DOCSLIB.ORG

The Negative Way

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

The Negative Way We’ve identified a lot of God’s attributes. But, can we REALLY say anything positive about what God is like? That is, in addition to saying what God is NOT, can we say anything about what God IS? Notice that many of the attributes that we’ve already identified are really only negative claims about what God is NOT: (1) Infinite = NOT limited in any way (2) Immutable = UN-changing Note that the prefixes in-, im-, and (3) Eternal = NOT in time e- are all negating prefixes. (4) Immaterial = NOT made of matter John Scottus Eriugena (800-877 AD) and Moses Maimonides (1135-1204 AD) thought that these are the ONLY sorts of things we can say about God. God is so unlike anything that we can conceive of, that positive God-talk is impossible. We can only know about God in the negative way (the ‘via negativa’ in Latin; ‘apophatic’ theology in Greek). 1. Eriugena: Strictly speaking, Eriugena believes that God is “ineffable”; that is, unable to be described by words. He writes, “Have we not said that the ineffable nature can be properly signified by no word, no name, that is, by any sensible sound, [and] by no thing signified?” His reason for this is that nothing is opposed to God—but every term has an opposite. So, for instance, we can’t say that God is good, because “evil is opposed to goodness.” We can’t even apply negative terms to God; e.g., we can’t say that God is eternal, because “temporality is opposed to eternity.” And so on. [Objections: First, Eriugena seems to be assuming that, e.g., goodness cannot exist without evil (for, he says he’s worried that, if God is good, then evil must be “co-eternal” alongside God). But, this seems false. Second, what if evil is a privation of good? In that case, evil is not a thing at all, and therefore does not seem to be opposed to goodness. (Though, this may not work for all terms; e.g., temporality does not seem to be a privation of eternality.) Third, Eriugena’s claim seems self-defeating. Eriugena has applied a name to God by calling Him ‘ineffable’. Yet this seems, according to his view, unacceptably “opposed” to ‘effability’. In any case, let’s move on to his solution.] So, what do we do? Eriugena suggests that God so thoroughly surpasses all of our terms, that the best we can do is say that he is BEYOND them. So, for instance, he says that God is not good. Rather, he is “supergood”; “that is, more than goodness”: 1 Here are some of the traits that Eriugena attributes to God. God is: Supergoodness (“more than goodness”) Note that in the Greek, the prefix is ‘hyper-‘, Supertruth (“more than truth”) which we still use in English. So, if you prefer, Supereternality (“more than eternity”) interpret Eriugena as calling God ‘hypertruth’ Superwisdom (“more than wisdom”) (hyperalethia), ‘hyperwisdom’ (hypersophia), etc. Objection: Wait. Didn’t Eriugena say that God is ineffable? That means that we can’t say ANYTHING about God. But, here we find Eriugena calling God ‘supergood’, ‘supertrue’ and all sorts of things. So, apparently God is NOT ineffable (i.e., indescribable)! Reply: Eriugena points out that positive and negative theology sort of BOTH got it right, and are not in tension with one another. For instance, positive theology says God is truth; negative theology says that God is not truth. Eriugena’s theology is a hybrid of the two. He says God is ‘supertruth’. It is a positive term (i.e., it does not have a prefix like non-, in-, im-, e-, or a-), but it has a negative meaning (i.e., it DENIES that God is truth, since He is MORE THAN truth). However, in the end, this leaves God fairly ineffable, since, e.g., if we assert that God is “more than truth” this doesn’t seem very informative. It doesn’t really tell us what He IS. Of ‘superessential’, he writes, “He is essence, affirmation; he is not essence, [negation]; he is superessential, simultaneously affirmation and [negation]. For on the surface it is without negation; in meaning it has negative force. For he who says, He is superessential, does not say what He is, but what He is not; for he says that He is not essence, but more than essence. But what that is which is more than essence, he does not express, asserting that God is not anything of those [things] which are, but is more than those things which are: but what that being may be, he defines in no way.” 2. Maimonides: Maimonides first notes that, if we were trying to describe God positively, it would have to be done in one of 5 ways: (1) Complete definition; e.g., ‘human’ = ‘rational animal’ ; ‘bachelor’ = ‘unmarried male’ But, God’s essence can’t be fully defined. (2) PART of