sense of the way the second philosopher surmounts blockages he faces while responding to issues left unaddressed by the first.
    [Show full text]
  • Abstract of Monia Mancinelli's Work (RAMUS
    Abstract of Monia Mancinelli’s work (RAMUS PhD - curriculum FITMU, XXIX cicle – XV o. s.) Title: “The Principle of Individuation in Landulph Caracciolus’s commentary on the Sentences. Text and study”. This research is aimed at reconstructing and studying the sections of Landulph Caracciolus’s commentary on the Sentences dedicated to the principle of individuation. Landulph Caracciolus is a Franciscan friar coming from Naples who lived in the XIVth century and who lectured the Sentences at Paris in the academic year 1318-1319. Recently, Christopher D. Schabel has underlined that, despite its widespread popularity and the important context of its composition, however, Landulph’s commentary on the Sentences has largely been neglected. From 1999 Christopher D. Schabel and Russell L. Friedman have been promoting a larger attention to Landulph’s commentary, showing that the Franciscan friar can be an interesting mean to trace the story of the reception of Duns Scotus and Peter Auriol’s doctrines at the University of Paris during the first twenty years of the XIVth century. The question of the principle of the individuation is about the research of the existence and the identification of the element responsible for both ontological determination and knowledge of the single entity. The first chapter of this work shows that the question explodes during the XIIIth century thanks to the Aristotelian corpus and to Avicenna’s and Averroes’s works, and many thinkers try to offer a personal solution to the problem, offering six main competing theories: 1) real natures are individual as such (William of Ware); 2) double negation (Henry of Ghent); 3) actual existence (maybe Roger Bacon, Peter of Falco, Peter of Alverny or Robert Kilwardby); 4) the collection of personal accidents/properties (ascribed to Boethius), and particularly quantity (Godfrey of Fontaines and Thomas Sutton); 5) matter (Albert the Great, Thomas of Aquin and Giles of Rome); 6) respectus ad agens (unknown).
    [Show full text]
  • Blander Diss Commented Normore Blander Replies V3
    UCLA UCLA Electronic Theses and Dissertations Title Dependence, Separability, and Theories of Identity and Distinction in Late Medieval Philosophy: Case Studies from Scotus and Ockham Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6wh8q15d Author Blander, Joshua Publication Date 2014 Peer reviewed|Thesis/dissertation eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Los Angeles Dependence, Separability, and Theories of Identity and Distinction in Late Medieval Philosophy: Case Studies from Scotus and Ockham A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Philosophy by Joshua Blander 2014 © Copyright by Joshua Blander 2014 ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION Dependence, Separability, and Theories of Identity and Distinction in Late Medieval Philosophy: Case Studies from Scotus and Ockham by Joshua Blander Doctor of Philosophy in Philosophy University of California, Los Angeles, 2014 Professor Calvin Normore, Chair Theories of distinctions surface some of the most fundamental elements of metaphysical and logical inquiry. For many medieval philosophers, theories of distinctions provided some semblance of rational order and unity to metaphysical, logical and theological questions. The two philosophers on which I focus, John Duns Scotus and William Ockham, discuss distinctions and metaphysical adjuncts in a variety of philosophical and theological contexts. When discussing Scotus, I emphasize his development of a robust theory of identity and distinction. I give special attention to his accounts of what he calls qualified non-identity or qualified distinction, which he surprisingly says is compatible with real identity. When I turn my attention to Ockham, I focus on his use of the real distinction in the context of the common fourteenth century disputes about universals.
    [Show full text]
  • Page 958 H-France Review Vol. 10 (December 2010), No. 224 Stephen
    H-France Review Volume 10 (2010) Page 958 H-France Review Vol. 10 (December 2010), No. 224 Stephen F. Brown, Thomas Dewender and Theo Kobusch, eds., Philosophical Debates at Paris in the Early Fourteenth Century, Studien und Texte zur Geistesgeschichte des Mittelalters 102. Leiden and Boston: E. J. Brill, 2009. xviii + 519. Table, indices of manuscripts, names, and subjects. $231.00 U.S., 162 € (hb.). ISBN 978 90 04 17566 2. Review by William J. Courtenay, University of Wisconsin-Madison. The early fourteenth century has become a particularly active area of research in medieval philosophy and theology in the last two decades. Interest in Oxford thought led the way. Building upon the earlier publication of the works of Richard Campsale, William of Ockham, and the Lectura Secunda of Adam Wodeham, we now have editions of the works of Walter Chatton and Henry of Harclay, and questions from Thomas Wylton, Walter Burley, Richard Fitzralph, and Thomas Bradwardine. As regards Paris, the ongoing critical edition of the opera omnia of John Duns Scotus and a portion of Peter Auriol’s commentary on the Sentences is now been followed by projects for critical editions of the rest of Auriol’s commentary and the Sentences commentaries of Durand of St. Pourçain, Francis of Marchia, and Gerard Odonis. Philosophical Debates brings together many of those who are leading the research field on Parisian thought in the early fourteenth century. The essays themselves are the result of a joint project between Stephen Brown at Boston College and Thomas Dewender at Bonn, who hosted two conferences on this theme at their respective institutions.
