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. But, on a smaller scale, recent developments in philosophy as a profession also promoted the growing interest in medieval philosophy. Perhaps the most important of these recent changes is the transformation of mainstream analytic philosophy. Being the descendant of early twentieth-century logical positivism, analytic philosophy used to be strongly anti-metaphysical, secularist, and ahistorical (indeed, sometimes anti-historical: it was not uncommon among analytic philosophers to sneer at the work of their historian colleagues as consisting of book reports, as opposed to serious philosophy). By the 1980s (if not earlier), however, analytic metaphysics emerged as a legitimate philosophical discipline, followed by analytic philosophy of religion and a new interest in analytic historical studies, MP_A02.qxd 11/17/065:26PMPage2

GENERAL INTRODUCTION 2 principled methodology, mentality,andterminologythatcanprovide somecriteriaforamoreorless even thisremarksuggests,therearesomeunifyingcharacteristics, preciselyindoctrine, terminology, shouldstillberegardedasbelongingtothe medievaltradition.Yet,as and anumberofothers,who,bycriteriadoctrine,methodology, mentality,andeven da Fonseca(1528–99),FranciscoSuarez(1548–1617),orJohn ofSt.Thomas(1589–1644), were near-contemporariesofsucharguably“medieval”philosophers andtheologiansasPedro as FrancisBacon(1521–1626),ThomasHobbes(1588–1679), orRenéDescartes(1596–1650) this heritageareevenlessclearlydefined.Forsuchdefinitely “non-medieval”philosophers of histime,theManicheans,Donatists,andPelagians.At otherend,theborderlinesof fame forhiswisdomaswellsometimesbittertheological debateswiththeheretics conversion toChristianity,uponreturningAfricabecamethebishopofHippo,earning first inCarthage,andlaterRome,who,afterastintattheimperialcourtMilanhis citizen, bornandraisedinNorthAfrica,trainedasanoratortobecomeaprofessorofrhetoric neither medieval,noraphilosopher;indeed,hewasnotevenEuropean.HeRoman oneshouldimmediatelyobservethatAugustinewas sophy wasSt.Augustine(354–430), justification thatthefirstmedievalphilosopherofnoteinhistoryEuropeanphilo- what arbitrarybothintimeandspace.Forexample,althoughitcanbeclaimedwithgood intellectual heritage. to thetimeofDescartes,itencompasseslargestandmostvariedpartWestern about theperiodofreligiouswarsEurope,orapproximatelyfromtimeSt.Augustine homogenous unit.StretchingfromaboutthelastcenturyofWesternRomanEmpireto (and, therefore,inevitablyvague)comparisons,medievalphilosophycannotbetreatedasa Indeed, weshouldimmediatelyaddtotheseconsiderationsthateveninsuchlarge-scale The BoundariesofMedievalPhilosophy concerns andthemethodsusedintheirtreatment. and incontemporaryphilosophy,despitealltheobviousagreementsbasicphilosophical ceptual devicesandprinciplesappliedinitsdiscussion,wouldbequitedifferentmedieval conceptual changesthatsometimestheveryformulationofaproblem,letalonecon- temporary philosophers.Theinterveningcenturies,afterall,broughtaboutsuchprofound simply betransferredintoacontemporaryjournalforprofessionalengagementbycon- find theirplaceinthetableofcontentsanynumbercontemporaryphilosophyjournals. and language,epistemology,philosophyofreligion,philosophicalethics)couldeasily theologians (especiallyinfieldsthatwewouldclassifyasmetaphysics,philosophyofmind to thoseofanalyticphilosophers.Manythetopicsdiscussedbymedievalphilosophersand sophical interestsandstyleofmedievalphilosopherswereinsomerespectsastonishinglyclose with goodreason.For,astheworkofthisnewbreedphilosophersmadeclear,philo- philosophers andtheologiansevenamongcontemporaryanalyticphilosophers.Indeed, arrived arenewedinterestinandappreciationoftheintellectualachievementsmedieval breed ofanalyticallymindedhistoriansandhistoricallyanalyticphilosophers,there attitude ofcontemporaryanalyticphilosophers,andasaresultthegoodworknew philosophical concerns(nomerebookreportsanymore!).Withthischangeofinterestand which directlyconnectedthestudyofhistoricaldoctrinesandfigurestocontemporary It issmallwonder,therefore,thattheborderlinesofthisheritageareratherfuzzyandsome- Of course,thisshouldnotbetakentomeanthatanymedievalphilosophicaltextcould demarcation ofthemedievalphilosophicaltradition. MP_A02.qxd 11/17/065:26PMPage3 philosophers andtheologians,fromAugustinetoAnselm(1033–1109) toAquinas(1224–74) the legitimacyofsomesourcethatisbeyondreason,which thereforeisnot the highestsourceofreliableinformationaboutreality,then itisnotunreasonabletoaccept beyond attainable knowledgenaturallypromptsfurtherconsiderations ofourawarenesswhatis rather, itdealswithsomethingthatis which mightbetermed“hyper-rational.”So,theologyneed notbe medievalist PaulSpadeaptlycounteredthissentimentinthefollowingremark: systematic between faithandreason,regardedbythesemodernphilosophersasnothingbutthe “genuine” philosophywaspreciselythepracticeofthissystematicreflectiononrelationship sophers untilquiterecentlymayhavefeltjustifiedindismissingmedievalphilosophyas on therelationshipbetweenfaithandreason.Infact,oneofreasonswhymodernphilo- and (predominantlyinthistradition)Christianity,ormoregenerally,asystematicreflection Aristotle) andtherevealedtenetsofgreatmonotheisticreligions,namely,Judaism,Islam, knowledge (especiallyasitishandeddownintheauthoritiesofancientphilosophy,primarily vailing practiceofasystematicreflectionontherelationshipbetweenhumanlyattainable The mostprominentofthesecriteriawouldcertainlybetherecognizedneedforandpre- Faith andReason One mayaddtotheseobservationsthatphilosophicalreflectionontheobvious P.V.Spade,“MedievalPhilosophy,” 1 N. Zalta,n.3.. In anycase,thisispreciselyhowmost(although,asweshallsee, definitelynotall)medieval philosophy oftheirperiod. philosophy neednotfeelapologeticordefensiveaboutthetheologicalcommitmentsof theological doctrine.Thesituationsarealtogetherparallel,sothathistoriansofmedieval many areasofmedievalphilosophywhereonecouldspeculatefreelywithoutworryingabout one canphilosophizefreelywithoutfearoftrespassingonscientificground,sotootherewere certain scientific not thattheycouldbereconciledwithempiricaldata,butwereirreconcilable because theycouldnotbereconciledwithcertaininterpretationsofquantummechanics( philosophers werearguingthat[the]distributionlawsofclassicallogicitselfmustbeabandoned philosophy ismeasured.Notlongago,forexample,someeminentandhighlyrespected scientific theoryratherthantheologicaldoctrinethatprovidesthestandardagainstwhichmuch proceeded inthispurelyautonomousway.Onemightfactarguethatourowndayitis something ofanaiveidealization;throughoutitshistory,philosophyatlargehasrarelyifever wherever theymaygo,withoutregardforprior“givens”thathavetobeaccommodated,is The popularnotionofthephilosopherassomeonewhofollowsdictates“purereason” somehow compromisedtheintegrityoftheirsubject.Butsuchconcernsareprobablymisplaced. by, thiscloseconnectionbetweenphilosophyanddogmaintheMiddleAges,asthoughit of medievalphilosophyhavesometimesfeltaneedtodefend,or[are]evenembarrassed be pursuedbothbythosewithandwithoutpriordoctrinalcommitments.Historians of medievalphilosophyisthedevelopmentwhatwecall“philosophyreligion,”whichcan even ifitnolongersetsthetoneofphilosophygenerally.Indeed,oneenduringlegacies The practiceisstillaliveandthrivingamongquiterespectablephilosophersinourownday, those limits.Ifphilosophicalreflectionshowsthatreasonmay notbetheonlyoreven subjection theories of “purephilosophy”toreligiousdogma.Inarecentarticle,thenoted to interpretthosedata).Still,justastodaytherearemanyareaswhere 1 The StanfordEncyclopediaofPhilosophy reasonably believed tobe beyond reason without (Fall 2004edn),ed.Edward or limits . against irrational of humanly reason; note , but : 3 GENERAL INTRODUCTION MP_A02.qxd 11/17/065:26PMPage4

GENERAL INTRODUCTION 4 rather treatises theirbasicagreementwitheachother.Theproject wasdoomedtoremainatorso. of Plato’sandAristotle’sphilosophyshowinginhis commentaries andindependent Interpretation”), heannouncedtheoverlyambitiousproject oftranslatingtheentirebody quite awareofthissituation.InhissecondcommentaryonAristotle’s 525). Infact,Boethiushimselfwas reliable knowledgeofGreekwasBoethius(ca.480–ca. admission hehatedit,andprobablyneverreallyusedit.The lastRomanauthorofnotewith or Seneca(3BC–AD65).Augustine,forexample,didlearn someGreek,butbyhisown BC) somewhat indirectinfluencethroughtheworksofLatinauthors suchasCicero(104–43 learning intheWesternRomanEmpire,theseGreekphilosophies couldonlyhavea Stoicism, Neoplatonism,andAristotelianism.Tobesure, withthedeclineofGreek Medieval philosophygrewoutofthepopularphilosophies oflateantiquity,especially The Roman(patristic)period A BriefHistoricalSurveyofMedievalPhilosophy most fittinglydescribed program ofmedievalrational(asopposedtomystical)theologyinitiatedbySt.Augustine, plementary toandmeaningfullyinterpretedbyreason.Thisispreciselythegistof reason: faithisneitherblindtonoroppressiveofprinciplesreason;rather,itcom- the principlesofreason.Onthisconception,therefore,faithisobviouslynotpittedagainst articles offaithtobetrue,howtheycan is nottoshow presupposed the existenceandcertainattributesofGod),concerningsuchrevelationsfaithcansafelybe by faithwhatitrevealsaboutitself.Indeed,givenreasoncanestablishonitsown(namely, sophical grasp,giventhelittlethatwe can alsoshowthatthenatureofreality(thatis,God)isbeyondourphilo- show usthattheredefinitely take ustoacertainpointinrevealingthenatureofreality;butsamereasoningcanalso scientifically attainabletruth.Intheirview,scientificandphilosophicalreasoningcanonly and beyond,regardedtherelationshipsbetweenfaithreason,ordivinerevelation ing isuseless”( omnia disce,videbisposteanihilessesuperfluum rally ledittoallfieldsofinquiry,inthespiritHughSt.Victor’s(1096–1141)advice: to understand.Accordingly,theinsatiableintellectualcuriosityofmedievalmindnatu- provide theirpeculiarinputforgainingabetterunderstandingofeverythingthereisus with itanever-growingautonomousinterestinotherfieldsofrationalinquiry,whichall cles offaith,withinthewholeenterpriserationaltheologythisconcernnaturallybrings the prevailingtheoretical(andpractical)concernisrationalinquiryintomeaningofarti- philosophical investigations.Infact,evenifitmaygenerallybetruethatinthismentality as entirelyunproblematic).Suchreflections,inturn,naturallyleadtofurther,independent language (whichisnottosaythattheuseoflogicalmethodsintheologyitselfwasregarded analysis, andcarefulreflectiononthelanguageused,thoughtsexpressedby understanding. This generaldemandofconflictresolutioninthismentalityrequiresmeticulouslogical how . Therefore,inthecaseofstatementsfaithbasedonsuchrevelationstask it can whether Didascalicon be true.Thatistosay,thequestion what isbelievedtrue(afterall,italreadytobetrue),but by St.Anselm’sformula: 6, 3). is something beyondthatpoint.Furthermore,althoughreason can reasonably know aboutit,itisnotunreasonabletoholdpurely – “learneverything,lateronyouwillseenoth- be heldtotruewithoutcontradicting fides quaerensintellectum how itispossible De Interpretatione for theserevealed – faithseeking (“On MP_A02.qxd 11/17/065:26PMPage5 around theturnoffifthandsixthcenturies,assumed inthesewritingstheidentity especially, Proclus(411–85),comefromanauthorwhowas probablyanativeofSyria,lived writings, showingastronginfluenceofpaganNeoplatonicphilosophers suchasPlotinusand, to havebeenSt.Paul’sconvertinAthens(Acts17:34).Infact, theseNeoplatonicChristian writings ofthemysterious(Pseudo-)DionysiusAreopagite, mistakenlythoughtatthetime of CharlestheBald(823–77).Atrequestking he producedtranslationsofthe in thisperiod,withgoodknowledgeofGreek,broughtunmatched eruditiontothecourt 877).Eriugena,anIrishmanwellversedinthe liberalartsand,quiteuniquely (ca. 800–ca. was typicalintheperiod. Augustine. Originalitywascertainlynothisgreatestvirtue, butneitherwasithisgoal,as also onastronomyandtheology,forexample,aworktheTrinityprimarilybased mainly ongrammarandlogic(coveringthematerialhecouldgatherfromBoethius),but king’s effortsintherevivaloflearning,heproducedanumberdidacticworks( ing scholarofCharlemagne’scourtwastheEnglishmonkAlcuinYork(735–804).Aiding Magnus, whosenameisdulypreservedinthephrase“CarolingianRenaissance.”Thelead- of thelatterwascourtCharlemagne(742–814),CharlesGreat,orinLatin,Carolus asteries andinthecourtsofoccasionalenlightenedruler.Themostoutstandingexample darkness ofaboutfivecenturiestherewereglimmeringlightshereandthere,mainlyinmon- over-used andabused)nameof“DarkAges”,althoughevenintherelative(intellectual) After Boethius’time,therefollowedaperiodthatbyandlargedeservesthe(otherwiseoften The “DarkAges”andtheCarolingianRenaissance man makesbyfreewill. treason, ponderingthephilosophicalissuesofman’sfate,divineprovidence,andchoices Philosophiae sophical treatiseheismostrememberedforeventodaythefamous and Christology(discussingthedoctrineofChrist’sdivinityhumanity).Butphilo- and intheology–Trinitology(discussingtheChristiandoctrineofHolyTrinity) treatises inlogic(transmittingmaterialfromAristotle’sdialecticaswellStoiclogic), of allmedievaldebatesonthefundamentalphilosophicalproblemuniversals. work wastohaveatremendouscareerduringtheMiddleAges,servingasstartingpoint Owing toBoethius’translationandcommentaries,thisotherwisedeliberatelyelementary Categoriae also translatedandcommentedonthe in theremainingbooksofAristotelianlogicalcorpus).Besidestheseworks,Boethius (which aretheintegralpartsofvarioussortsargumentssystematicallydealtwith (“Categories”) and were ingeneralcirculation,namely,thetranslationsofandcommentarieson to translateandcommentonsomeofAristotle’slogicalworks.Actually,onlytwothese out ofhisplan.Apparently,henevertranslatedanyPlato’sworks,andonlymanaged This isevenmoreremarkablegivenjusthowlittleBoethiuseventuallymanagedtocarry sophisticated philosophicalcultureofthemedievaluniversities,wellintoRenaissance. Ages, andtheemergingmonasticcultureofearlyMiddlebutalsoinhighly But evensoitexertedtremendousinfluence,notonlyduringthesoonensuingDark Nevertheless, eventhisperiodproducedatrulyoriginalauthor inJohnScottusEriugena Besides thesetranslationsandcommentaries,Boethiusalsowrotesomeindependent by thestronglyanti-ChristianNeoplatonicphilosopher,Porphyry(233–309). (“Consolation ofPhilosophy”)hewroteinprison,awaitingexecutionforhigh De Interpretatione , dealingwithtermsandpropositions,respectively Eisagoge (or Isagoge – i.e.introduction)toAristotle’s De Consolatione didascalia Categoriae ), 5 GENERAL INTRODUCTION MP_A02.qxd 11/17/065:26PMPage6

GENERAL INTRODUCTION 6 theology, especiallybytheiremphasison translation, thePseudo-Dionysianwritingsexertedtremendousinfluenceinlatermedieval of Paul’sconvert,whichlentenormousauthoritytohisworks.Thus,owingEriugena’s most prominentinhisunique,encyclopedicwork of hisworkthantothetruthGospel”( Capella hasledyouintoalabyrinth,becausehavetiedyourselfmoretothemeditation a jaundicedeyebyhiscriticPrudentius(d.861),whoatonepointsnidelyremarked:“Your and dialecticalskillstobearuponhistheologicalinvestigation,whichwaslookedwith such asCassiodorusorIsidoreofSeville).Eriugenadidnothesitatetobringhiserudition Roman orearlymedievalauthorswhoproducedencyclopedicaccountsofancientlearning, of theRomanliberalartstradition(MartianusCapella)andearlierencyclopedists(late Ambrose, Jerome,andaboveallAugustine)ChurchFatherswithhisextensiveknowledge (e.g., MaximusConfessor,GregoryofNyssa,Nazianzus)aswellLatin originality consistedespeciallyinhisuniquecombinationofthetheologicaldoctrinesGreek (God is incomprehensible divinenatureischaracterizedbydenyingitallcreaturelyattributes problem stemmingfromAristotle’s besides hisimportanttheologicalworks,Anselmalsowroteapieceonpurelylogical only betheresultofserioustraininginlogic,andparticipationactualdisputations.Indeed, with hisconfrereGauniloofMarmoutier,showsdialecticalskillsandsophisticationthatcan Anselm’soriginalargumentation,aswellhisensuingdebate Immanuel Kant[1724–1804]). times, accordingtotheclassificationofallpossibleproofsforGod’sexistenceprovidedby philosophy, the“ontologicalargument”forexistenceofGod(sonamedonlyinmodern invented whatisperhapsthesinglemostdebatedpieceofreasoninginhistory monastery ofBecinNormandy,whowaslatertobecomethearchbishopCanterbury, and philosophersintriguedtothisday.Anselm,anunassumingBenedictinemonkofthe (1033–1109) emerged,exhibitingsuchsubtletyandsophisticationthatithaskepttheologians subsequent generations.ThisisthecontextinwhichworkofSt.AnselmCanterbury Eriugena’s work,onlybecamestrongerovertimeinthemonasticeducationalcultureof But thetrendofapplyingdialecticalmethodsintheology,alreadyquitetangible The earlymedievalperiod who willbesavedordamned)hewassubjectedtoecclesiasticalcensure. because ofaworkontheissuefreewillandpredestination(God’spredetermination Nature”) mayhavebeentoomuchforhiscontemporaries.Bothbecauseofthisworkand following way: (“The StoryofmyAdversities”),hedescribeshowdecided topursuephilosophyinthe site inthislatterregard.Inhischaracteristicallytitledautobiography, any serioustrouble. tionable Augustinianorthodoxy,coupledwithhisgenuinepersonal humility,savedhimfrom cautioned himagainstrelyingtoomuchondialecticalargumentation. ButAnselm’sunques- dialecticians” ofthecontemporarydebatesonuse dialecticintheology,strongly be sure,hisformermaster,themore“conservative”Lanfranc, takingthesideof“anti- were engagedin.ButAnselmnevergotcensuredforhis use ofdialecticintheology.To and student,whichmayverywellreflectsomeoftheactualdiscussions Anselmandhisbrethren A generation later, the brilliant Peter Abelard (1079–1142) was toprovehisexactoppo- A generationlater,thebrilliantPeterAbelard(1079–1142) not material, spatial,temporal,finite,thus,Heis Categoriae apophatic PL , intheformofadialoguebetweenmaster CXV 1294a).Infact,Eriugena’soriginality, De DivisioneNaturae or negativetheology,inwhichthe not a body,etc.).ButEriugena’s (“On theDivisionof Historia Calamitatum MP_A02.qxd 11/17/065:26PMPage7 Paris, untilhisstudentAbelarddrovehimoutwithcriticisms andtookover.Another of abishop.WilliamChampeaux,forexample,wasthemaster ofthecathedralschool was providedbycathedralschools,wheremastersandstudents workedundertheauspices ern ‘martialarts’schoolsoneoftenfindsinpresent-daycities.” Anotherformofeducation insightfully remarks,“perhapstheclosestanaloguetothisarrangement wouldbethemod- famous masterstoestablishtheirownschoolsinthegrowing medievalcities.AsPaulSpade ByAbelard’stime, however, itwasnotunusualfor William ofChampeaux[ca.1070–1121]). or thefamousmonasteryofSaintVictor,organizedbyone ofAbelard’smanyopponents, of anenlightenedruler(asCharlemagne’s)ortomonasteries (suchasSt.Anselm’sinBec, As mentionedearlier,duringthepreviousperiod,mostlearning wasconfinedtothecourt important, characteristicallymedievalinstitutionaldevelopment, theriseofuniversities. Besides theabove-mentionedinfluxofnewlyrecoveredancientideas,therewasmost in thesecondhalfoftwelfthcenturythatledtothisboombythirteenthcentury. In fact,thereweretwofundamentallyimportant,andcertainlynotunrelated,developments Institutional developments High Scholasticism Scholasticism. of intellectualactivityinthesubsequenttwocenturies,aperiodoftenreferredtoasHigh new andnewlyrecoveredoldphilosophicalscientificliterature,leadingtoanexplosion explosive brewofideasthatwascatalyzed,notevenafullgenerationlater,bytheinflux Abelard’s timewasaperiodofintellectualfervorintheLatinWest.Itthisalready arguments. paradigm oflaterscholasticdisputations,searchingforanswersthroughweighingopposing sponsibility; andinhistheologicalwork authority foremphasizingtheimportanceofagent’sintentioninestablishingre- structure ofcomplexpropositions);inethics,heisstillreferredtoasthemainhistorical Boethius muchofStoicpropositionallogic(i.e.,atheorylogicalvalidityonbasedthe positions (i.e.,declarativesentencesexpressingtruthorfalsity),reconstructingfrom several particulars),alongwithaninnovativetheoryofthesignificationwholepro- theory ofuniversals(athatdeniedtheexistenceuniversalthingscommonto insightful workinlogic,ethics,andtheology.Inheworkedoutaunique,nominalist anybody elsebeforehimsincethetimeofBoethius,heproducedsometrulyoriginal, philosophy, simplycouldnotbeignored.Workingbasicallyfromthesameresourcesas it generated,Abelard’swork,whichisundoubtedlytheculminationofearlymedieval trouble bothinhispersonalandprofessionallife.Butdespitealltheanimosity character, which,coupledwithhisunmatcheddialecticalskills,landedhimintroubleafter Abelard mayhaveleftthecourtofMars,buthedidnotleavebehindhispugnacious As isbeautifullytestifiedbytheaccountofhisstudent,JohnSalisbury(ca.1115–76), disputation. other weaponsforthese,andtotheprizesofvictoryinwarIpreferredbattleminds of logicalreasoningmoretomylikingthantheotherformsphilosophy,Iexchangedall Mars thatImightwinlearninginthebosomofMinerva.And,sincefoundarmory honors thatshouldhavebeenmineastheeldestborn,Ifledutterlyfromcourtof gladly leavingtomybrothersthepompofgloryinarms,rightheritageandall Sic etNon (“Yes andNo”),heestablishedthe 7 GENERAL INTRODUCTION MP_A02.qxd 11/17/065:26PMPage8

