DOCSLIB.ORG

Michel Foucault and Thomas Aquinas in Dialogue on the Basis And

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Michel Foucault and Thomas Aquinas in Dialogue on the Basis And MICHEL FOUCAULT AND THOMAS AQUINAS IN DIALOGUE ON THE BASIS AND CONSUMMATION OF INTELLIGIBILITY A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of Theology of the Dominican House of Studies in Candidacy for the Degree of Master of Arts in Theology by Elliot Michael Milco Thesis Director: Fr. John Dominic Corbett, O.P. May 2013 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction Chapter I. Michel Foucault and the Emergence of Genealogy Section 1. The Pre-History of Genealogical Analysis §1 Descartes and Kant §2 Nietzsche Section 2. Two Post-Nietzschean Developments §3 Structuralism §4 Heidegger Section 3. Three Faces of Michel Foucault A. Moriae Encomium §5 Method and Historiography §6 A New Triumph for Madness B. The Critique of Rationality §7 Dissolving the Transcendental §8 Toward a New Analytical Vocabulary C. The Will to Knowledge §9 Foucault the Nietzschean §10 Power §11 Genealogy and the Genealogist 2 Chapter II. Orders of Intelligibility in Thomistic Ontology Section 1. Defense of First Principles §12 A Foundationalist Dilemma §13 Defense of Non-Contradiction as a Metaphysical Principle §14 Reflections on the Defense of Non-Contradiction Section 2. The Order and Limits of Human Understanding §15 The Nature of Understanding §16 Response to a Kantian Objection §17 The Order of Natural Human Knowledge §18 Implications for Philosophy and Transmitted Knowledge §19 The Consummation of Human Understanding Section 3. The Order of Things §20 Ordo Inventionis and Ordo Rerum §21 A Sketch of the Real Order of Intelligibility Chapter III. In Dialogue §22 Recapitulation §23 An Imaginary Dialogue §24 The Uses of Genealogy Bibliography 3 4 INTRODUCTION Four friends go to see a movie. As they leave the theater, they discuss what they saw. Andy and Ben find that they disagree about what happened in a specific scene, and, as a result, differ on its significance for the story. Did Cinderella leave the ball before midnight, or after? Did she deserve to have her nice things turned back into mice and rags? While Andy and Ben are caught on this point, Charlie enters the fray, and tells them they are both wrong: the story is not about Cinderella deserving or not deserving something. In fact, it is not about Cinderella at all, but the restoration of nobility to its proper place in society. Charlie explains that stories are not really about individual characters in particular situations, but social types and class interactions. Ben retorts that types and classes are grounded in individuals and their behavior, so that stories are first of all about people, and then secondarily about social classes. The three of them shift to this question, and the terms of the debate become more abstract. Finally the fourth friend, David, joins in and says that Andy, Ben, and Charlie are all mistaken: there is no such thing as what the 5 movie was "really" about, or what really grounds its content and holds it together. The movie is just a free-floating network of scenes and dialogue which can be gathered or dispersed along different lines by the person viewing it, and which have no essential meaning. The first three are outraged. Charlie objects that David is hiding what he actually thinks, namely that the essential meaning of the movie lies in its scenes and the arrangement of dialogue, while Andy says that David's account of things is incoherent because it ignores the intention of the director and actors. Ben, however, sees that there's something correct in David's analysis, but worries that David's thesis has made it impossible for the conversation to proceed. This story illustrates a few of the different levels of disagreement people can encounter, across all the sciences and disciplines, and especially in philosophical and theological discussion. On the first level there are disagreements about facts within a shared understanding of their context and meaning, and, slightly above this, disputes about the relationships between accepted facts and the larger whole of which they form a part. For lack of a better term, we will call these particular controversies. Andy and Ben, in our story, agree on what the movie is about, and they agree on what happened in it, but they differ as to the particular thrusts of the narrative: was it exactly this that happened, or something else? Does it bear this particular significance, or some other one? What bears significance, and the means by which it bears it are undisputed, and their agreement on these fundamentals enables conversation to happen rather easily. On the second level, there are disagreements about the fundamental orientation of things and the basic carriers of meaning or existence. We will call these ontological controversies. They are represented in our story by the exchange between Ben and Charlie. Both agree that there is some truth about the subject at