DOCSLIB.ORG

CHAPTER TEN CONCLUSION the CONDEMNATION of 1277. on March 7, 1277 Bishop Tempier Condemned 219 Propositions, Ranging Over a Larg

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
CHAPTER TEN CONCLUSION the CONDEMNATION of 1277. on March 7, 1277 Bishop Tempier Condemned 219 Propositions, Ranging Over a Larg CHAPTER TEN CONCLUSION THE CONDEMNATION OF 1277. On March 7, 1277 bishop Tempier condemned 219 propositions, ranging over a large number of topics, imposing severe penalties on anyone who maintained them or even heard them.1 Many of these were directed against the alleged 'Averroists' in the faculty of arts; a number seem clearly to have been directed against Aquinas;2 and others against masters who have not yet been identified.3 Much has been written about this condemnation, but there is still much we do not understand. It appears however that there was a good deal of misrepresentation of various masters' views, either through malice or stupidity. Although the preface to "Ne igitur incauta locutio simplices pertrahat in errorem, nos tam doctorum sacre scripture, quam aliorum prudentium virorum communicato consilio distincte talia et similia fieri prohibemus, et ea totaliter condempnamus, excommunicantes omnes illos, qui errores vel aliquem ex illis dogmatizaverint, aut deffendere seu sustinere presumpserint quoquomodo, necnon et auditores, nisi infra vij dies nobis vel cancellario Parisiensi duxerint revelandum, nichilominus processuri contra eos pro qualitate culpe ad penas alias, prout jus dictaverit, infligendas," Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis, ed. H. Denifle and E. Châtelain I (Paris, 1889), # 473, p. 543. I use the numbering of this edition in what follows. 2 See the doctoral dissertation of Henry F. Nardone, St. Thomas Aquinas and the Condemnation of 1277 (Washington, D.C., 1963). The Catholic University of America Philosophical Studies No. 209, especially pp. 102-15. 3 The most thorough study of the condemnation, which identifies the source of ma­ ny of the condemned propositions, is Roland Hissette, Enquête sur les 219 articles condamnés à Paris le 7 mars 1277 (Louvain/Paris, 1977). Philosophes Médiévaux 22. 4 In a personal communication to me, Prof. Joseph Goering has suggested that we make a mistake in considering "the condemnations to have been aimed at the actual teaching of real masters. My reading of the condemnation (as a canonico/theological document) is that it is conciously prescinding from naming names and, as far as possible, from implying that anyone is actually teaching these things. The presupposition is that no one would do such a thing, and if they did, they would do it accidentally and unwittingly. It is like a warning, not like an (academic) polemic against colleagues. We tend to read it as a theological disputation rather than as a disciplinary document establishing authoritative boundaries within which the masters are free to manoeuvre at will. Thus one should be surprised to find in the 'condemnations' the actual words or teachings of a Master. And one should not think that the bishops have 'twisted' or misrepresented the teachings of specific masters—they are only saying what would be false should anyone actually say it." I am not convinced that he is right, but I think that this point of view deserves serious consideration. CONCLUSION 193 the list of condemned propositions asserts that certain masters were teaching a doctrine of the double truth, and a marginal note in one manuscript identifies these masters as Boethius of Dacia and Siger of Brabant, no one has ever discovered a text that teaches such a doctrine, and it is the consensus of modern scholarship that no one ever did.5 It has also been established that no one ever taught the beginninglessness of the world as truth.6 But what of the doctrine of the uniqueness of the possible intellect? This is a much more complicated matter, and some texts do indeed seem to teach it. In fact a total of twenty-four condemned propositions concern the human soul, and an additional four (numbers 40, 120, 145, 154) are concerned with the nature, status, and competence of philosophy. No fewer than eight propositions concern the uniqueness and/or eternity of the intellect (numbers 27, 31, 32, 96, 109, 121, 125, 193). This is a quintessentially Averroistic view, it is clearly heretical, and it was maintained by several masters whose works we have. But the condemnation takes no account of the sense in which it was being maintained: as the truth simpliciter; as the proper understanding of Aristotle; as the necessary conclusion of philosophy restricted to the realm of nature; or as a more probable of two undemonstrable positions. As I read the texts, that it was the truth in an absolute sense was maintained by no one, although each of the other senses is maintained by one or more of the