GENERAL INTRODUCTION 8 medieval society,thatis,as medieval universities.Theuniversitiesstartedoutasanyother Poitiers (ca.1085–1154). figures asBernardofChartres(d.ca.1130),Thierry1150),andGilbert important schoolwasassociatedwiththecathedralofChartres,andsuchinfluential The universitieswerecommonlyorganizedintoFaculties,amongwhichthe their facultiesofartsandtheology,werestartedasteachers’unions, union, asa of Bologna,whichcametobeafamouscenterforlegalstudies,startedoutfromstudent graduate” the rough excerpt ofthe very influentialNeoplatonicworks(suchasthe influence. Aristotle’sworksarrivedwithcommentariesbyMuslim thinkers,alongwithsome natural science,metaphysics,psychology,ethics,andpolitics thatstartedexertingits authorities tobereckonedwith.Butitwasnotjustthewhole systemofAristotelianlogic, soon achievedthestatusof“thePhilosopher,”ashewascommonly referredto,amongthe and destinyinthisuniverse–allthis,withouttheaidofdivinerevelation!NowonderAristotle knowable aboutthenaturalworld,itsultimateprinciplesandcauses,aswellman’splace on acarefullycraftedlogicalmethodologythatsurveyedeverythingwashumanly writings, whichprovidedmedievalthinkerswithacomprehensivephilosophicalsystem,based Jewish thinkers). through intermediarySyriacand/orArabictranslations,andoforiginalworksMuslim together withChristianspreparingtheLatintranslationsofGreekworks,sometimes from ToledoinSpain(thenaboomingIslamiccity,whereMuslimandJewishscholarsworked prepared translationsofAristotle’slogicalandotherworksfromtheGreekin1120s), scientific workswereprepared),fromConstantinople(wheremostimportantlyJamesofVenice pouring infromtheKingdomofSicily(wheremostlytranslationsmathematicaland the FirstCrusade,startedin1095),newtranslationsofpreviouslyunavailabletexts radically. OwingtonewcontactswiththeMuslimworldandByzantium(especiallyafter that hadbeenavailablesinceBoethius’time.Aboutagenerationlater,thissituationchanged the authoritativephilosophical,theological,andscientifictextswereaboutsameasthose material tobestudied.AsmentionedearlierinconnectionwithAbelard,duringhislifetime the exponentialgrowthinnumberofstudentsandteachersaswellamount There wouldhavebeennoneedforthisspecializationandorganizationhaditnot Doctrinal developments:therecoveryofAristotle and Theology. the equivalentsofmoderngraduateorprofessionalschools,FacultiesLaw,Medicine various philosophicalandscientificdisciplines,whichpreparedmostofthemforentering the alreadybusymindsofLatinWest. icated Islamicculture,andnowthefruitsofthatflourishing suddenlybecameavailableto literature. TheEuropean“DarkAges”hadbeentheperiodof flourishingofahighlysophist- ginal MuslimandJewishmedical,mathematical,scientific, philosophical,andtheological But themostimportantinstitutionaldevelopmentofperiodwasemergence The mostimportantandinfluentialamongthenewlyrecoveredtextswereAristotle’s equivalent ofamodernFacultyArtsandSciences,tookcareprimarily“under- instruction, i.e.,theinstructionofyoungerstudentsingrammar,logic,and universitas studentium Elementatio Theologica guilds , whereastheuniversitiesofParisandOxford,famousfor , ortradeunions.Theoldestuniversity,theUniversity of thepaganNeoplatonicphilosopher,Proclus),andori- Liber deCausis , “TheBookofCauses”,an universitates scholarium Facultas Artium universitates of . , MP_A02.qxd 11/17/065:26PMPage9 the the cathedralsthemselves?Intheology,historicallymostimportantsystematicworkwas So whowerethearchitectsofthesecathedralsthought,andwhatsortsworksembody Main figures,literarygenres thought, toelevatehumanunderstanding. philosophical andtheologicalliteraturedesignedtofitintoanoverarchingsystemof spirit, soarethefinelycraftedargumentsanddistinctionsofhugevolumesmedieval from finelychiseledblocksthatallserveanoverarchingstructuredesignedtoelevatethe the period.Infact,simileisfarfromsuperficial.Forjustascathedralsarebuiltup comprehensive systemsofthought,theintellectualequivalentgothiccathedrals extraordinary mindsthatwerecapableofintegratingalltheseconsiderationsintohuge, guidance. Thetaskofsortingoutandsystematicallyorganizingthismaterialrequired information tobeassimilated,concerningwhichtheChurchFatherscouldnotgivemuch and JewishinterpretationsofAristotle,ontopallthenewempiricalscientific in medievalAugustinianism),andbetweenChristiantheologicalconsiderationsMuslim philosophy andtheology,betweenAristotelianismPlatonism(especially,asitsurvived butratherthemultipleconflictsbetween Abelard andBernardofClairvaux(1090–1153), and “anti-dialecticians,”aswasfundamentallythecase,forinstance,inconflictbetween new level.Foratthispointtheissuewasnotmerelyconflictbetween“dialecticians” sions andconflictswithinthisframework. WesternChristianity,wasahugeenterprisethatnecessarilyledtosomedeep-seatedten- of a radicallydifferentculturalbackgroundintotheexistingphilosophical-theologicalframework the tice, then,gaverisetoanentireliterarygenreinscholastictheology,the“commentarieson the centuries when,withtheriseofuniversities(especiallyParisandOxford), came theretostudytheology.Buttheworkgainedrealimportanceinsubsequentthree school ofNotreDame,Petersoonestablishedhisworkasastandardtextbookforthosewho systematic surveyofthetheologicaldoctrineChurch.Asateacheratcathedral and collatedthemainthesesargumentsofChurchFathers,inordertoprovidea in whichtheauthor,cautiouslyproceedingfootstepsofhismaster,Abelard,collected clarifications ofthetext(informlectures, question-commentary formally acceptedthisinvitationforfurtherdiscussionin their peculiarliteraryform:the question openforfurtherdiscussion.Thegreatcommentaries ofthesubsequentcenturies opposing authorities,sometimesprovidinghisownresolution, butsometimesleavinga by Peter’soriginalstyle,which(followingAbelard’s were bynomeansmereslavishrepetitionsofsomeold,trite doctrine.Thiswaswellserved helping studentstogetafirmergrasponthedoctrineof the author,thesecommentaries of acquiringthelicentiateintheologytowriteone’scommentaryon on byfuturemastersoftheology.Infact,itsoonbecamethegeneralpracticeincourse discussion ofthemainproblemsraisedbytextinform ofyes/noquestions,tobe The tensionbetweenfaithandreasonespeciallyhadtore-emergeinthiscontextona The assimilationandintegrationofthisenormousamountnewmaterial,comingfrom Despite thefactthatcommentariesareusuallysupposedto providemereelucidations, Libri QuattuorSententiarum Sentences Sentences .” became thesetreadingfortheologystudentsandtexttobecommented . Aquestion-commentaryisnotamererunningcommentary offering (“Four BooksofSentences”)PeterLombard(ca.1100–60), lectiones ); rather,itisasystematic,thoroughgoing Sic etNon ), collatedseveralapparently Sentences . Thisprac- 9 GENERAL INTRODUCTION MP_A02.qxd 11/17/065:26PMPage10

GENERAL INTRODUCTION 10 ecclesiastic policy,suchaswhetherconfessionhastobemade orallyormaybeprovided same placeormakeonebodypresentintwoplacesatthe sametimetocurrentissuesin Such questionsrangedfromissuesaboutwhetherGodcan maketwobodiesoccupythe Latin phrase and Easter,whenthemasterdeterminedquestions The quodlibetalquestionsarecollectionsofrecordssolemndisputations heldbeforeChristmas of Aquinas presided overanddeterminedbythemaster.Suchare,for example, thedisputedquestions putations onarelatedsetofquestionsdiscussedbydesignated opponentandrespondent, ordinary his commentaryonthe output arenothingshortofstaggering.Theworksamedievalmastertheologybesides and extremelyprolificacademiccareers.Bymodernstandards,thevolumerangeoftheir thought, notonlyintheircommentariesonthe universities ofParisandOxford,wereexpectedtoprovidecomprehensivesystems the mastersoftheologythirteenthandfourteenthcenturies,especiallyattwogreat Scotus (1266–1308). influenced Albert,Aquinas,andthefamouslysubtleFranciscantheologian,JohnDuns only allowustosaytrulywhattheinfiniteGod logical considerationsconcerningnegativetheology(accordingtowhichourfiniteconcepts alsoknowntoLatintheologiansasRabbiMoyses,whosetheo- Maimonides (1135–1204), illuminating commentariesonAristotle’sworks.Finally,oneshouldmentionMoses nized intheLatinWestas‘theCommentator’forhispenetratingunderstandingofand whowassoonrecog- first andforemostAristoteliancritic,Averroës(IbnRushd,1126–98), in earlymodernphilosophy.ButthemostinfluentialMuslimauthorwasAl-Ghazali’s by latemedievalOckhamisttheologians,andhadlong-lasting(atleastindirect)influence all activitytosecondaryagents)wasstronglycriticizedbyAquinas,butembraced his Alfarabi andAvicenna)torefutephilosophyaffirmthecertaintyoffaith.InWest, and theologian,Algazel(Al-Ghazali,1058–1111),usedphilosophy(criticizingespecially Aristotle’s hylomorphistmetaphysicswithbiblicaldoctrine.ThegreatMuslimjurist Jewish authorofaworkknowninLatinas Aquinas. Anotherimportantnon-ChristiansourcewasAvicebron(IbnGabirol,1021–58),the Metaphysics then, amongotherworksconcerninglogic,psychologyandmedicine,hewrotehisown Metaphysics whofamouslyclaimedthathecouldnotunderstandAristotle’s (Ibn Sina,980–1037), Arabs as“thesecondmaster”(i.e.,onlytoAristotle).HewasfollowedbyAvicenna it inspired. prised theentireAristoteliancorpus,aswellworksofIslamicandJewishthinkers com- andSt.AlberttheGreat(1206–80), the workofRobertGrosseteste(ca.1170–1253) available tothecommentator.Thisknowledge,bythirteenthcentury,especiallyafter some authoritativequotes,butthediscussionitselfdrawsonwholerangeofknowledge commented oneventuallyprovidesamereopportunitytoraisethequestionandsupply decided onthebasisofanarrayopposingarguments.Inthesearguments,text Given thisvastandvariedphilosophical,theological,scientifictraditiontodealwith, knowntothe The firstandforemostamongthesewasAlfarabi(AlFarabi,ca.870–950), occasionalism and , whichhadagreatimpactonthethoughtofAlbert’sstudent,St.Thomas De Veritate even afterreadingit40timesuntilhereadAlfarabi’scommentaryonit.But quodlibetal de quolibet (the doctrinethatattributesallactivitytothefirstagent,God,anddenies (“On Truth”), ) raisedbytheaudienceandansweredanyobjectionstohis position. disputations. The Sentences typically includestwosetsofdisputedquestions,the De Anima ordinary Fons Vitae (“On theSoul”),or Sentences disputations collectrecordsofregulardis- is not nanytopic on (“Fountain ofLife”),whichcombined , andnotwhatHeis)alsodirectly , butthroughouttheirusuallylong (the literalmeaningofthe De Potentia (“On Power”). MP_A02.qxd 11/17/065:26PMPage11 out arunningcommentary,resultinginsetsof masters oftheologyaswellartstoproducequestion-commentaries,sometimeswith- philosophical worksofAristotle.ButinthelaterMiddleAgesitwasnotuncommonfor in runningcommentariesonauthoritativetexts,suchasbooksoftheScripturesor Protestant Reformation.) standing examplesofthisgenreareAquinas’s treatises, thegreat we recalltherolewritten physical problemofindividuation.Theimportancethelattertopiccanbeappreciatedif of whatispossiblebydivineomnipotence,itsnotsoobviouscontributiontothemeta- in writing.