    [Show full text]
  • The Medieval Social Epistemologies of Augustine and Aquinas
    Knowing and Trusting: The Medieval Social Epistemologies of Augustine and Aquinas by Matthew Kent Siebert A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Philosophy University of Toronto 2014 © Copyright by Matthew Kent Siebert, 2014 Knowing and Trusting The Medieval Social Epistemologies of Augustine and Aquinas Matthew Kent Siebert Doctor of Philosophy Department of Philosophy University of Toronto 2014 Abstract This dissertation is an introductory exploration of two influential medieval thinkers, Augustine and Aquinas, on the topic of testimony. I explain how Augustine’s view that testimony is a source of knowledge (notitia) developed through four stages, and argue that on Augustine’s view testimonial belief is justified inferentially. I argue that Aquinas thinks some testimonial belief is justified inferentially, and some is justified by adhering to the speaker as the formal object of one’s belief, on the grounds that the speaker is truthful. I argue that these provide knowledge when they provide cognitio. And I argue that Aquinas’s view can be developed into a plausible account of testimonial trust and trustworthiness. ii Acknowledgments I am extremely grateful for the guidance and support of Peter King, Martin Pickavé, and Jennifer Nagel in the writing of this dissertation. I am also grateful to Deborah Black, Michael Siebert, Simona Vucu, and Ian Drummond, for their very helpful comments on earlier drafts of some of these chapters. And I am grateful to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, the Government of Ontario, and the University of Toronto for financial support.
    [Show full text]
  • As with the “Bibliography of Primary Sources,” in the Index All Names of Authors Who Worked Before Roughly 1500 Are Alphabetized According to Their Given Names
    Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-11714-2 - Medieval Trinitarian Thought from Aquinas to Ockham Russell L. Friedman Index More information Index As with the “Bibliography of primary sources,” in the index all names of authors who worked before roughly 1500 are alphabetized according to their given names. Names of medieval authors are anglicized (e.g., William Ockham, Henry of Ghent) except where it has become standard usage in English to use their foreign-language names (e.g., Hervaeus Natalis). Subentries for “secondary literature” refer to the “Annotated bibliography of selected secondary literature.” ase, Father as, in John Duns Scotus 109–10 appropriation of trinitarian names act of understanding, see intellectual act in Durand of St. Pourc¸ain 72–73 action and passion, Aristotelian categories explained 71–72 of 15–16 See also Word, divine, as Son’s proper active spiration, see spiration, active name acts, personal, see operation Aristotle (the Philosopher) Adam Wodeham and the categories 7–8 biography 146 and hylomorphism 140n.4 secondary literature 180, 185 operations come from distinct vs. Walter Chatton on personal individuals 22 properties and personal on relation 8 constitution 153–55, 166 on relation, and action and passion Adams, Marilyn McCord 184 15–16, 18, 25 agent intellect 77, 78 (Diagram F) relatives are at once by nature 23n.19 in Henry of Ghent 83–84 theory of cognition 77–79 in Thomas Aquinas 79–80 Arius (Arian heresy) 7, 153–55 Alexander of Hales 181 attributes, divine, see distinction between Alphonsus Vargas of Toledo 166 divine attributes, and strong use of Angelini, Giuseppe 185 the psychological model; intellect, Anselm of Canterbury 2 divine; will, divine and emanation account 18, 56 Augustine of Hippo 2 anti-trinitarianism 186 appealed to by Gregory of Rimini 161 187 © in this web service Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-11714-2 - Medieval Trinitarian Thought from Aquinas to Ockham Russell L.