masters in arts. Although Averroes was uppermost in the minds of those behind the condemnation, the relation of the condemnation to the tradition of Latin thought on the soul during the thirteenth century is quite complicated, and at least some doctrines of the majority of the masters we have investigated would be heretical by its terms. The concentration of the condemnation on combatting Averroes led its authors to insist that the soul is the substantial form of the body and to condemn the position that the soul-body relationship was essentially operational (numbers 7, 13, 14, 118, 119, 123). This was indeed Averroes's doctrine. He taught that the form that distinguishes one individual from another is the vegetative-sensitive soul, the seat of the speculative intellect; and that this soul is united operationally to the unique intellect, which is in potency to the phantasms provided by each sensitive soul. But the dualism of most of the pre-Thomist thinkers led them also to claim that the body, as body, had a form or soul distinct from the one created and infused by God. Indeed, this was the basis of both Kilwardby's and Pecham's objections to the doctrine of the unity of substantial form, since See Richard C. Dales, "The Origins of the Doctrine of the Double Truth," Viator 15 (1984), 169-79, and the bibliography cited there. Richard C. Dales, Medieval Discussions of the Eternity of the World (Leiden, 1990), pp. 140-55. .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Separate Material Intellect in Averroes' Mature Philosophy Richard C
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by epublications@Marquette Marquette University e-Publications@Marquette Philosophy Faculty Research and Publications Philosophy, Department of 1-1-2004 Separate Material Intellect in Averroes' Mature Philosophy Richard C. Taylor Marquette University, [email protected] Published version. "Separate Material Intellect in Averroes' Mature Philosophy," in Words, Texts and Concepts Cruising the Mediterranean Sea. Eds. Gerhard Endress, Rud̈ iger Arnzen and J Thielmann. Leuven; Dudley, MA: Peeters, 2004: 289-309. Permalink. © 2004 Peeters Publishers. Used with permission. ORIENTALIA LOVANIENSIA ANALECTA ---139--- 'WORDS, TEXTS AND CONCEPTS CRUISING THE MEDITERRANEAN SEA Studies on the sources, contents and influences of Islamic civilization and Arabic philosophy and science Dedicated to Gerhard Endress on his sixty-fifth birthday edited by R. ARNZEN and J. THIELMANN UITGEVERIJ PEETERS en DEPARTEMENT OOSTERSE STUDIES LEUVEN - PARIS - DUDLEY, MA 2004 SEPARATE MATERIAL INTELLECT IN A VERROES' MATURE PHILOSOPHY Richard C. T AYLOR Marquette University, Milwaukee The doctrine of the material intellect promulgated by Averroes (i126- 1198) in his latest works is surely the teaching for which he has been most maligned both in the medieval era and in modern times. In medi­ eval times Duns Scotus spoke of "That accursed Averroes" whose "fan­ tastic conception, intelligible neither to himself nor to others, assumes the intellective part of man to be a sort
    [Show full text]
  • Fsofime 22.Indb
    COMPATIBILITY BETWEEN PHILOSOPHY AND MAGIC IN THE WORK OF ALBERTUS MAGNUS Compatibilidad entre Filosofía y Magia en la obra de Alberto Magno Rinotas Athanasios Kapodistrian University of Athens (Greece) ABSTRACT Albertus Magnus (1193?-1280), also known as doctor universalis, delved into several fields of science and philosophy, a pursuit which resulted in a massive production of works. Within these works, however, one discerns a provocative paradox, in which a cleric is involved in a forbidden art: magic. In this paper I argue that a paradox of this kind can be justified and explained in terms of philosophy. To this end, I advance three case studies to shed light on the afore-mentioned problem. First, I scrutinize indirect and direct sources in order to clarify Albertus’s relation to magic, thus addressing whether it is possible to trace any supportive data that permits a connection between magic and philosophy. Next, I show that this connection is achievable, since some parts of Albertus’s philosophy, such as psychology, cosmology and the liberum arbitrium, seem to be associated with magia naturalis in terms of astrology. Finally, I argue that the German philosopher was not successful in legitimizing magic through philosophy, and thus failed to prove himself a unique pioneer of an innovative body of knowledge. Keywords: Albertus Magnus, Magic, Astrology, Science, Philosophy. RESUMEN Alberto Magno (1193?-1280), también conocido como doctor universalis, profundizó en distintos campos de la ciencia y la filosofía, una búsqueda que dió como resultado una producción masiva de obra. No obstante, en este conjunto de obras uno puede descubrir una provocativa paradoja, en la que un clérigo se relaciona con un arte prohibido como la magia.