(Theimportanceoftheformertopic,besidesitsobviousrelationtoissue and own similarlytitledshorttreatises( world orontheunityofhumanintellect,andAquinas’ pointed responsestotheminhis 1280)ontheeternityof orBoethiusDacus(fl.1240–d. Siger ofBrabant(fl.1260–77) polemical treatiseisbestexemplifiedbythecontroversialworks ofLatinAverroists,suchas much likecontemporaryjournalarticlesgeneratedisputesoverseveralissues.Thissortof up bydirectresponsesfromotherauthors(ortheoccasionalecclesiasticalcensure),pretty views inaparticularlypointedfashion)thatgeneratedthemostdispute,sometimesfollowed it wasusuallytheshort,polemictreatises(whichallowedauthorstoexpresstheiroriginal to God”)ofSt.Bonaventure(1221–74).Innaturalphilosophy,inmetaphysics,andethics, tury. Abeautifulexampleisprovidedbythe of thesortexemplifiedbySt.Anselm’s works aresurroundedbyvariousgenresofshortertreatises.Intheology,shortmeditations moral, political,andlegalphilosophy,thecommentaryliteraturegreatsystematic (ca. 1287–1347),andthe century, andthegreatnominalisttheoriesof with thePortuguesepope,JohnXXI),writtensometimeinfirsthalfofthirteenth these wastherealistlogicof importance thattheyremainedingeneraluseforcenturies.Perhapsthemostimportantof generations producedtheirowncomprehensivetextbooks,someofwhichgainedsuch nence. Inlogic,fromthetimeofAbelard’smonumental Scotus). However,itisnotonlyintheologythatsucharchitectonicworksgainedpromi- religious order,asdidtheDominicanAlbertorAquinas,FranciscanBonaventure “secular” theologianoftheUniversityParis(meaningsimplythathedidnotbelongtoa the casewith times evencollectionsofordinaryquestionswereorganizedintosystematic just theso-called embody thespecificallymedievalcontributiontoAristotelian logic.Abelardstillworkedwith Late Scholastic(roughly,after1320)periodsisparticularly important.Theselittletreatises The referred toas logic, wherethepracticeofwriting,teaching,andstudying suchshorttreatises,generally The disputationscomplementedtheordinarylectures( Besides thesecommentaries,mastersoftheologyoftenproducedtheirownsystematic In allfields,rangingfromlogictonaturalphilosophy,metaphysics,theology,aswell But therealproliferationofshorttreatisesoccurredin ArtsFaculties,especiallyin Summa contraGentiles summulae -literature inlogictheHighScholastic(roughly,thirteenth century)andthe summulae Summa QuaestionumOrdinariarum Logica Vetus summae , earnedthename Summulae deDialectica , writtenintheformofapolemic,apologetictreatise.Butsome- , or“summaries,”systematicallysurveyinganentirefield.Out- indulgences , theOldLogic,whichcomprisedBoethiantranslations of Summulae Logicales opuscula Proslogion played inthelateMiddleAgestriggering ). Itinerarium mentisinDeum summulistae Summa Theologiae of JohnBuridan(ca.1300–58/61). Quaestiones continued toflourishinthethirteenthcen- of HenryGhent(ca.1217–93),thegreat of PeterSpain(questionablyidentified Summa Logicae Dialectica for thoseinvolvedinthisactivity. lectiones on variousworksofAristotle. , writteninquestionformat, , themastersofsubsequent ), whichusuallyresulted (“The Mind’sJourney of WilliamOckham summae , asis 11 GENERAL INTRODUCTION MP_A02.qxd 11/17/065:26PMPage12

GENERAL INTRODUCTION 12 this balls, thentheyareinformedby we saythattwobilliardballshavethe inform ourminds. the thingsweconceiveonaccountofthosethings’beinginformedby of thisballisnumerically conformity our our languagearemeaningfulbyvirtueofexpressingsignificantunitsthoughts, possibility ofuniversalknowledge.Howisitpossibleforus toknow of universalsoriginatedinancientphilosophy,withPlato’s answertothequestionof it especially inhislogicalworks.Themostfundamentalideaofthisimageisthatthe Neoplatonic ChristianitytogetherwithitsAristotelianrefinementsprovidedbyBoethius, The basicideasofthissharedimagewerelaiddownforthemedievalsbyAugustine’s Major issues image ofthebasicrelationsbetweenlanguage,thought,andreality. govern therationalityofanydisagreementinrationaldisputation,alongwithashared was preciselythisfundamentalagreementconcerningthemostgeneralprinciplesthat ideas) despiteallthedisputes,disagreements,anddiversityofopinionsinparticularfields scholastic thought(besidestheobviousunityofacommonstockauthoritiesandshared of argumentationinanyparticularfield.Infact,whatprovidedmuchtheunity of the“languagegames”(touseWittgenstein’sfittingmetaphor)tobeplayedinallsorts ships betweenlanguage,thought,andreality,which,asitwere,laiddownthebasicrules especially significant,fortheyarticulatedthebasicprinciplesunderstandingrelation- on the(semantic)propertiesoftermsandtreatisessignificationpropositionswere alleled) analyticprecisionofscholasticargumentation.Amongthesetreatises,thetreatises the unprecedented(andafterdeclineofscholasticismuntiltwentiethcenturyunpar- logica modernorum the mid-fifteenthcenturyaddedtheirownoriginalcontribution(generallyreferredtoas distinct I amthinkingofroundthings,thisshouldnotmeanthatmy mindtherebybecomesround! how canthis“sameshape”informthemindofsomeonethinking ofroundthings?Justbecause But thenwhatisthis“sameshape”thatsupposedtoexist intwodistinctinstances?And the workof Ancient Logic.ItistothiscoreofAristotelian(andinsomepartsStoic)logicaldoctrinethat ings together,i.e.,the probable reasoning),and (containing Aristotle’stheoriesofsyllogisticanddemonstration),the Organon topics). ThiswascompletedbythearrivalofremainingbooksAristotelian Boethius’ shortlogicaltreatises(ondivision,categoricalandhypotheticalsyllogisms, and commentariesonPorphyry’s there To besure,this Yet, itmakesgoodsensetosaythatthesedistinctround shapesarejustnumerically This isonewaytointroducethenotorious ball, informingit concepts . instances ofthesameshape , collectivelyreferredtoasthe to the , whichareapplicabletotherealityweconceivebytheminvirtueoftheir summulistae , “thelogicofthemoderns”),providingconceptualtoolsthatyielded objects sameness ofform Logica Vetus here of thisreality.So,thewordsexpressingourconceptsaretrue Sophistic Refutations one , cannotbethesamethingasshapeof from aroundthesecondhalfoftwelfthcenturythrough and thesamethingasshapeofthatball.Iftherearetwo , asopposedtoanother,say,cubicalortetrahedralshape. two and the cannot beunderstoodasstrictnumericalidentity.When Isagoge , numericallydistinct,roundshapes,fortheshapeof same , Aristotle’s Logica Nova Logica Nova (dealing withlogicalfallacies).Thisbodyofwrit- shape orform,wedonotmeanthatthe problem ofuniversals , theNewLogic:two Categoriae , wasknownasthe and . Themedievalproblem universally De Interpretatione Topics that Logica Antiqua same forms ball, informing (dealing with , concerning Analytics words , and that , or of MP_A02.qxd 11/17/065:26PMPage13 also theprimaryitemsinPlato’s knowledge ofallparticularsthesamekind(becausetheyimitateForm),are reasoning, method,study”).ButthesameForms,insofarastheyaccountforouruniversal episteme study of the universalexemplarsofparticularsareprimaryconstituentsPlato’s they are of allkindsparticularthingsaretheprinciplesthatdetermineforsorts played inPlato’sphilosophyallmajorfieldsofinquiry.Formsastheuniversalexemplars common exemplar,amodelfortheconstructionofall. in thisdiagramandanyotherresemblingitiscommonForm,whichservesastheir Form insofarasandtotheextentthattheyresemblethisForm.So,whatwementallygrasp they arethebasisofPlato’s perfection, determiningforuswhatweoughttodorealizethesestandardsinourlives, cerning himself inhis theory asstatedinPlato’s as itturnedouttobeinconsistent.Theinconsistencyofthe“naive”theoryForms(the are. Thediagrammerelyservesasa have thatobjectinourmindweknowexactlywhattheshortcomingsofdiagram is aboutthatidealobjectwehaveinmind,anditpreciselyonaccountofthefact the perfectgeometricalshapewehaveinmindasconstructproof.Infact,proof overlapping onthecircumferenceofwhatisonlymoreorlessacircle,butcertainlynot ference ofthecircle,butdiagramconsistsvisiblyextendedchalkorinkmarks,roughly with perfectlystraightone-dimensionaledgesmeetinginunextendedpointsonthecircum- circle, allofwhosepointsareperfectlyequidistantfromagivenpoint,andabouttriangle there isnotreallywhattheproofabout.Forinwearetalkingaboutaperfect Indeed, ifwetakeacloserlookatthediagramitself,cansoonrealizethatwhatisdrawn a singletriangleinscribedinsemicircle,whereasthetheoremconcernsallsuchtriangles. on accountofageometricalproof,usingsimplediagram.Butthatdiagramcontainsonly obviously havenotseen(andwillsee) this fromexperience,fortheclaimconcernsapotentialinfinityofindividuals,whichwe that all common FormorIdeaof supposed tohaveinmindconstructingtheproof.Butwhatweis of Plato’stheorywasstillhardtoresist,solatergenerations of hisfollowers,theNeoplatonic pre-natal) accesstouniversalentitiesinorderhave knowledge.Buttheappeal experiences. Thusthehumanminddoesnothaveto some direct(accordingtoPlato, universal conceptsfromsingularexperiencesbyabstracting fromthepeculiaritiesofthese of universalknowledgebyclaimingthatthehumanmind hasthenaturalabilitytoform his theoryof provided analternativesolutiontothequestionofpossibility ofuniversalknowledge,in But itwasevenmorerelentlesslycriticizedbyPlato’sbrilliant student,Aristotle,whoeven “Third Man”argument,conclusivelyshowingtheinconsistency ofthetheory,at132a1–b2.) It iseasytoappreciatetheappealofthisanswerifweconsiderfundamentalroleForms Despite allitsappeal,however,thetheorycouldnotbemaintainedinoriginalform, things ofacertainkindthattheyhavesomeproperty?Forexample,howcanweknow all triangles inscribedinasemicircleareright-angled?Itiscertainthatwedonotknow insofar asthey all for “knowledge”).Finally,insofarastheIdeasorFormsset being visible figuresthatresemblethisFormtheywillhavethepropertiesof abstraction as such(fromtheGreekwords Parmenides imitate . ThistheorycoulddispensewithPlato’sFormsastheprinciples . (Thislatedialoguecontainsthefirstformulationof famous Republic all ethics or triangles inscribedinasemicircle,andthusweknowcon- epistemology participate in and and visible reminder theory ofvalue Phaedo all , histheoryof . Tobesure,weknowthisuniversaltheorem on , forexample)wasrealizedalreadybyPlato their Form.So,Formsinroleofbeing for “being”and in general. for ustokeeptrackofwhatweare knowledge logos (from theGreekword for “reason,account, ideal ontology standards of , the what 13 GENERAL INTRODUCTION MP_A02.qxd 11/17/065:26PMPage14