a definition; e.g., ‘animal’ (of humans) ; ‘male’ (of bachelors) But, God has no parts, so His essence can’t be composed in this way. 2 (3) ‘Accidental’ properties; i.e., descriptions of a thing that do not identify its essence. (Side Note on Essential vs. Accidental Properties: If one loses an essential property—i.e., a property that is a part of one’s very nature, essence, or definition— then they would cease to exist. In other words, wherever you exist, you necessarily have all of your essential properties. For instance, you are necessarily human. In contrast, an “accidental” property is one that a thing COULD lose and still continue to exist. It is NOT a part of your very essence, or nature. For instance, being seated, sighted, or a student—these are all contingent, or accidental, properties of you.) E.g., Maimonides is a philosopher. (Though it was possible for him to not be one.) But, God does not have any accidental properties, since everything about Him is necessary. Also, having an accidental property entails the capacity for change— since one could lose it—and, as we have seen, God is immutable. (Side note: This explains why Aquinas thinks 2 perfect beings would have to differ in essence) (4) Relational properties; e.g., Chad is in James Blair at noon, is Alysia’s brother, etc. But, God can’t have spatio-temporal relations, because He is not in space or time. Nor can He have relations to creatures, since all such relations require some mutual trait to be shared in common between the two things related. But, God shares no trait in common with anything else. You might say, “Wait. Surely, both God and creatures EXIST, and so must be related at least in THAT way.” But, Maimonides denies even this. First, the mere fact that two things EXIST does not entail that they can be compared. For instance, compare the 10-foot height of the ceiling to the flavor of pepper. You can’t! He writes, “If the two terms belong to different classes, no relation at all is possible between them … It makes no difference if the two classes are under the same category. For instance, there is no thinkable relation between a hundred cubits and the pungency of pepper … There is also no thinkable relation between knowledge and sweetness, or kindness and bitter taste, though all these are in the category of quality. How then could there be any relation between God and any creature, when there is that immense difference in the nature of existence, greater than which no difference can ever be.” (52) Second, and more importantly, ‘existence’ cannot really be applied to both creatures and to God, for, “God, however, must exist, and everything else may exist … and therefore [the] correlation is unthinkable.” That is, the term ‘existence’ in ‘necessary existence’ and ‘contingent existence’ don’t really refer to the same thing. 3 (5) Actions—specifically, as causes of effects; e.g., Maimonides wrote this book. A-ha! Here, Maimonides finally says that we CAN describe God in this way. So, God can rightly be said to be the Creator of the world. But, note that this doesn’t even get close to telling us what God really IS, or what He is like. God’s essence is existence: Maimonides endorses the view of both Avicenna and Aquinas and says that God’s essence isn’t the sort of thing that needs existence ADDED to it (like ‘triangularity’ or ‘humanity’ do). Rather, His essence IS existence. However, even here, Maimonides takes this to be a sort of negative claim, for what we are really saying is that “He therefore exists without existence.” (i.e., without existence being received or ADDED to His essence, which is the way that all other things have existence) Even the claim that God is ONE troubles Maimonides. For, then, it seems like number is something ADDED to God. But, God cannot be enumerated, nor can He have anything added to His essence. He is absolutely simple. So, Maimonides says that, “He is one without unity.” Elsewhere, “and similarly [He] lives without life, is powerful without power, and knows without knowledge.” Whoa… Heavy, dude… He explains further, “These subtle concepts, which almost pass the comprehension of our minds, are not readily expressed by words. Words are altogether one of the main causes of error, because whatever language we employ, we find the restrictions it imposes on our expression extremely disturbing. We cannot even picture this concept except by using imprecise language. When we desire to indicate that the Divinity is not plural, all we are able to say is that He is one, although both, ‘one’ as well as ‘many,’ are terms of quantity.
Recommended publications
  • Duns Scotus on the Common Nature and the Individual Differentia