    [Show full text]
  • Philosophy 305 a Early Medieval Philosophy (4Th to the 12Th Century CE)
    1 Philosophy 305 A Early Medieval Philosophy (4th to the 12th Century CE) This course begins with a brief presentation of the philosophies of Plato, Aristotle and Plotinus insofar as these were influential on medieval philosophical thought. It then considers major thinkers in the Christian traditions from the 4th to the 12th century CE, and includes a brief introduction to major Islamic and Jewish philosophers within that time period insofar as their speculations were influential on medieval Christian philosophy. Instructor: E-H. W. Kluge Office: CLE B313 Phone: (250)721-7519 e-mail: [email protected] Office Hours: Mondays and Thursdays 10:00am - 11:20am Text: Arthur Hyman, James J. Walsh, & Thomas Williams, eds. Philosophy in the Middle Ages (3rd ed.) Cambridge, MA: Hackett. Formal Course Requirements and Grading Procedures Grades will be based on two mid-terms and a final examination. The mid-term examinations are fifty minutes long and the final examination is three hours in length. The mid-term examinations are each worth 20% of the course grade; the final examination is worth 60%. Students who have taken (and received a grade for) both mid-term examinations have the option of having the final examination count for 100% of their course grade. The mid-term examinations cover only the material that has not been tested before in the semester; the final examination is cumulative and covers all of the material dealt with in the course. Students are encouraged to discuss their mid- term examination with the instructor. Significant dates: - Mid-term examination #1: app. October 1 - Mid-term examination #2: app.
    [Show full text]
  • Catholic Theology in the Thirteenth Century and the Origins of Secularism
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Mary Immaculate Research Repository and Digital Archive Article Catholic Theology in the Thirteenth Century and the Origins of Secularism Rik Van Nieuwenhove Mary Immaculate College, Limerick Abstract This article examines two distinct responses to the reception of Aristotle in the thirteenth century: the Bonaventurean and the Thomist. The outcome of this debate (and the Condemnations of 1277) led to the modern separation of faith and reason. Rather than seeing voluntarism and nominalism as the cause of the modern separation of faith and reason, and theology and philosophy, it will be suggested that it is actually the other way around: the Bonaventurean response indirectly resulted in the growing separation of faith and reason, which led, in turn, to voluntarism. It is important not to confuse the Thomist and Franciscan responses, as sometimes happens in recent scholarship, including in the work of Gavin D’Costa, as will be shown. Both the Thomist and the Bonaventurean approaches are legitimate resources to respond to the (post)-secular context in which we find ourselves, and the former should not be reduced to the latter. Keywords Aquinas and Bonaventure, faith and reason, origins of modernity n this article I want to revisit debates that took place at the end of the thirteenth cen- Itury. From a historical point of view it is exactly in this period that we find the origins of secularism and modernity, especially the growing separation of faith
    [Show full text]
  • Cusa Faith/Reason-Engl