GENERAL INTRODUCTION 14 mind learningaboutthethingsofnaturewillbeinformedby the AuthorofNature,i.e.,afteranIdeaDivineMind.Onotherhand,human to thesamekindbecausetheyareallmodeledafteroriginalIdeaconceivedby way, Augustinewouldsay,natural(asopposedtoartificial)thingsofthesamekindbelong may againbepublishedinseveralcopies,indeed,variousdifferentmedia.Inthesame they canthencreativelyusetoformtheirownideasproducefurtherworksofartthat stand theauthor’sintentionwillgain exemplar, firstconceivedandwrittenbytheauthor.Andreadersofthesecopieswhounder- Still thesecopiesareofthe impossible. So,thereisnosuchthingas“thebook”overandabovetheindividualcopies. time, forthenthisonethingitselfwouldalsohavetobemanydistinctthings,whichis one thingthatiscommontomanynumericallydistinctthings,informingthematthesame mentary onthe distinct individualcopiesofthesamebook.AsBoethius’carefulargumentinhiscom- common, “universalbook”overandabove,yetsomehowexistingin,thenumerically In physicalreality,thereareonlytheseindividualcopies.Thereisnonumericallyone, several copiesofthesamebookcarrynumericallydistinctinformation. are informedbynumericallydistinctinstancesofthesamecommonform,inwaywhich beyond) canbeintuitivelydescribedinthefollowingmanner.Individualsofsamekind universals inmedievalphilosophyfromAugustinethroughBoethiustoDunsScotus(and with thoseofAristotle,andlaterChristianreligiousdoctrine. up withevermorerefinedversionsofPlato’sideas,tryingtoreconcilehisteachingsfirst philosophers, firstinHellenistic,thenRoman,andlatermedievaltimes,keptcoming philosophy andtheology. that promptedtheevermoresophisticatedrefinements of thisframeworkinscholastic Platonic Forms,neverthelessyieldsitsownproblems.These werepreciselytheproblems for Augustine,DivineIdeasaretheprinciplesofBeing,Truth, andGoodnessofallcreation. privation action, virtue,andcharacter,so,astheobjectivestandards forjudgingthe standards ofperfectionfortheseindividuals(inparticular, forperfectioninhuman cognition ofindividualsthesamekind,andintheirethical (value-theoretical)role,asthe of individualsthesamekind,butalsointheirepistemological role,astheprinciplesof Augustine, Plato’sFormsarepreservednotonlyintheirontological role,astheexemplars independently existing“abstractentities,”butasthecreativeIdeasofGod.Indeed,for as universalexemplarsofparticularsthesamekind;however,theyarenotpreserved productive activity. physical manifestations,ifthethinkingsubjectusesthemasguidingprinciplesofits mind ofathinkingsubject,where,inturn,theycanevenserveastheexemplarsfurther in severaldifferentmedia,whetherphysicalmanifestationsorinformingthe no moremysteriousthanhavingthesameinformationencodedinseveralcopies,possibly sounding notionof“thesamenessforminseveralinstancesandthemind”asbeing human artifacts. can againcreativelyusetoproducethingswithformsitinvented,namely,theof The commonframeworkoftheevermorerefinedsolutionstoresultingproblem This generalframework,whichclearlyavoidstheinconsistencies ofa“naive”theory So, inthisframework,Plato’sFormsarepreservedaway,namely,theirrole Using thisanalogy,then,wemayquiteplausiblyunderstandtheperhapsmysterious- of somerequisiteperfection,i.e.,forjudgingthepresence ofsomeevil).Thus, Isagoge showed, itisabsurdtosupposetheexistenceofsomenumerically same book same information , fortheyareallcopiesofthesameoriginal informing theirownminds,which same information , whichit lack or MP_A02.qxd 11/17/065:26PMPage15 universal conceptsfromsensoryexperiencesbyabstraction) positedbyAristotle.Their mind, namely,attaininguniversalknowledgeandunderstanding, intoa of universal knowledge,aPlatonicthemepreservedinAugustinetheformofhisdoctrine of Aristotledoesnothavetoimplyconceivingseveralthings.) of thethingsconceived:conceivingPlatonowasstudentSocrates,teacher multiplicity ofthewaysconceivingsomethingdoesnothavetoimplyany His ownessenceasimitablebythelimitedperfectionofanyfinite,createdessence.But just theinfinitemultiplicityofwaysinwhichGodconceivesperfection more refinedformsbythirteenth-centurytheologianswasthatthemultiplicityofideasis be thesameasone,simple,indivisibleGod?(Thegistofsolutionprovidedinever or theircreator,theideascannotbeentitiesotherthanGod.Buthowcanapluralityof of creation,cannotthemselvesbecreatures.Therefore,sinceanythingiseitheracreature question arisesastohowHecanhaveapluralityofideas.Theideas,beingthearchetypes cannot haveanyimperfectionwhatsoever.SoGodhastobeabsolutelysimple.Butthenthe existence onanything,fordependencyisanimperfectionandabsolutelyperfectbeing for itsbeingonthoseparts.Butanabsolutelyperfectcannotbedependent without whichHecannotexist.Foranythingthathasseveralessentialpartsisdependent cannot haveanyaccidentalparts.ButGodessentialpartseither,i.e., perfect; whereasanythingthatchangesbecomesmoreorlessperfectbyitschange.So,God cannot beabsolutelyperfect,foranperfectthingbecomemoreorless corruption, thenitischangeablewithrespecttothoseparts.Butathingthat accidentally, i.e.,notnecessarily,sothatitmayorhavethemwithoutitsown of severalpartshastohavethoseeitheressentiallyoraccidentally.Ifit to beabsolutelysimple,indivisibleintoamultitudeofparts.Forthingthatiscomposed understand bythatnameanabsolutelyperfectbeing.Andbeinghas may beformulatedasfollows.Anybodywhoproperlyunderstandsthename“God”hasto reasoning establishingthisconclusion,whichwouldbecommonlyendorsedintradition, thesis ofdivinesimplicityasstemmingfromGod’sabsoluteperfection.Asimplepiece ideas andtheunitysimplicityofdivineessence.Ofcourse,problempresupposes or agentintellect( nation only“nominally”asitwere,attributingitsfunctionto thenaturalfacultyofactive Aristotelians, suchasAquinasandDunsScotus,therefore, opted forkeepingdivineillumi- induction, anddeduction),illuminationisapparentlynotneeded fortheexplanation.Many terms ofthenaturalabilitiesandactivitiesperception,memory, experience,abstraction, competing Aristotelianconception(explaininguniversalknowledge andunderstandingin natural abilityofhumansassuchapparentlyuselessandfutile. Indeed,inthefaceof would leavetheexistenceofwisepagansorevilgeniusesquite inexplicable,andthespecific, ception isthatitturnswhatonewouldnormallyassumeto be a especially forthosesoulsthatare“holyandpure.”Theproblemgeneratedbythiscon- version ofthesameconception,itisGodwhoprovidesthisaccesstoHiscreativeideas, individuals, insofarastheyresemblethiscommonexemplar.InAugustine’sChristian ing whatalltheseindividualsaremodeledafter,themindobviouslyknows mind hasdirectaccesstothecommonexemplarofalltheseindividuals.Therefore,know- a potentialinfinityofindividualsgivenkindispossiblewastoassumethatthehuman Another commonlydiscussedproblemconcerneddivineideasasthepotentialsourcesof An obviouslyemergingontologicalproblemwastheconflictbetweenpluralityofdivine divine illumination intellectus agens . ThePlatonicsolutiontotheproblemofhowuniversalknowledge , nous poietikos , thefacultyofhumanmindforming natural supernatural ability ofthehuman gift, which 15 GENERAL INTRODUCTION MP_A02.qxd 11/17/065:26PMPage16

GENERAL INTRODUCTION 16 rather theyaremerelyinevitableconclusionsofphilosophical principles;so,theyaretruths by thesequalitiesanddimensions. substance ismiraculouslyreplacedbytheofbody ofChrist,whichisnotinformed body ofChrist),itssensiblequalitiesanddimensionscease toinhereinasubstance,forits stantiation ofthebread(i.e.,substanceturning intothesubstanceof contradicted thetheologicaldoctrineofEucharist,according towhichinthetransub- article offaiththattheworldhadabeginningintimewith itscreation,whilethesecond as inevitablephilosophicalconclusions.Butthefirstof these obviouslycontradictsthe eternity oftheworldorimpossibilityexistence accidentswithouttheirsubject, Relying strictlyonAristotelianmetaphysicalprinciples,they arguedforsuchclaimsasthe and punishmentinthatafterlifebecomespointless. intellect thatsurvivesthedeathofeach,thenbeliefina Furthermore, ifthereisoneseparatelyexistingintellectforallhumans,anditonlythis despite thefactthatthisissupposedtobedefinitivecharacterofhumanintellect. then itseemsimpossibletoholdthattheintellectisbywhichahumanbeingthinks, Aquinas arguedagainstSiger,ifallthinkingtakesplaceintheallegedlyseparateintellect, mainframe only. where theprocessingofallinputprovidedbyterminalstakesplaceinsame as theterminalsofmainframe,providingitwithinputandaccessingfordata,but the separateintellectasamainframecomputertowhichindividualhumansarerelated intellect share onecommonintellect.ThisisthefamousAverroisticdoctrineof the multiplicityofbodies.Theinevitableconclusionseemstobethatallhumanbeings material bodiesinthewayforms,suchasshapesorcolors,aremultipliedwith immaterial intellectexistsseparatelyfrommatter,itcannotbemultipliedinseveral body, soithastobeaseparatesubstance,existingseparatelyfrommatter.Andsincethe Averroës’ positionthatthisimmaterialintellectcannotbeaninherentformofthematerial of theeye,beingcapablereceivingallcolors,cannothaveanycoloritsown,theyadopted receiving allmaterialforms,itcannothaveaformofitsown,justasthepupil remarks (inthethirdbookofhis Averroists, suchasSigerofBrabantandBoethiusDacus.HavingarguedonthebasisAristotle’s ceived bytheradicalAristotelianphilosophersofArtsFacultyperiod,Latin by theostensibleontologicalimplicationsofAristotelianconceptionasitwascon- ological issueofthemechanismsintellectualcognitionwasevenfurthercomplicated theoretical activityoftheintellectorpracticalwill. between, supernaturalandnaturaldeterminationsofsomespecificallyhumanactivity,the For inbothcasestheissuewastofindoutaboutactualmechanismsof,andbalance will (weigheddownasitisby moral theologyconcerningtheroleof intellect. Inthisway,theepistemologicalcontroversynaturallyparalleledin directly comingfromGod,complementing,asitwere,the necessity ofgenuinely