    Duns Scotus on the Common Nature and the Individual Differentia

    c Peter King, Philosophical Topics 20 (1992), 50–76 DUNS SCOTUS ON THE COMMON NATURE* Introduction COTUS holds that in each individual there is a principle that accounts for its being the very thing it is and a formally S distinct principle that accounts for its being the kind of thing it is; the former is its individual differentia, the latter its common nature.1 These two principles are not on a par: the common nature is prior to the individual differentia, both independent of it and indifferent to it. When the individual differentia is combined with the common nature, the result is a concrete individual that really differs from all else and really agrees with others of the same kind. The individual differentia and the common nature thereby explain what Scotus takes to stand in need of explanation: the indi- viduality of Socrates on the one hand, the commonalities between Socrates * An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 26th International Congress on Medieval Studies, sponsored by the Medieval Institute, held at Western Michigan University 9–12 May 1991. All translations are my own. Scotus’s writings may be found in the following editions: (1) Vaticana: Iohannis Duns Scoti Doctoris Subtilis et Mariani opera omnia, ed. P. Carolus Bali¸cet alii, Typis Polyglottis Vaticanae 1950– Vols. I–VII, XVI–XVIII. (2) Wadding-Viv`es: Joannis Duns Scoti Doctoris Subtilis Ordinis Minorum opera omnia, ed. Luke Wadding, Lyon 1639; republished, with only slight alterations, by L. Viv`es,Paris 1891–1895. Vols. I–XXVI. References are to the Vatican edition wherever possible, to the Wadding-Viv`esedition otherwise.
  • Thomas Aquinas: Soul-Body Connection and the Afterlife Hyde Dawn Krista University of Missouri-St

    Thomas Aquinas: Soul-Body Connection and the Afterlife Hyde Dawn Krista University of Missouri-St

    University of Missouri, St. Louis IRL @ UMSL Theses Graduate Works 4-16-2012 Thomas Aquinas: Soul-Body Connection and the Afterlife Hyde Dawn Krista University of Missouri-St. Louis, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://irl.umsl.edu/thesis Recommended Citation Krista, Hyde Dawn, "Thomas Aquinas: Soul-Body Connection and the Afterlife" (2012). Theses. 261. http://irl.umsl.edu/thesis/261 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Works at IRL @ UMSL. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses by an authorized administrator of IRL @ UMSL. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Thomas Aquinas: Soul-Body Connection and the Afterlife Krista Hyde M.L.A., Washington University in St. Louis, 2010 B.A., Philosophy, Southeast Missouri State University – Cape Girardeau, 2003 A Thesis Submitted to The Graduate School at the University of Missouri – St. Louis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Arts in Philosophy April 2012 Advisory Committee Gualtiero Piccinini, Ph.D. Chair Jon McGinnis, Ph.D. John Brunero, Ph.D. Copyright, Krista Hyde, 2012 Abstract Thomas Aquinas nearly succeeds in addressing the persistent problem of the mind-body relationship by redefining the human being as a body-soul (matter-form) composite. This redefinition makes the interaction problem of substance dualism inapplicable, because there is no soul “in” a body. However, he works around the mind- body problem only by sacrificing an immaterial afterlife, as well as the identity and separability of the soul after death. Additionally, Thomistic psychology has difficulty accounting for the transmission of universals, nor does it seem able to overcome the arguments for causal closure.
  • Pursuing Eudaimonia LIVERPOOL HOPE UNIVERSITY STUDIES in ETHICS SERIES SERIES EDITOR: DR

    Pursuing Eudaimonia LIVERPOOL HOPE UNIVERSITY STUDIES in ETHICS SERIES SERIES EDITOR: DR