    PROLEGOMENA TO NICHOLAS OF CUSA’S CONCEPTION OF THE RELATIONSHIP OF FAITH TO REASON by JASPER HOPKINS © 1996 PROLEGOMENA TO NICHOLAS OF CUSA’S CONCEPTION OF THE RELATIONSHIP OF FAITH TO REASON “Ist der Weg des spekulativen Denkens, wenn dieses nicht eine ermüdende Spielerei wird, immer von einem Glauben her beschritten, von einem Glauben sei es der alten griechischen Fröm- migkeiten, sei es der asiatischen Glaubensweisen, sei es der christlichen?” —Karl Jaspers1 I Is there any such thing as the Cusan view of the relationship between faith and reason? That is, does Nicholas present us with clear concepts of fides and ratio and with a unique and consistent doctrine regarding their interconnection? If he does not, then the task before us is surely an impossible one: viz., the task of find- ing, describing, and setting in perspective a doctrine that never at all existed. For even with spectacles made of beryl stone or through the looking glass of Lewis Car- roll, we could not descry the totally nonexistent. Four lines of argument purport to show that the task before us is funda- mentally impossible. 1. First of all, it may be argued (a) that Nicholas of Cusa can have a coher- ent doctrine of faith and reason only if he has a generally coherent theory of knowl- edge and (b) that since his theory of knowledge is generally incoherent, so too must be the aforesaid doctrine, which is an intrinsic part of the theory of knowledge. Let us grant—for the sake of the argument—the disputable logic of this reasoning, and let us focus on the question of whether Nicholas does or does not have a viable gen- eral theory of knowledge.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Download
    Prophetic Parables and Philosophic Falsehoods Samuel Scolnicov In memoriam The writings of Arisotle’s teacher Plato are in parables and hard to understand. One can dispense with them, for the writings of Arisotle suffice and we need not occupy [our attention] with writings of earlier [philosophers]. * So writes Maimonides to Ibn Tibbon, the translator of the Guide o f the Per­ plexed into Hebrew. Aristotle’s works, he says, are ‘the roots and foundations of all work on the sciences’ and all that preceded him were (as indeed Aristotle himself saw them) conducive to him and superseded by him. Indeed, Plato was read — even when directly and not mediated by commentaries and epitomes — through Aristotle. Alfarabi, conspicuously, writes his Agreement of Plato and Aristotle. But even those who recognized the difference between them still un­ derstood Plato in essential respects as an Aristotelian. This is nowhere as evident — and as distorting — as in the Aristotelization of Plato’s epistemology. But more on this presently. On the other hand, it is commonplace that Platonic political philosophy, with its clear normative orientation, was much more congenial to religious thought than Aristotle’s rather more descriptive and analytical approach. The prophet, Moses or Muhammad,2 is he who establishes the political order divinely sanc­ tioned and henceforth entrusted to the religious establishment. And so it is that here, by contrast, Aristotle is unwittingly assimilated to Plato, to the extent that Averroes in his Commentary on the Republic can confidently present Plato’s political philosophy as doing duty for Aristotle’s, which he did not know first­ hand.3 In Christianity, this Platonization of political thought is made more difficult by Jesus’ dissociation of religion from political power: ‘Render unto Caesar the Letter of Maimonides to Samuel Ibn Tibbon.