hand, and both see the proper understanding of things as grounded in a basic unit from which the order and intelligibility of the whole flow. However, the 6 identification of that primary element or ground of truth and intelligibility differs between them, thus making their discussion more difficult. On the first level, the discussion proceeded with ease, as Andy and Ben were merely tweaking certain points of interpretation within a common framework. Progress could be made because the same ultimate understanding of the story was available to both, and so one view could triumph by virtue of its greater coherence or depth. Progress on the second level is much harder to come by. Here, the discussion is no longer grounded in a shared vision, since each understanding differs so much as to seem (at least potentially) to be about a different object. Instead, the discussion focuses on the interpretive mechanisms (categories, values, vocabularies, prejudices) by which the object is given significance. Ben can try to convince Charlie by explaining to him that Charlie's mode of interpretation is implicitly dependent on his own, but Charlie can do the same thing in turn. Because their fundamental commitments differ, there is no guarantee of progress on this level: each side can always critique the other for failing to sufficiently respect or account for the fundamental elements or grasping points which it takes as self-evident. Vertigo may have already stricken, but we proceed to the third level of disagreement, introduced in our story by David. Where Andy and Ben had disagreed on particulars, they could mediate their discussion through a shared vision of the whole. Where Ben and Charlie had disagreed on what constituted or completed a correct vision of things, they could at least proceed by virtue of their shared groping after the transcendental actuality of the thing. But David is more distant still. He does not accept that there are any fundamental elements or final visions, only a dispersion of indeterminate parts and groupings. The other three, in struggling to come to terms with David's position, resist it by means of various accusations. Perhaps David is not being intellectually honest, or maybe his position is simply absurd. Perhaps David, by moving beyond 7 the ontological level, has implicitly forfeited his right or ability to speak. On this level of controversy, which we will call genealogical, these and related accusations are raised and answered. Genealogical controversy is to be the chief domain of this thesis. In particular, we will be looking at the work of the twentieth century’s greatest genealogist, Michel Foucault. Our goal is to lay the groundwork for a confrontation between Foucault and one of the greatest ontologists, Thomas Aquinas, in order to see how each can respond to the other in dialogue about the basis and consummation of intelligibility. The thesis will unfold in three parts: first, a presentation of Foucauldian genealogy, its origins, forms, key concepts and analytical tools; second, a Thomistic account of the foundations of philosophical and theological discourse: the first principles of metaphysics, the nature and limits of human understanding, and the inner order of intelligibility in things; finally, an exchange between Aquinas and Foucault on the possibility of meaningful dialogue between them, and an analysis of the implications of this exchange. My hope is that this thesis will lay the groundwork for further explorations along these lines. The reader should, in the meanwhile, anticipate three points of interest along the way: first, that the role-model of the pure genealogist is the madman; second, that the Catholic theologian (in our case, the Thomist) has no legitimate disadvantage vis-à-vis the genealogist, but must exercise caution and humility about his own principles and ideas in order to shield himself from the genealogist’s attacks; third, that genealogy is a profoundly useful critical tool, ultimately amenable (when tempered) to the work of the metaphysician and the theologian. 8 CHAPTER ONE MICHEL FOUCAULT AND THE EMERGENCE OF GENEALOGY SECTION ONE: THE PRE-HISTORY OF GENEALOGICAL ANALYSIS Michel Foucault arrived late on the scene of modern European thought, and his identity and methodology are heavily determined by his predecessors. Before examining in detail Foucault's genealogical method of analysis, we will look at a few shifts in the history of philosophy that made a figure like Foucault possible. Our tour will begin with Descartes and Kant, and then shift to Nietzsche. In the next section we will look at two post-Nietzschean developments that are particularly important for Foucault, before turning to Foucault himself. §1 Descartes and Kant Foucault's emergence is part of a series of ruptures that has constituted western "modernity" since Descartes. The Cartesian revolution against baroque Scholasticism introduced 9 two thematic trends into the philosophy of the day: first, a preference for skeptical methodologies that attempt to do away with prejudice and conjecture and arrive at the skeleton of absolute knowledge upon which all other knowledge is based.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Online Library of Liberty: the Dialogues of Plato, Vol. 1