Augustinian opponents,however,suchasBonaventure,orHenryofGhent,insistedonthe To besure,theLatinAverroistsinsistedthattheirconclusions arenot But thesewerenottheonlyproblemscausedbyteachingsofLatinAverroists. This conceptiongeneratedseveralproblems,bothphilosophicalandtheological.For,as But theconflictbetweenAugustinianandAristoteliantheologiansoverepistem- , whichcanperhapsbestbeunderstoodbythemodernanalogyofconceiving supernatural original sin De Anima illumination fortruewisdom,i.e.,someintellectuallight supernatural ) indeterminingmorallyrelevanthumanaction. , 429a10–b5) thatsincetheintellectiscapableof , 429a10–b5) grace andthe personal natural afterlife, andpersonalreward natural functioning oftheagent acts ofhumanfree absolute truths the unityof , but MP_A02.qxd 11/17/065:26PMPage17 theological conclusions,thenthishastobetheresultofsome argued fortheclaimthatwheneverthereisaperceivedconflictbetweenphilosophicaland ing theabsolutetruthofarticlesfaithrevealedbyFirstTruth,i.e.,God),Aquinasrather not wantingtogiveuptheabsolutetruthofphilosophicalprinciples(and,course,grant- inevitably, theprinciplesthatentailthemalsohavetobetakenabsolutelyfalse.So, be takentofalseonaccountoftheirconflictwiththeabsolutetruthfaith,then, if theconclusionsaremerelytruewithassumptionofthoseprinciples,buttheyto absolute falsityofthosephilosophicalprinciplesfromwhichtheseconclusionsfollowed.For principles of philosophy double truth”( overruled bydivineomnipotence),inthecondemnationbecomes thecontrived“theoryof and therelativetruthsofphilosophy(assumingordinary courseofnature,whenitisnot they condemned.Thus,theAverroisticdistinctionbetween theabsolutetruthsoffaith being imprintedondistinctparcelsofmatter. multiplication ofaspecificformisonlypossiblethroughitsseveral numericallydistinctinstances conception ofindividuationAquinassharedwiththeAverroists, accordingtowhichthe (Aristotle’s separateforms,identifiedwithJudeo-Christianangels), basedontheAristotelian the thesisofimpossibilitymultiplicationimmaterial substancesinthesamespecies ),italsocondemnedtypical thesesofAquinas,suchas heavily criticizedbyAquinashimself the intellect,orthesisthathappinessconsistsinlivingaphilosophicallife(allofthem such characteristicthesesoftheAverroistsaseternityworld,orunity particular, somepositionsexplicitlyheldbyAquinas.Forexample,besidescondemning But thethesescertainlytouchedonseveralAristotelianpositionsheldbytheologians,in and naturalscience(includingthephilosophyofmind),butalsoinmoralphilosophy. theses involvedtheirpositionsinallmajorfields,notonlyepistemology,metaphysics, “radical Aristotelianism”oftheAverroists,whichisshownbyfactthatcondemned in theologyaswell.Tobesure,themaintargetofcondemnationwasdefinitely sophy, butinfactastronglyAugustiniantheologicalpositionoverAristoteliantendencies condemnation, therefore,generallyassertednotonlytheauthorityoftheologyoverphilo- formidable AugustinianopponentofThomasAquinas,HenryGhent.Thesweeping Tempier, advisedbyagroupoftheologians,themostinfluentialamongthembeing in theformoffamouscondemnation1277issuedbybishopParis,Etienne(Stephen) official response.TheadministrativereactiontotheproblemofLatinAverroismcame them emerges. task ofelaboratingtheirrespectivedoctrineswheneveraperceivedconflictbetween enterprise ingeneral,chargingphilosophersaswelltheologianswiththe reason wasactuallyadefenseoftheabsolutetruthsphilosophyandphilosophical themselves. So,inthisway,Aquinas’defenseofthenecessaryharmonybetweenfaithand conclusions (usingsomefallaciousargument),orintheinterpretationofprinciples judgingthemtobecontradictorywhentheyarenot),orinthereasoningleadingthese ( merely theresultofsome(logical)error,whetherininterpretationconclusions and articlesoffaith)cannevercontradicteachother.Therefore,theirperceivedconflictis so thevalidconclusionsoftwosetstrueprinciples(i.e.,philosophy true principlescanvalidlyentailonlyconclusions,andtruthscannotcontradicttruths, To besure,someofthethesesthemselvesrepresented rather unfairlythepositions But Aquinas’conciliatoryreactiontothechallengeposedbyLatinAverroismwasnot . However,asAquinasargued,thisdefensewouldhavetoleadconcedingthe that areonlytoberegardedastruths veritas duplex ), asifthephilosophersofArtsFacultyeversubscribed to ihteasmto ofphilosophical with theassumption rationally corrigibleerror philosophical . For 17 GENERAL INTRODUCTION MP_A02.qxd 11/17/065:26PMPage18

GENERAL INTRODUCTION 18 or distinctionofreason( of formulatinghissolutioninvolvedthedistinctionbetween amerelyconceptualdistinction the multiplicityoftruedivineattributesandsimplicity of divineessence.Aquinas’way plicity ofdivineessence.Butthesametypesolutionapplied totheapparentconflictbetween to theproblemofapparentconflictbetweenmultiplicity ofdivineideasandthesim- distinction ofdifferentwaysconceivingthesamething inconnectionwiththesolution demanded thedistinctionofothersortsdistinctionsaswell. Earlierwetouchedonthe distinction thatthereisbetweentwodistinctthings,these conceptualdevelopments the distinctionsthemselveshadtobedistinguished.For besides theobviousnumerical ticated distinctionstoexpresstheirprecisepositions.Indeed, withtheserefinements,even ever morerefined,increasinglytechnicallanguage,asthedisputants madeevermoresophis- Henry ofGhentandDunsScotus. different waysofthinkingaboutindividuation,asillustratedbythealternativetheories the plurificationofimmaterialsubstancesinsamespecies)openedwayforradically through matter(implicitinthecondemnationofthesisaboutimpossibility of physics.Furthermore,therejectionAristotelianconceptionindividuation possibility ofanempty,absolutespace,pavingthewayformodern,mechanisticconceptions by theabsolutepowerofGod,whichopenedupnewconceptualpossibilities,suchas and naturalphilosophy,nowwereseriouslyconsideredasgenuinelyrealizableatleast same place,whichwereallthoughttobeimpossiblebythelightsofAristotelianmetaphysics sustaining quantitywithoutasubstance,creatingvacuum,ortwobodiesoccupyingthe the actualcreation.Thus,creatingseveralworlds,movingworldalongastraightline, choosing amongpossibleplansforcreation,notconstrainedbythenaturalnecessitiesof as impossiblebyAristoteliannaturalnecessity,butpossible and naturalphilosophy,consideringhypotheticalscenariosthatwouldhavebeenregarded philosophy basedonnaturalnecessity),startedanewandgrowingtrendinmetaphysics on divineomnipotence(andthusthelimitedvalidityofprinciplesAristotelian cussions. Inparticular,theParisandOxfordcondemnationsof1277,placingtheiremphasis had theimpactofinfluencinggeneralcharacterfurther,evermoresophisticated,dis- in theology,letalonenaturalscienceorotherdisciplines.Rather,thesecondemnations did notresultinthesuppressionofstudyAristotleoruselogicandphilosophy demnations meanttorestricttheinfluenceofAristotelianism(in1210,1215,1231,and1270), Robert Kilwardby(ca.1215–79),archbishopofCanterbury,justaswellpreviouscon- simultaneous (March18,1277)Oxfordcondemnationof30relatedpropositionsissuedby as a ( Duns Scotus,intermsofanultimate then openedupthefieldforevenmoreinfluentialalternativeconceptionofJohn of individuationintermstheexistencecreatures,whethermaterialorimmaterial,which cation ofimmaterialsubstanceswasbasedonhisdecidedlynon-Aristotelianconception condemnation itself.Thus,HenryofGhent’sownpositionontheproblemmultipli- from themuchmoresophisticateddiscussionsofsameissues,bothbeforeandafter to philosophyandtheotheraccordingfaith. the absurdclaimthattwocontradictorypropositionscanequallybetrue,oneaccording haecceitas The discussionsexploringsuchandsimilarconceptualpossibilitieswerecouchedinan In general,theMarch7,1277Pariscondemnationof219propositions,andnear- But italsohastobekeptinmindthatthesweepingcondemnationswereratherfarremoved specific difference , “this-ness,”whichdistinguishesindividualswithinthesamelowestspecies,just distinguishes severalspeciesofthesamegenus). distinctio rationis niiulsbtnildifference substantial individual ) andtherealdistinctionbetweentwothings God’s absolutepower , hisfamous“haecceity” , freely MP_A02.qxd 11/17/065:26PMPage19 motivations, somepersonalandinstitutionalrivalriesalsocolored thesedisputations.Fordespite kinds ofdistinctions(realandconceptual)usedbyAquinas canmakeanygoodsense. gian inOxford,flatlyrejectedHenry’sandScotus’distinctions, arguingthatonlythetwo aDominicantheolo- against Henry’sandScotus’criticism,ThomasSutton(ca.1250–1315), as notonlyneedless,bututterlynonsensical.Forexample,an earlydefenderofAquinas’views teenth centuryincreasinglydifficulttofollow;somuchthat somecriticsdenouncedthem (say humannature,assuch)andits“haecceity,”principle ofindividuation. example, thatthisisthekindofdistinctiontherebetween athing’sspecificnature rei tinction, theso-called“formaldistinctiononpartofthing”( ducing acreature,realizinginitsexistencecertainkindofessence. for howcouldthere are reallydistinctitems,thenonecouldbecreatedwithouttheother,whichisclearlyabsurd, serious objectionstoit.(Oneobviousobjectionisthatifcreaturelyessenceandexistence the existenceofwhichcallsfornofurtherexplanation. explanation, whichcanonlybeprovidedultimatelyintermsoftheexistenceacause then itisnotself-explanatory;butthefactthatcreaturesexistcallsforasufficient ultimate evidenceforGod’sexistence:ifcreaturelyexistenceisradicallycontingent, existence. Indeed,itisthisradicalcontingencyofcreaturelyexistencethatprovidesthe creatures famous andfamouslycontroversial whereas allcreatureshaveanactofexistencedistinctfromtheiressence.ThisisAquinas’ of Hisessencewithadistinctexistence,soitisonlyGodwhose in it,namely,itsessence.ItisonlyGodwhoseabsolutesimplicityexcludesthecomposition creature’s actofexistence,cannotreallybethesameaswhatitsessentialpredicatessignify importantly, hearguedthatwhatthepredicate“exists”signifiesinacreature,namely, real distinctionandamereofreason,basedonGod’screative distinction ( at thesametimeadmittingbetweenthemanewtypeofdistinction,so-calledintentional existence of the ( cepts thatweformedofthesamething,butnot real distinctionbetweenthe animality, corporeity,etc.aredistinctmerely say thatwhatthesepredicatessignifyinthishumanbeing,say,herhumanity,rationality, extended inthreedimensionsspace.Therefore,ifAquinas’theoryisright,thenwemust stantial formthataccountsforherbeingahuman,abletoreason,etc.,aswell thataretrueofthisparticularhumanbeing,signifyinherthesame,uniquesub- “body,” “rational,”“animal,”“sensitive,”“living,” dicates ofthesamesubstance,suchas“human,” one substantialformtoaccountforallitsessentialcharacteristics.Thus,pre- in philosophicalanthropologyandthephilosophyofmind,isthatasubstancecanonlyhave distinctio realis ), whichhesometimescharacterizedasa“less-than-numerical distinction.”Heargued,for It shouldalsobenotedherethatbesidestheirsubstantive philosophical andtheological Such andsimilarsubtletiesrenderedmetaphysicaldisputations towardtheturnoffour- Clearly inspiredbyHenry’sideas,DunsScotusintroducedanevenfurthertypeofdis- No matterhowappealingthispositionmaybe,HenryofGhentandothersraisedseveral On theotherhand,Aquinasalsoarguedthatinmanycaseswehavetorecognizea unity ofsubstantialforms ?) So,Henryarguedfortherealidentityofessenceandexistenceinallthings,while , whichforhimisthefoundationofradicalcontingencyallcreaturely distinctio intentionis ). ButAquinasalsousedthisdistinctioninexplaininghisfamoustheory exist a thingofcertainkind,i.e., significata ), whichheconceivedtobemidwaybetweenafull-fledged . Thepointofthetheory,withfar-reachingconsequences thesis oftherealdistinctionessenceandexistencein of ourpredicatesthatapplytothesamethings.Most conceptually really , inthethingitself. , onaccountofthedifferentcon- distinctio formalisaparte essence , withouthaving intention in pro- 19 GENERAL INTRODUCTION MP_A02.qxd 11/17/065:26PMPage20