    [Show full text]
  • Alexander BAUMGARTEN
    New Europe College Yearbook 2000-2001 ALEXANDER BAUMGARTEN IONELA BÃLUÞÃ GABRIELA BLEBEA NICOLAE ADRIAN – MIHAI CIOROIANU SIMONA CORLAN IOAN OCTAVIAN GROZA ISTVÁN HORVÁTH ANCA MANOLESCU RALUCA RÃDULESCU Editor: Irina Vainovski-Mihai Copyright © 2003 – New Europe College ISBN 973 –85697 – 8 – 8 NEW EUROPE COLLEGE Str. Plantelor 21 023971 Bucharest Romania Tel. (+40-21) 327.00.35, Fax (+40-21) 327.07.74 E-mail: [email protected] ALEXANDER BAUMGARTEN Born in 1972, in Bucharest Ph.D., University of Bucharest, 2000 Dissertation: The Eternity of the World and the Unity of the Intellect in the 18th Century Philosophy Associate Professor, Department of the History of Philosophy and Logics, “Babeº Bolyai” University, Cluj-Napoca Corresponding member, Pontificia Academia Sancti Thomae Aquinatis, Vatican President, “St. Thomas d’Aquinas” International Society, Romanian Branch Editor, Revue des Etudes Anciennes et Medievales Research grant at Université de Geneve (1999) Several translations and researches on ancient and mediaeval philosophy Participation in international conferences and symposia in Romania and abroad DISPUTATION ON THE UNITY OF THE INTELLECT AND THE BIRTH OF THE PARISIAN UNIVERSITY INTELLECTUAL At the time when I had just become a baccalaureate, I saw a certain great master who was in Paris: wishing to take the part of the Commentator, he was of the opinion that man has no understanding but to the extent to which the heavens have understanding; man understands because the propeller of heavens understands, that it is what separate intellect that holds the understanding. Aegidius of Rome, In Librum sententiarum, II, 17 In some famous paintings that show St. Thomas Aquinas, Averroes, the philosopher, is shown in positions that appear to have been conferred upon him by the painter under the pressure of an ideological context.
    [Show full text]
  • Ibn Rushd/Averroes and “Islamic” Rationalism
    Medieval Jewish, Christian and Muslim Culture Encounters in Confluence and Dialogue Medieval Encounters 15 (2009) 225-235 brill.nl/me Ibn Rushd/Averroes and “Islamic” Rationalism Richard C. Taylor Department of Philosophy, Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI 532021-1881, USA e-mail: [email protected] Abstract Th e classical rationalist philosophical tradition in Arabic reached its culmination in the writings of the twelfth-century Andalusian Averroes whose translated commentaries on Aristotle conveyed to the Latin West a rationalist approach which signifi cantly challenged and aff ected theological and philosophical thinking in that Christian context. Th at meth- odology is shown at work in his Fasḷ al-Maqāl or Book of the Distinction of Discourse and the Establishment of the Relation of Religious Law and Philosophy (c. 1280), although the deeply philosophical character of his subtle arguments has gone largely unappreciated. Here the philosophical foundations for his reasoning are exposed to reveal key elements of his ratio- nalism. Th at approach is confi rmed in his assertion in his laterLong Commentary on the Metaphysics (c. 1290) that the highest worship of God is to be found fi rst and foremost in the philosophical science of metaphysics rather than in the rituals of religion. Keywords Rationalism, reason, religion, God, theologians, philosophers, Renaissance, double truth, metaphysics, creation, refl ection, demonstration Th e classical rationalist philosophical tradition in Arabic, represented by thinkers such as al-Fārābī, Avicenna (Ibn Sīnā) and Averroes (Ibn Rushd), developed and expanded the rationalism of the Greek philosophical tradi- tion into a powerful intellectual tool for seeking out truths concerning God, human beings and the world, independent of religious doctrines and Islamic teachings.
    [Show full text]
  • A Medieval Model Academia Pro/Versus Ecclesia
    Academia pro/versus ecclesia – a Medieval Model Academia pro/versus ecclesia – viduslaiku modelis Alexandru Dioşan, Mag. phil. (Romania) Article traces the causes and dynamics of double truth problem as well the destiny of European intellectuals from the Middle Age to their roles in the present. This Article offers an insight into interaction of mutual interrelationships between three main philosophical traditions of the Europe – the Greek, the Arabian and the Christian tradition; as well showing how historically the understanding of education and academia has changed. Author in a substantiated way develops the relationships between Christian revelation and rational reasoning within the context of European- type university, and describes the way how a modern-day theologian can present the double truth. Key words: theological education, Orient and Occident, double truth doctrine, intellectual and his destiny, Christian revelation, rational reasoning, European-type university The main theme of the topics to be debated within this article is that of the role of theological education and of the study of theology in postmodernity. This concern brings out, in my opinion, one of the dilemmas of theological education today (I refer here to the theological education in Romania), a “standing” dilemma: What may be the place of theology in the modern university project? The question however can be extended: What may be the role of theology in a university project in general? This question is not at all fortuitous. If we were to use the terminology of a modern of Kantian inspiration, it would probably be: If theology makes claims of being a science, what is then the object of its study and to what degree can it prove the accuracy of its own methods? Does it produce a distinct, precise knowledge about its object? For Immanuel Kant this was a convenient question from the vantage point of his own philosophical project: the founding of philosophy as a science.