    The Online Library of Liberty A Project Of Liberty Fund, Inc. Plato, The Dialogues of Plato, vol. 1 [387 AD] The Online Library Of Liberty This E-Book (PDF format) is published by Liberty Fund, Inc., a private, non-profit, educational foundation established in 1960 to encourage study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals. 2010 was the 50th anniversary year of the founding of Liberty Fund. It is part of the Online Library of Liberty web site http://oll.libertyfund.org, which was established in 2004 in order to further the educational goals of Liberty Fund, Inc. To find out more about the author or title, to use the site's powerful search engine, to see other titles in other formats (HTML, facsimile PDF), or to make use of the hundreds of essays, educational aids, and study guides, please visit the OLL web site. This title is also part of the Portable Library of Liberty DVD which contains over 1,000 books and quotes about liberty and power, and is available free of charge upon request. The cuneiform inscription that appears in the logo and serves as a design element in all Liberty Fund books and web sites is the earliest-known written appearance of the word “freedom” (amagi), or “liberty.” It is taken from a clay document written about 2300 B.C. in the Sumerian city-state of Lagash, in present day Iraq. To find out more about Liberty Fund, Inc., or the Online Library of Liberty Project, please contact the Director at [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • Anselm's Cur Deus Homo
    Anselm’s Cur Deus Homo: A Meditation from the Point of View of the Sinner Gene Fendt Elements in Anselm's Cur Deus Homo point quite differently from the usual view of it as the locus classicus for a theory of Incarnation and Atonement which exhibits Christ as providing the substitutive revenging satisfaction for the infinite dishonor God suffers at the sin of Adam. This meditation will attempt to bring out how the rhetorical ergon of the work upon faith and conscience drives the sinner to see the necessity of the marriage of human with divine natures offered in Christ and how that marriage raises both man and creation out of sin and its defects. This explanation should exhibit both to believers, who seek to understand, and to unbelievers (primarily Jews and Muslims), from a common root, a solution "intelligible to all, and appealing because of its utility and the beauty of its reasoning" (1.1). Anselm’s Cur Deus Homo is the locus classicus for a theory of Incarnation and Atonement which exhibits Christ as providing the substitutive revenging satisfaction for the infinite dishonor God suffers at the sin of Adam (and company).1 There are elements in it, however, which seem to point quite differently from such a view. This meditation will attempt to bring further into the open how the rhetorical ergon of the work upon “faith and conscience”2 shows something new in this Paschal event, which cannot be well accommodated to the view which makes Christ a scapegoat killed for our sin.3 This ergon upon the conscience I take—in what I trust is a most suitably monastic fashion—to be more important than the theoretical theological shell which Anselm’s discussion with Boso more famously leaves behind.
    [Show full text]
  • EPISTEMIC CIRCULARITY: MALIGNANT and BENIGN Michael Bergmann
    EPISTEMIC CIRCULARITY: MALIGNANT AND BENIGN Michael Bergmann Consider the following dialogue: Juror #1: You know that witness named Hank? I have doubts about his trustworthiness. Juror #2: Well perhaps this will help you. Yesterday I overheard Hank claiming to be a trustworthy witness. Juror #1: So Hank claimed to be trustworthy did he? Well, that settles it then. I’m now convinced that Hank is trustworthy. Is the belief of Juror #1 that Hank is a trustworthy witness justified? Most of us would be inclined to say it isn’t. Juror #1 begins by having some doubts about Hank’s trustworthiness, and then he comes to believe that Hank is trustworthy. The problem is that he arrives at this belief on the basis of Hank’s own testimony. That isn’t reasonable. You can’t sensibly come to trust a doubted witness on the basis of that very witness’s testimony on his own behalf.1 Now consider the following soliloquy: Doubter: I have some doubts about the trustworthiness of my senses. After all, for all I know, they are deceiving me. Let’s see ... Hey, wait a minute. They are trustworthy! I recall many occasions in the past when I was inclined to hold certain perceptual beliefs. On each of those occasions, the beliefs I formed were true. I know that because the people I was with confirmed to me that they were true. By inductive reasoning, I can safely conclude from those past cases that my senses are trustworthy. There we go. It feels good to have those doubts about my senses behind me.