    [Show full text]
  • Theories of Cognition in the Later Middle Ages
    Theories of cognition in the later Middle Ages ROBERT PASNAU St. Joseph's University q;.::.~ CAMBRIDGE - ::: UNIVERSITY PRESS PUBLISHED BY THE PRESS SYNDICATE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE The Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge CB2 1RP, United Kingdom CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 2RU, United Kingdom 40 West 20th Street, New York, NY 10011-4211, USA 10 Samford Road, Oakleigh, Melbourne 3166, Australia © Robert Pasnau 1997 This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 1997 Typeset in Palatino Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Pasnau, Robert. Theories of cognition in the later Middle Ages / Robert Pasnau. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-521-58368-3 1. Knowledge, Theory of - History. 2. Cognition - History. 3. Philosophy, Medieval. 4. Thomas, Aquinas, Saint, 1225?-1274. 5. Olivi, Pierre Jean, 1248 or 9-1298. 6. William, of Ockham, ca. 1285-ca. 1349. 1. Title. B161.P37 1997 128'.2'0902 - dC20 96-36249 C1P A catalog record for this book is available from the British Library Transferred to digital printing 2003 Contents Preface page vii List of abbreviations x Introduction 1 1 The philosophical-historical context 4 2 Thomas Aquinas and the theory of species 11 3 Challenges to the theory 18 PART r: FUNDAMENTALS 1 Immateriality and intentionality 31 1 Cognition
    [Show full text]
  • General Introduction
    MP_A02.qxd 11/17/06 5:26 PM Page 1 General Introduction Medieval Philosophy in Perspective In the modern mind, the adjective “medieval” has often been associated with ideas of darkness, dogmatism, oppression, and barbarity. This should not be surprising, if we con- sider how modernity came to define itself, precisely in opposition to the medieval tradition, as the Renaissance, the re-birth of ancient learning, the Reformation of a corrupt church, the Enlightenment after an age of darkness, an Age of Reason after an age of ignorance and blind faith. Even today, this mentality has its visible effects. To the intellectual reflexes of “the modern mind” referred to above, the very phrase “medieval philosophy” until fairly recently sounded almost like an oxymoron, indeed, so much so that in modern curricula of the his- tory of philosophy the medieval period was barely mentioned, and even nowadays it is skipped by some philosophy departments, boldly leaping from ancient philosophy directly to the study of Descartes (ignoring about two thousand years of Western intellectual history). To be sure, this situation is happily changing. In the larger scheme of things this is prob- ably due to the fact that we live in a postmodern period, in which the grand, defining ideas of modernity itself have become at least questionable, if not discredited, as a result of mod- ern historical experience (think world wars, industrialized genocides, global exploitation of people and nature, the manipulative uses of “values,” ideologies and religions, etc.). This postmodern perspective, by revealing the various limitations of the “grand ideas” of mod- ernity, naturally prompts historical and philosophical reflection on their validity in history, and thus on their emergence from developments in the medieval period.
    [Show full text]
  • CURRICULUM VITAE Stephen D
    CURRICULUM VITAE Stephen D. Dumont May 17, 2019 E DUCATION B.A. Philosophy and English, Wabash College (May, 1974; Phi Beta Kappa) M.A. Centre for Medieval Studies, University of Toronto (December, 1976) M.S.L. (Licentiate in Mediaeval Studies) Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, University of Toronto (October, 1979) Ph.D. Centre for Medieval Studies, University of Toronto (Conferred February, 1983) Thesis: Henry of Ghent and John Duns Scotus on the Existence of God. Supervisor: Armand A. Maurer A REA OF RESEARCH Medieval philosophy and theology A CADEMIC A PPOINTMENTS 2007-2010: Chairperson, Department of Philosophy, University of Notre Dame 2006- Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of Notre Dame 2001-2006: Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of Notre Dame 1995-2001: Joint Appointment, Associate Professor, Centre for Medieval Studies and Department of Philosophy, University of Toronto 1988-1995: Senior Fellow, Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies and Associate Professor, Centre for Medieval Studies, University of Toronto 1985-1988: Junior Fellow, Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies and Assistant Professor, Centre for Medieval Studies, University of Toronto 1982-1985: Assistant Professor, School of Philosophy, Catholic University of America 1981-1982: Instructor, School of Philosophy, Catholic University of America S CHOLARSHIPS AND F ELLOWSHIPS 1980-1981: Ontario Graduate Scholarship, University of Toronto 1978-1980: College Fellowship, Trinity College, University of Toronto 1977-1980: Open Fellowships, University of Toronto G RANTS • Grant from Office of the Vice-President for Research ($70,000) to continue work on Critical Edition of John Duns Scotus, Reportationes Parisienses. Co-PI with Kent Emery. • Summer Research Institute at Harris Manchester College, Oxford University, June, 2013.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 UNIT 4 DUN SCOTUS and WILLIAM of OCKHAM Contents
    UNIT 4 DUN SCOTUS AND WILLIAM OF OCKHAM Contents 4.0. Objectives 4.1. Introduction 4.2. John Duns Scotus 4.3. William of Ockham 4.4. Let Us Sum Up 4.5. Key Words 4.6. Further Readings and References 4.7. Answers to Check Your Progress 4.0. OBJECTIVES In this Unit, placing ourselves in the post-Thomistic period, we focus our attention on two Franciscans: John Duns Scotus and William of Ockham, in their commonness and disagreement with the Dominican Thomas Aquinas. By the end of this Unit you should be able to: • Clarify the positions held by Aquinas and Scotus; • Explain the univocity of being; • Distinguish formal distinction and individuation; • Clarify psychology and ethics of Scotus; and • Explain Universals according to Ockham, and his principle of simplicity 4.1. INTRODUCTION The thirteenth century was the golden age of scholastic speculation. With the beginning of the fourteenth century the signs of a speculative decline or disintegration became obvious. What hastened this decline is the overemphasis on language and logic, together with an increasing scepticism about the power of reason, so confidently proposed by Aquinas. The long-standing marriage of philosophy and religion began to come apart during this time. In the late scholastic period or in the post-Thomistic period two Franciscans beckon our attention: John Duns Scotus and William of Ockham. What is common to both is their disagreement with the Dominican Thomas Aquinas. 4.2. JOHN DUNS SCOTUS 1 LIFE AND WORKS Little is known of the early life of Duns Scotus. He was ordained a priest on March 17, 1291 and on that basis it is inferred that he was born early in 1266.
    [Show full text]