    [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]
  • The Influence of the Nominalist Movement on the Scientific Thought of Bacon, Boyle? and Locke
    The Influence of the Nominalist Movement on the Scientific Thought of Bacon, Boyle? and Locke by John Richard Milton A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy of the University of London, Department of Humanities, Imperial College of Science and Technology September 1982 - 2 - Abstract This thesis is an investigation of the influence of the nominalist philosophy of the later Middle Ages on the natural philosophy (including metaphysics) and epistemology of Francis Bacon, Robert Boyle and John Locke. Because of the general reluctance of any of these thinkers to quote or make other references to any medieval or modern authors it is impossible to establish with any useful degree of probability which nominalist philosophers they had read. It can, however, be shown that Bacon, Boyle and Locke all accepted the kind of basic nominalist principles which William of Ockham and his successors had enunciated, and moreover that their acceptance of these principles influenced many of their other philosophical and scientific beliefs. Chapter 1 contains a general discussion of the traditional problem of universals and its philosophical implications. Chapter 2 is concerned with ancient and medieval nominalist theories and with their subsequent influence. Chapters 3 and 4 deal respectively with Bacon and Boyle; the former shows the connection between Bacon's inductive theory of method and his nominalist metaphysics; the latter discusses the influence of nominalist and voluntarist ideas on Boyle's conception of nature. Chapter 5 discusses nominalist influences in Locke's early work, up to and including the Drafts for the Essay written in 1671. Chapter 6 is concerned with the develop- ment of Locke's thought between 1671 and 1690, and with the general question of Locke's sources.
    [Show full text]
  • Thomas D'aquino
    Robert L. Gallagher ([email protected]) CVSP 202, AUB, 2010-11 AU Thomas d’Aquino A. Curriculum vitae - Most influential philosopher of Mediaeval age - born, 1225, of noble family, near town of Aquino, Italy; called d’Aquino or Aquinas - Oblate, Benedictine Abbey, Monte Cassino, 1230-39 (from 5 years of age) - University of Naples 1239-44 - At age 19 enters Dominicans - University of Paris, 1245-48 - Dominican House of Studies, Cologne, 1248-52 - University of Paris, 1252-56 - Licentiate, Theology, Univ. of Paris, 1256 - teaches as Master, at Univ. of Paris, 1256-59, 1268-72 - Lecturer, papal curia 1259-68 - founds Dominican House of Thomas speaking in Cologne. Studies, Naples, 1272 - interested in metaphysics, - opposes Averroists philosophy of God, philo- - advisor to Popes and kings sophy of human nature and - dies 1274 ethics - works: Summa contra gentiles (SCG ), Summa Theologiae (ST), commentaries on Aristotle and sacred scripture, and many more - work condemned by Bishop of Paris, 1277; decision reversed 46 years later. - canonized 1323 B. Passages 1. Ibn Sina on the separation of existence and ‘essence’. What exists necessarily through another exists possibly through itself…Thus, everything existing possibly in itself—if indeed its existence has occurred--exists necessarily through another…If its existence is not necessary, and so it is still possible existence, then its existence is not distinguished from its nonexistence, and there is no difference in it between this state [actual existence] and the first state [possible existence], because before existing it was possible existence, and its present state is the same as it was. If one posits that a new state comes to be, then concerning that state the question stands, does it exist possibly or necessarily (Metaphysics, The Salvation ii.3).
    [Show full text]