GENERAL INTRODUCTION 20 his directargumentationagainstwhathetooktobeScotus’ inherentlyinconsistentview and conceptswithoutanyneedtoinvokesuchuniversalentities. and outlininganalternativeviewthatexplainstheobviousuniversality ofourcommonterms a muchsubtlerviewofrealuniversals,arguingfortheintrinsic inconsistencyofthisview, the debatewasratherhisrejectionofScotisticnotion formaldistinctionrequiredfor have heldhistheoryofFormsinthiscrudeform.)So,Ockham’s genuinecontributionto somelatemedievalauthorsargued thatPlatohimselfmaynot view ofuniversals.(Indeed, in commonstockevenbeforehim,andsincethetimeofBoethius nobodyheldthiscrude substance thatissomehowcommontomanyparticulars),these andsimilarargumentswere of universalentities(assumingeachtheseputative tobesomenumericallyone qualifications. necessity”). Butthisgeneralcharacterizationisacceptableonlywithanumberofimportant entia nonsuntmultiplicandapraeternecessitatem explanation ofsomething,thentheirexistencecansafelybedenied,oftencitedintheform methodological principlethatiftheexistenceofcertainentitiesisnotrequiredforbest ontology inwhichheeliminateduniversalentitiesbywieldinghisfamousRazor(the times characterizedasasweepingmetaphysicalprogramtoestablishstrictlynominalist Ockham’s programofeliminatingtheseunwantedentitiesfromhisontologyissome- early modernphilosophy Late ScholasticismandtheemergenceofRenaissance entities andquasi-entities. Franciscan theologianWilliamOckham,intendingto“wipetheslateclean”ofalltheseobscure words) thevariousitemsconsideredinthesesubjects. responding toourdifferentwaysofconceiving(andthereforesignifyingbymeans quasi-distinction andquasi-identity)ofallsortsentities(orquasi-entities)allegedlycor- technical subjects,consideringarcanequestionsconcerningthedistinctionoridentity(or early fourteenthcenturyphilosophyandtheologybecamehighlycomplex,sophisticated, many ofhisdoctrines,butwasgenerallyaratherindependentmind. whomayhavebeenastudentofAquinas,andcertainlyendorsed Giles ofRome(ca.1243–1316), One ofthesewaseven(spuriously)attributedtoanon-Dominican,anAugustinianHermit, the differenttreatiseswereusuallydistinguishedbyaddingtheiropeningwordtotitle). Correctorium CorruptoriiFratrisThomae with theirresponse:inacoupleofyearsseveraltreatisesappearedunderthetitle read togetherwithAquinas’ 1278, itwassoonadoptedbytheorderasofficialcorrectiveofAquinas’teachingstobe (d. ca.1290)publishedhis emboldened bythe1277condemnation,FranciscantheologianWilliamdelaMare further competitionfrom“secular”theologians,suchasHenryofGhent.Thus,when, between FranciscansandDominicansingeneralforuniversitychairs,combinedwiththe became theministergeneralofhisorder),therewasequallyfamouscompetition the famousfriendshipbetweenDominicanAquinasandFranciscanBonaventure(who Thus, inthesecondplace,OckhamoftenusedhisRazor principle onlyinadditionto In thefirstplace,evenifOckhamdiddeployseveralargumentsagainstexistence Apparently, thissituationservedasthemainmotivationforradicalprogramof But evenapartfromsuch“sociological”factorscomplicatingthesituation,by Correctorium FratrisThomae Summa Theologiae (“Corrective oftheCorruptorBrotherThomas”– . Tobesure,theDominicansdidnotwaitlong – “entitiesarenottobemultipliedbeyond (“Corrective ofBrotherThomas”)in MP_A02.qxd 11/17/065:26PMPage21 qualities asisthecolorofthisparticularappleorheatthatflame. only intheirmodeofrepresentation,butbeingtheyarejustasordinarysingular sals simplywithuniversallyrepresentingmentalacts.Theseactsareuniversal abandoned his later that,convincedbytheargumentsofhisconfrere,WalterChatton(d.1343),Ockham whereby weconceiveofseveralindividualsatonceinauniversalmanner.Itwasonly existing entities,butrathertheuniversalthought-contentsofouractsthought, characterized universalsasmereobjectsofthought,theso-called entities.” Hisfirsttheoryofuniversals,developedinhis they donotexist,andwearebetteroffwithoutthem.” alternative theory,theyarenotevenneededfortheexplanationofuniversality;therefore, “The assumptionoftheseentitiesleadstosuchandinconsistencies,and,givenmy the generalstructureofhisargumentationonlyasalaststep,roughlyinfollowingway: Therefore,thelogicalroleofhisRazorcanbefittedinto individuation, their“haecceity.” of individualizeduniversalnaturesbeingmerelyformallydistinctfromtheirprinciple the Aristoteliansystemofcategories. by theagentinpatient,althoughactionandpassionwere takentobedistinctgenerain monly heldthataparticularactionofgivenagentisthesame motionasthepassioncaused can signifythesameitemsinreality;forexample,relyingon Aristotle’s authority,itwascom- universal) concepts.Itwasalsoquitecommonlyallowedthat termsindifferentcategories alized formsinthesamesubstancesconceiveddifferently by thesedifferent(moreorless where differentterms,signifyingconceptsinthemind, signifythesameindividu- We haveseenthisalreadyinthecaseofAquinas’doctrine theunityofsubstantialforms, (whether written,spoken,ormental)andrealitywasdefinitely notendorsedordemanded. But, especiallyinfinerdetails,theideaofaone-to-onemapping betweenitemsoflanguage versal conceptsoruniversalwordsuniversallyrepresentingand signifyingsingularsubstances. all medievalphilosophersrejecteduniversallyexistingsubstances,yetnoneuni- all parallelismdidsowithsortsof(quiteobviouslynecessary)provisos.Forexample, languages. Butgenerallyspeaking,evenphilosopherswhoendorsedtheideaofsuchover- to establishthetheoreticalfoundationofauniversal, et significandi century categories. try toestablishaone-to-onemappingbetweenlinguistic,conceptual,andontological poraries, whowould“multiplyentitiesaccordingtothemultiplicityofterms,”i.e., Ockham claimsthattheoppositeopinionisrootedinerroneousviewofhiscontem- assume acorrespondingtenfoldclassificationofentitiesinextra-mentalreality.Indeed, semantic propertiesoftermsinthetendistinctAristoteliancategorieswithouthavingto the complex,obscureontologyrequiredby“realist”conception:hecanaccountfor showing thathecanprovideacoherent,subtle,logicaltheorywithoutanyneedfor singular qualities.ItisespeciallyinthislogicaltheorythatOckhamvaliantlywieldshisRazor, containing onlytwodistinctcategoriesofentities,namely,singularsubstancesandtheir of howlanguageandthoughtcanbemappedontoaparsimonious,nominalistontology work outhisalternativetheoryofuniversality,andingeneral,new, Finally, Ockham’s“programofontologicalreduction”israthera In thethirdplace,Ockhamhimselfdidnotimmediatelybreakwith“allsortsofquasi- Ockham’s charge,statedinthisform,isratherunjustified.Tobesure,thethirteenth- modistic grammarians , i.e.,betweenthewaysthingsare,areunderstood,andsignified,inorder fictum theory andembracedthementalacttheory,whichidentifiesuniver- argued forastrictparallelismbetween speculative grammar Commentary ontheSentences ficta modi essendi,intelligendi , whicharenotreally logical common toall program to , 21 GENERAL INTRODUCTION MP_A02.qxd 11/17/065:26PMPage22

GENERAL INTRODUCTION 22 in Avignonturnedhostile(notoverhisnominalism,but hisdefenseoftheFranciscan certainly didnothelphiscausethat,afteraninvestigation ofhisworksatthepapalcourt especially intheology,asbeingnotonlycontroversial,but potentiallyheretical.Andit philosophy andmetaphysics,intheology.Buthewasgenerally regardedwithsuspicion, his ideasimmediatelyprovokedvehementreactionsfromvarious quarters,inlogic,natural himself hadalreadycomposedacomprehensivesystemof logicinhis of Arts,JohnBuridan,especiallyinhisarchitectonic were puttoworkinthecomprehensivenominalistlogicand philosophy oftheParisianMaster structures assumedbytheearlierview. native conceptioncanreally“work”withoutanycommitment tothepervasiveintelligible particular intheentiresystemofaconsistentlynominalistlogicthatshowshowhisalter- to Scotusandbeyond.Inthesecondplace,Ockham’sinnovationsgaintheirsignificancein provided muchoftheconceptualcohesionentiremedievaltraditionfromAugustine its singularityfrometernity.Butthisisaradicaldeparturethefundamentalideathat ideas forOckhamarebutGod’ssingularcreaturesasHeintuitivelypreconceiveseachin Indeed, forOckham,divineideasarenolongertobeconceivedasuniversalarchetypes:God’s modeled afterthecreativeideasofDivineMind,universalarchetypesallcreation. mind (theorderofconceptsreflectingthekindsthingsthereare),bothstructuresbeing structures ofreality(thekindsthingsthereare)andconceptualthehuman the ideaofpervasiveformalunitythatwassupposedtoconstitutebothmetaphysical dously significant,particularlyfortworeasons.Inthefirstplace,theyradicallybreakwith indifferently representedbytheconceptsexpressedtheseterms. intellectual concepts;rather,theyshouldberegardedassignifyingthesingularsthemselves, signifying suchacommonintelligiblecontentintheindividualsgraspedbymeansofour this representation.Accordingly,ourcommontermsshouldnotberegardedasprimarily dogs; ratheritissimplytheresultof by thesamecommoninformationcontentthatinformsororganizesmatterofcatsand animals. Butthisuniversalityofrepresentationisnotduetoourintellects’beinginformed of allcatsanddogsotheranimals,butitisnotarepresentationanynon- only