    Pursuing Eudaimonia LIVERPOOL HOPE UNIVERSITY STUDIES IN ETHICS SERIES SERIES EDITOR: DR. DAVID TOREVELL SERIES DEPUTY EDITOR: DR. JACQUI MILLER VOLUME ONE: ENGAGING RELIGIOUS EDUCATION Editors: Joy Schmack, Matthew Thompson and David Torevell with Camilla Cole VOLUME TWO: RESERVOIRS OF HOPE: SUSTAINING SPIRITUALITY IN SCHOOL LEADERS Author: Alan Flintham VOLUME THREE: LITERATURE AND ETHICS: FROM THE GREEN KNIGHT TO THE DARK KNIGHT Editors: Steve Brie and William T. Rossiter VOLUME FOUR: POST-CONFLICT RECONSTRUCTION Editor: Neil Ferguson VOLUME FIVE: FROM CRITIQUE TO ACTION: THE PRACTICAL ETHICS OF THE ORGANIZATIONAL WORLD Editors: David Weir and Nabil Sultan VOLUME SIX: A LIFE OF ETHICS AND PERFORMANCE Editors: John Matthews and David Torevell VOLUME SEVEN: PROFESSIONAL ETHICS: EDUCATION FOR A HUMANE SOCIETY Editors: Feng Su and Bart McGettrick VOLUME EIGHT: CATHOLIC EDUCATION: UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES, LOCALLY APPLIED Editor: Andrew B. Morris VOLUME NINE GENDERING CHRISTIAN ETHICS Editor: Jenny Daggers VOLUME TEN PURSUING EUDAIMONIA: RE-APPROPRIATING THE GREEK PHILOSOPHICAL FOUNDATIONS OF THE CHRISTIAN APOPHATIC TRADITION Author: Brendan Cook Pursuing Eudaimonia: Re-appropriating the Greek Philosophical Foundations of the Christian Apophatic Tradition By Brendan Cook Pursuing Eudaimonia: Re-appropriating the Greek Philosophical Foundations of the Christian Apophatic Tradition, by Brendan Cook This book first published 2013 Cambridge Scholars Publishing 12 Back Chapman Street, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2XX, UK British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Copyright © 2013 by Brendan Cook All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner.
  • Contemplation and the Human Animal in the Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas

    Contemplation and the Human Animal in the Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas

    Loyola University Chicago Loyola eCommons Dissertations Theses and Dissertations 2011 Contemplation and the Human Animal in the Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas Edyta M. Imai Loyola University Chicago Follow this and additional works at: https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_diss Part of the Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Imai, Edyta M., "Contemplation and the Human Animal in the Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas" (2011). Dissertations. 205. https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_diss/205 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses and Dissertations at Loyola eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Loyola eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License. Copyright © 2011 Edyta M. Imai LOYOLA UNIVERSITY CHICAGO CONTEMPLATION AND THE HUMAN ANIMAL IN THE PHILOSOPHY OF ST. THOMAS AQUINAS A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY PROGRAM IN PHILOSOPHY BY EDYTA M. IMAI CHICAGO IL DECEMBER 2011 Copyright by Edyta M. Imai, 2011 All rights reserved TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS iv INTRODUCTION 1 CHAPTER ONE: CONTEMPLATION AND NATURAL APPETITES 30 CHAPTER TWO: SENSATION AND CONTEMPLATION 104 CHAPTER THREE: DESIRE AND CONTEMPLATION 166 CHAPTER FOUR: DELIGHT AND CONTEMPLATION 230 BIBLIOGRAPHY 291 VITA 303 iii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ST Summa theologiae SCG Summa contra gentiles QDV Quaestiones disputatae de veritate QDA Quaestiones disputatae de anima In Boetii de Trin. In Librum Boetii de Trinitate Expositio In DA Sententia libri De anima In NE Sententia libri Ethicorum In Met Commentarium in XII libros Metaphysicorum In Ph Commentarium in VIII libros Physicorum SENT Commentarium in quatuor libros Sententiarum iv INTRODUCTION In this dissertation I examine the manner in which – according to Thomas Aquinas - the operations of the sensitive soul contribute to contemplation.
  • Comparativeurban Studies Project

    Comparativeurban Studies Project

    COMPARATIVE URBAN STUDIES PROJECT URBAN UPDATE September 2007 NO. 12 Cities and Fundamentalisms WRITTEN BY: Nezar AlSayyad, Professor of Architecture, Planning, and Urban History & Chair of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies, University of California at Berkeley; Mejgan Massoumi, Program Assistant, Comparative Urban Studies Project (2005-2007); Mrinalini Rajagopalan, Assistant Professor, Draper Faculty Fellow (The City), New York University. With the unanticipated resur- gence of religious and ethnic loy- alties across the world, commu- nities are returning to, reinvigo- rating, and giving new meaning to religions and their common practices. Islam, Christianity, Judaism, and Hinduism, among others, are experiencing new in- fl uxes of commitments and tra- ditions. These changes have been coupled with the breakdown of order and of state power under the neo-liberal economic para- Top Row, Left to Right: Salwa Ismail, Mrinalini Rajagopalan, Raka Ray, Blair Ruble, Renu Desai, Nezar AlSayyad. Bottom Row, Left to Right: digm of civil society which have Omri Elisha, Emily Gottreich, Mona Harb, Mejgan Massoumi. created vacuums in the provi- sion of social services. Religious groups in many countries around the world are increasingly providing those services left unattended to by state bureaucracies. The once sacred divide between church and COMPARATIVE URBAN STUDIES PROJECT state or the confi nement of religion to the pri- fundamentalisms in several parts of the world. The vate sphere is now being vigorously challenged systematic transformation of the urban landscape as radical religious groups not only gain ground through various strategies of religious funda- within sovereign nation-states but in fact forge mentalism has led to the redefi nition of minority enduring and powerful transnational connections space in many cities.
  • Conceptual Analysis and the Essence of Space: Kant's Metaphysical

    Conceptual Analysis and the Essence of Space: Kant's Metaphysical

    AGPh 2015; 97(4): 416–457 James Messina* Conceptual Analysis and the Essence of Space: Kant’s Metaphysical Exposition Revisited DOI 10.1515/agph-2015-0017 Abstract: I offer here an account of the methodology, historical context, and content of Kant’s so-called “Metaphysical Exposition of the Concept of Space” (MECS). Drawing on Critical and pre-Critical texts, I first argue that the arguments making up the MECS rest on a kind of conceptual analysis, one that yields (analytic) knowledge of the essence of space. Next, I situate Kant’s MECS in what I take to be its proper historical context: the debate between the Wolffians and Crusius about the correct analysis of the concept of space. Finally, I draw on the results of previous sections to provide a reconstruction of Kant’s so-called “first apriority argument.” On my reconstruction, the key premise of the argument is a claim to the effect that space grounds the possibility of the co-existence of whatever things occupy it. “To investigate the essences of things is the busi- ness and the end of philosophy.” (AA 24:115) 1 Introduction In the Transcendental Aesthetic of the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant argues that space is the a priori form of outer intuition (call this the Form Thesis).¹,² Kant’s 1 References to the Critique of Pure Reason are given according to the pagination of the first (A) and second (B) editions. In quotations I have followed Critique of Pure Reason (Kant 1998). References to other works by Kant are given by volume and page number of the Berlin Akademie edition (cited as AA).
  • Redalyc.Imagination in Avicenna and Kant

    Redalyc.Imagination in Avicenna and Kant

    Tópicos, Revista de Filosofía ISSN: 0188-6649 [email protected] Universidad Panamericana México Bäck, Allan Imagination in Avicenna and Kant Tópicos, Revista de Filosofía, núm. 29, 2005, pp. 101-130 Universidad Panamericana Distrito Federal, México Available in: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=323027318006 How to cite Complete issue Scientific Information System More information about this article Network of Scientific Journals from Latin America, the Caribbean, Spain and Portugal Journal's homepage in redalyc.org Non-profit academic project, developed under the open access initiative Imagination in Avicenna and Kant Allan Back Kutztown University The intellect thinks time in the now^ In comparing the views of Avicenna and Kant on the imagination, we find a striking congnience of doctrine, Kant's doctrines of the syntheses of the imagination in his Transcendental Deduction (both A and B) have remarkable similarities with Avicerma's views. For both Avicenna and Kant, the imagination serves to connect the phenomenal and the noumenal. At the least this comparison has the dual use of placing Kant's doctrines in the context of the Aristotelian tradition and of illuminatiiig the modem r significance of the thought of Avicenna, Since Kant's thought is more familiar to us than Avicenna's (although perhaps not as evident in itself), we can use Kant also to help us understand the claims of Avicenna, On the other hand, tliis comparison may help to support the claim that an understanding of Kant lies to a large extent in his medieval and post-medieval roots -just as Copernicus, in his own "Copemican revolution", was following certain earlier traditions.
  • The Univocity of Substance and the Formal Distinction of Attributes: the Role of Duns Scotus in Deleuze's Reading of Spinoza Nathan Widder