catsbutnotdogs.Bycontrast,theconceptofanimalsisanindifferentrepresentation and thatcatitdoesnotrepresentthisdog,whichiswhyaspecificconceptrepresenting distinctly representsthiscatthanthatone,although,ofcoursewhileit indifference followers’) view. opinion, justgiverisetotheproblemsofformaldistinctionhecriticizedinScotus’(andhis ies), fordistinguishingthiscommoncontentfromtheindividualsthemselveswould,inhis same kind(inthewaycommonintelligiblecontentofabookinformsitssingularcop- as theintellectualgraspofsomecommonintelligiblecontentinformingsingulars accounting fortheuniversalityofourconcepts.Inhisview,abstractionisnottoberegarded mature, mentalacttheory,OckhamradicallyrevisedtheAristoteliannotionofabstraction theory oftherelationsamongitemsinlanguage,thought,andreality.For,especiallyhis the tenlogicalcategories)asitisradicallyrevisedpictureinvolvedinhisalternative others beforehimalsoarguedforareducednumberofrealcategoriescorrespondingto Indeed, Ockham’sideaseventuallygotserioustractiononly somewhatlater,whenthey To besure,theseinnovationsinthemselvesmayseemtominor.Buttheyaretremen- So, instead,Ockhamclaimsthattheuniversalityofourconceptsissimplyduetotheir But then,whatisOckham’snovelty?Itnotsomuchhis“reducedontology”(since in representation.Theconceptofcatsrepresentsallsimplybecauseitnomore indifference Summulae deDialectica , i.e.,thenon-distinctivecharacterof . Tobesure,Ockham Summa Logicae , and MP_A02.qxd 11/17/065:26PMPage23 complete cognitiveisolationfromanextramental,physical reality,atleastbydivine before emphasis onGod’sabsolutepower,openedupconceptualpossibilities that unity ofrealandconceptualstructures.Indeed,thisdenial, combinedwiththepost-1277 rejection ofthefundamentalintuition makes nogoodsense). distinction betweentheallegedcommonnatureandapresumed principleofindividuation terminology andconceptualapparatususedbytheother party inansweringit(aformal shouldtherebeaprincipleofindividuation atall?)orthemethods, by theotherparty(Why What istheprincipleofindividuation?),butratherverylegitimacy ofthequestionsraised disagreements nolongerconcernmeredifferencesofopinionaboutparticularquestions(e.g., namely, theemergenceof about thisseparationeverywherewastheemergenceofacharacteristically regardless oftheoutcome acknowledging bothwaysintheirstatutes,andrequiringstudentstoengageboth.But one ortheotherapproach,whereasuniversitiesoptedforpeacefulcoexistence, battle oftheways”–inGermanhistoricalliteratureperiod),exclusivelyadopted members andtheirstudents(whichhasevenearnedthedistinctivemoniker American universities:someuniversities,afterbloodyin-fightingamongfaculty comparable totherecentseparationof“analytic”and“Continental”philosophyatmodern antiqua institutionally emergedasthe“newway”( Indeed, throughtheworkofhisstudents,Buridan’snominalismbyfifteenthcenturyeven physical complicationsand“obscurities”oftheoldwaydealingwiththesesubjects. of doinglogic,philosophy,science,and,eventually,eventheology,withoutallthemeta- as aradicalandpotentiallydangerousinnovationintosoundsimple,alternativeway ). [1365], orMarsiliusofInghen,rectortheUniversityHeidelberg[1386] Vienna of Buridan’s,yetclearlyinfluencedbyhisdoctrines,thefirstrectorUniversity at thetime(forexample,AlbertofSaxony,probablynotastudent,butyoungercolleague oratthenewuniversitiessproutingupalloverContinent Dauphin, whobecameCharlesV) teacherofthe influential professorsatParis(forexample,NicholasOresme[1323–82], deserved fameasateacher,churningoutscoresofstudents,manywhomwouldbecome natural philosophy(includinghisnaturalisticofthesoul),andethics,earningwell- details ofacomprehensiveandthoroughgoingnominalistsystemlogic,metaphysics, never pickedafighthecouldnotwin;instead,quietlyandeffectivelyworkedoutthe who wasexceptionallyhighlypaidforanArtsMaster). a highlyregarded positions attheFacultiesofTheology,Law,orMedicine.ButinArtsFacultyhebecame who wouldnormallymoveontothe“higher”(and,justasnowadays,higher-salaried) as aprofessorattheArtsFaculty,insteadoffollowingusualcareerpathhispeers, imperial protection,andwroteexclusivelyaboutpolitics. of LouisBavaria.Afterthattimeuntilhisdeathin1347,Ockhamlivedandworkedunder doctrine ofapostolicpoverty),in1328hefledthecourttoseekasylumimperial This wasaradicallynewconceptualdevelopmentthatresulted fromthenominalists’ In thisway,Ockham’snominalisminBuridan’shandsturnedfromwhatwasatfirstregarded Buridan’s prudenceinhispracticaldealingsisalsoreflectedtheoreticalwork.He Buridan, ontheotherhand,neverhadsimilarconflictswithauthority.Heprudentlystayed . Onesuchpossibilitywasthatofanextremeformskepticism allowingasubject’s ), ofdealingwiththesesubjects.Theseparationthetwo magister paradigmatically differentconceptualschemes (master), whoservedtwiceasrectoroftheuniversity(andone Wegestreit via moderna in anyparticularplace,whatwassymptomatic via antiqua ), asopposedtothe“oldway”( concerning thepervasiveformal . Insuchasituationthe viae modern phenomenon was inmanyways had notbeenthere Wegestreit – “the via , 23 GENERAL INTRODUCTION MP_A02.qxd 11/17/065:26PMPage24

GENERAL INTRODUCTION 24 standard modernanthologycandojusticetothewealth,complexity, andbreadthofthemedieval If thereisonethingtheforegoingsurveyoughttohavemade clear,itisthefactthatno About ThisVolume an extentthatevenamovietrilogy, omnipotence. (Thatthisisinfactagenuinepossibilitybynowtakenforgrantedtosuch ities thatseparateonemajorperiodfromanother. continuous intheirdetailsareatthesametimeresponsible forthoselarge-scalediscontinu- the paradoxicalfactofintellectualhistorythatconnections renderingthesedevelopments of thefundamentalcontinuitybetweenlatemedievalandearly modernthought,highlighting the mostobviousexamples.Furtherresearchwillcertainly bringoutevenmoreevidence between objectiveandformalreality,orthenotionofeminent causation.Butthesearejust all, muchofDescartes’philosophyiscompletelyunintelligiblewithoutthescholasticdistinction phers whosestartingpointwaspreciselyadeliberatebreakwiththescholastictradition.After scholastic categoriesanddistinctionsstilltendedtoinformthethoughtofeventhosephiloso- ideas, scholasticphilosophywasstillverymuch“intheair”inearlymodernperiod,when neo-scholasticism. But,perhapsmoreimportantlyfromthepointofviewhistory although itsurvivedintheCatholicChurchwellintotwentiethcenturyformof century. Atanyrate,bythattimescholasticphilosophycertainlyceasedtobe“mainstream,” ent learninganditsrevival,nowcametobecalled). “medieval” versionofhisphilosophy(asthepre-humanistperiod,periodbetweenanci- gians hadtoomuchimmerseditselfinthephilosophyofAristotle,orratheradistorted well asthevalidityofscholastictheologicaldoctrine,whichaccordingtoProtestanttheolo- and theemergenceofProtestantism,challengingauthorityCatholicChurchas ofthehighlytechnical,austereLatin“theschoolmen”), routinely reviledthe“barbarities” the emergenceofcorrespondingsensesuperiorityonparthumanists,who of humanism,therebirth( the breakdownofitsconceptualunity.Mostimportantamongthesewereemergence ticed inlatemedievalacademia,therewerealsoseveralextrinsicfactorsthataccelerated remark in ThomasPaine’sfamous complete cognitiveisolationisoneofthosethoughtsthat(paraphrasing Buridan mayalreadyhavebelievedhimtobe),hisrealizationofthelogicalpossibility Autrecourt himselfmaynothavebeentheskeptichewaslatermadeouttobe(orevenas was soonrealizedbyBuridan’scontemporary,NicholasofAutrecourt(d.1369).Although modern philosophy. discourse andtothenew,primarilyepistemologicalmethodological,questionsofearly realist andthenewnominalist some glimpsesintotheintrinsicmechanismsofthoseconceptualtensionsbetweenolder late medievaloutput.Buteventhelittleweknowaboutthesedevelopmentsallowsus ments areobscure,andstilltoberecoveredfromtheimmenselargelyunstudied Descartes’ famous“DemonArgument.”Theparticularhistoricaldetailsofthesedevelop- Reid) thattheidearemainedincirculationvariousformsuntilitmadeitsappearance of anaturalisticreliabilismrediscoveredorreinventedinmodernphilosophybyThomas probably dueatleastinparttoBuridan’sreplytheimpliedskepticalchallenge(interms All thesefactorseventuallyledtothenear-extinctionofscholasticismbyseventeenth But besidestheintrinsicconceptualtensions The RightsofMan renaissance , part13)oncethought,cannotbe“unthought.”Indeed,itwas viae The Matrix ) of classical Greek and Latin learning (bringing about ) ofclassicalGreekandLatinlearning(bringing that eventuallyledtothebreakdownofscholastic , wasbasedonthispremise.)Thispossibility within scholastic philosophyasitwasprac- MP_A02.qxd 11/17/065:26PMPage25 survey, occasionallyprovidingsomepointerstodirectlyrelevantsecondaryliterature. each partplacetheselectionsintheirpropertheoreticalcontextrelationtoforegoing in theevermoresophisticatedtreatmentsofsametopics.Theintroductionspreceding this ispossiblewithintheconfinesofallottedspace),givingatastedevelopments to coverthechronologicalrangebetweenearlyandlatemedievalphilosophy(asmuchas cipline throughanarrayofchronologicallyarrangedselections.Thesectionsgenerallystrive ciples thatoughttoguideouractionstowardwhatistrulyandultimatelyGood). first principlesofBeing);andethics(oringeneral,practicalphilosophy,reflectingontheprin- ledge ofTruth);physics/metaphysics(ingeneral,thepuretheoreticalreflectionon discipline reflectiveonandregulativeoftheoperationsreasoninitssearchforknow- tion) conceivedofthem:logic(includingwhatwewouldcallepistemology,ingeneral,the the threemajorphilosophicaldisciplinesasAugustine(clearlyinfluencedbyStoictradi- sented inthefirstsection).Thus,threemainpartsofvolumepresentselectionsfrom adhering tothemedievals’ownconceptionofdivisionphilosophicaldisciplines(pre- this volume. further informationabouttheauthorsandworksonlymentionedhere,butnotselectedfor To helpwiththistask,volumealsocontainsaselectivebibliographypointersto fact thatseveralinterestingauthorsandtopicsaresimplybeyondthescopeofthisvolume. parts. Theformer,however,canonlybetakencareofbyfurtherstudy,especiallygiventhe this survey.Thelatterdefectwillberemediedbythebriefintroductionsprecedingmain survey couldnotmakeitintotheselection,andseveralselectionsbediscussedin philosophical output.Indeed,severaloftheauthors,works,andideasmentionedinthis Each partcontainsseveralsections,eachdealingwithsomesalientproblemsofitsdis- The selectionsareorganizeddoctrinally(asopposedto,say,aroundpersonsortopics), 25 GENERAL INTRODUCTION MP_A02.qxd 11/17/06 5:26 PM Page 26