    The Univocity of Substance and the Formal Distinction of Attributes: the Role of Duns Scotus in Deleuze's Reading of Spinoza Nathan Widder

    parrhesia 33 · 2020 · 150-176 the univocity of substance and the formal distinction of attributes: the role of duns scotus in deleuze's reading of spinoza nathan widder This paper examines the role played by medieval theologian John Duns Scotus in Gilles Deleuze’s reading of Spinoza’s philosophy of expressive substance; more generally, it elaborates a crucial moment in the development of Deleuze’s philosophy of sense and difference. Deleuze contends that Spinoza adapts and extends Duns Scotus’s two most influential theses, the univocity of being and formal distinction, despite neither appearing explicitly in Spinoza’s writings. “It takes nothing away from Spinoza’s originality,” Deleuze declares, “to place him in a perspective that may already be found in Duns Scotus” (Deleuze, 1992, 49).1 Nevertheless, the historiographic evidence is clearly lacking, leaving Deleuze to admit that “it is hardly likely that” Spinoza had even read Duns Scotus (359n28). Indeed, the only support he musters for his speculation is Spinoza’s obvious in- terests in scholastic metaphysical and logical treatises, the “probable influence” of the Scotist-informed Franciscan priest Juan de Prado on his thought, and the fact that the problems Duns Scotus addresses need not be confined to Christian thought (359–360n28). The paucity of evidence supporting this “use and abuse” of history, however, does not necessarily defeat the thesis. Like other lineages Deleuze proposes, the one he traces from Duns Scotus to Spinoza, and subsequently to Nietzsche, turns not on establishing intentional references by one thinker to his predecessor, but instead on showing how the borrowings and adaptations asserted to create the connec- tion make sense of the way the second philosopher surmounts blockages he faces while responding to issues left unaddressed by the first.
  • Can God's Goodness Save the Divine Command Theory

    Can God's Goodness Save the Divine Command Theory

    CAN GOD’S GOODNESS SAVE THE DIVINE COMMAND THEORY FROM EUTHYPHRO? JEREMY KOONS Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in Qatar Abstract. Recent defenders of the divine command theory like Adams and Alston have confronted the Euthyphro dilemma by arguing that although God’s commands make right actions right, God is morally perfect and hence would never issue unjust or immoral commandments. On their view, God’s nature is the standard of moral goodness, and God’s commands are the source of all obligation. I argue that this view of divine goodness fails because it strips God’s nature of any features that would make His goodness intelligible. An adequate solution to the Euthyphro dilemma may require that God be constrained by a standard of goodness that is external to Himself – itself a problematic proposal for many theists. The Euthyphro dilemma is often thought to present a fatal problem for the divine command theory (aka theological voluntarism). Are right acts commanded by God because they are right, or are they right because they are commanded by God? If the former, then there is a standard of right and wrong independent of God’s commands; God’s commands are not relevant in determining the content of morality. This option seems to compromise God’s sovereignty in an important way. But the second horn of the dilemma presents seemingly insurmountable problems, as well. First, if God’s commands make right actions right, and there is no standard of morality independent of God’s commands, then that seems to make morality arbitrary. Thus, murder is not wrong because it harms someone unjustly, but merely because God forbids it; there is (it seems) no good connection between reason and the wrongness of murder.
  • Essentially Rational Animals

    Essentially Rational Animals

    Essentially Rational Animals The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Boyle, Matthew. Forthcoming. Essentially rational animals. In Rethinking epistemology, ed. Guenther Abel and James Conant. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Grutyer. Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:8641838 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA Essentially Rational Animals Matthew Boyle, Harvard University —Forthcoming in Rethinking Epistemology, ed. G. Abel and J. Conant— One may call this whole disposition of the human being’s powers whatever one likes: understanding, reason, awareness, etc. It is indifferent to me, so long as one does not assume these terms to name discrete powers or mere increased levels of the animal powers. It is the whole organization of all human powers; the whole domestic economy of his sensing and cognizing, his cognizing and willing nature… The difference is not in levels or the addition of powers, but in a quite different sort of orientation and unfolding of all powers. J. G. Herder, Treatise on the Origin of Languages I, §2 (2002, pp. 82-3) 1. Introduction 1.1 According to a tradition reaching back at least as far as Aristotle, human beings are set apart from other terrestrial creatures by their rationality. Other animals, according to this tradition, are capable of sensation and appetite, but they are not capable of thought, the kind of activity characteristic of the rational part of the soul.
  • Existentialism

    Existentialism

    TOPIC FOR- SEM- III ( PHIL-CC 10) CONTEMPORARY WESTERN PHILOSOPHY BY- DR. VIJETA SINGH ASSISTANT PROFESSOR P.G. DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY PATNA UNIVERSITY Existentialism Existentialism is a philosophy that emphasizes individual existence, freedom and choice. It is the view that humans define their own meaning in life, and try to make rational decisions despite existing in an irrational universe. This philosophical theory propounds that people are free agents who have control over their choices and actions. Existentialists believe that society should not restrict an individual's life or actions and that these restrictions inhibit free will and the development of that person's potential. History 1 Existentialism originated with the 19th Century philosopher Soren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche, but they did not use the term (existentialism) in their work. In the 1940s and 1950s, French existentialists such as Jean- Paul Sartre , Albert Camus and Simone de Beauvoir wrote scholarly and fictional works that popularized existential themes, such as dread, boredom, alienation, the absurd, freedom, commitment and nothingness. The first existentialist philosopher who adopted the term as a self-description was Sartre. Existentialism as a distinct philosophical and literary movement belongs to the 19th and 20th centuries, but elements of existentialism can be found in the thought (and life) of Socrates, in the Bible, and in the work of many pre-modern philosophers and writers. Noted Existentialists: Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) Nationality Denmark Friedrich Nietzsche(1844-1900) Nationality Germany Paul Tillich(1886-1965) Nati…United States, Germany Martin Heidegger ( 1889-1976) Nati…Germany Simone de Beauvior(1908-1986) Nati…France Albert Camus (1913-1960) Nati….France Jean Paul Sartre (1905-1980) Nati….France 2 What does it mean to exist ? To have reason.
  • John Duns Scotus's Metaphysics of Goodness

    John Duns Scotus's Metaphysics of Goodness

    University of South Florida Scholar Commons Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate School 11-16-2015 John Duns Scotus’s Metaphysics of Goodness: Adventures in 13th-Century Metaethics Jeffrey W. Steele University of South Florida, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd Part of the Medieval History Commons, Philosophy Commons, and the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons Scholar Commons Citation Steele, Jeffrey W., "John Duns Scotus’s Metaphysics of Goodness: Adventures in 13th-Century Metaethics" (2015). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/6029 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. John Duns Scotus’s Metaphysics of Goodness: Adventures in 13 th -Century Metaethics by Jeffrey Steele A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Philosophy College of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida Major Professor: Thomas Williams, Ph.D. Roger Ariew, Ph.D. Colin Heydt, Ph.D. Joanne Waugh, Ph.D Date of Approval: November 12, 2015 Keywords: Medieval Philosophy, Transcendentals, Being, Aquinas Copyright © 2015, Jeffrey Steele DEDICATION To the wife of my youth, who with patience and long-suffering endured much so that I might gain a little knowledge. And to God, fons de bonitatis . She encouraged me; he sustained me. Both have blessed me. “O taste and see that the LORD is good; How blessed is the man who takes refuge in Him!!” --Psalm 34:8 “You are the boundless good, communicating your rays of goodness so generously, and as the most lovable being of all, every single being in its own way returns to you as its ultimate end.” –John Duns Scotus, De Primo Principio Soli Deo Gloria .