    [Show full text]
  • Semi-Colonized: Malebranche, Freire and My Summer in Nanjing Shannon Dea, Dept
    Shannon Dea Dept. of Philosophy Semi-Colonized: Malebranche, Freire and My Summer in Nanjing Shannon Dea, Dept. of Philosophy University of Waterloo [email protected] The opportunity Two dialogues Nicolas Malebranche, 1708 Paulo Freire, 1968 Malebranche’s dialogue • Chinese philosopher versus Christian philosopher • “insular eurocentrism” (Mungello, 1980) • Origins in mission work: an asymmetrical pedagogy Freire • “Banking model” of colonizer and colonized • Student-centred education • Conscientization • Dialogics What we did (two dialogues) • Critiqued Malebranche • Small groups in Chinese • “Li” translation • Oral dialogues A worry • What if dialogic pedagogy is more insidious than Malebranche’s? • What is the cost of effective teaching? Resistance is futile! When we make ourselves “accessible” to the students, we make it harder for them to resist us. Generalizing the worry… • Not just Chinese students • Not just Philosophy classes Why shouldn’t we colonize our students? • Because colonization creates intellectual monocultures • Because they are persons not objects. • Because, historically, colonialism has been the source of injustices. • Because we ought not to treat the future as a resource to be exploited. • Because this system of power is not worth reproducing just as it is. A question: How much should our students resist us? (And should we be the ones to decide?) Resistance vs. openness Semi-colonized? Even if our role as colonizers is inescapable, perhaps awareness of that fact, and resistance to it helps us to avoid the worst consequences of colonialism. Thank you! This talk would have been impossible without the intellectual generosity of Nicholas Ray and Rockney Jacobsen, who are jointly responsible for all of the good ideas and none of the bad ones.
    [Show full text]
  • Excerpts from David Hume=S Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion
    (4) Hume, Dialogues concerning Natural Religion. a. Text. Pubic domain. Excerpted, edited and annotated by A. C. Kibel Excerpts from David Hume=s Dialogues concerning Natural Religion ANatural Religion@ was a phrase appropriated to the notion of religious knowledge that did not depend upon a Revelation by GodCthe sort of religious doctrine that human beings could reason out for themselves without divine assistance. One assumption of Christianity had been that humanity was either too weak or too corrupt in mind (or both) to think clearly about religious fundamentals and that God in his mercy had revealed these fundamentals in the form of holy scriptures, whose interpretation conveyed doctrine about the nature of deity. Since the sixteenth century, however, the idea grew steadily that mankind could infer certain features of God=s existence by use of unaided reason in the study of the natural universe and its laws; this idea (associated with the view that God was immanent in the created world) was designated Atheism@ in the eighteenth-century. Closely allied with theism was the view of deism, which held that reason could establish the existence of God, quite apart from knowledge of his characteristics; this idea sometimes carried with it the notion that the fact of his existence was all we could know about him without divine revelation. Hume=s dialogue was composed in the decade before 1651 but was not published until after his death, in 1779, and the belief of most scholars is that he thought the doctrines it espoused were too radical to be exposed to the general public during his lifetime.
    [Show full text]
  • Supplementary Anselm-Bibliography 11
    SUPPLEMENTARY ANSELM-BIBLIOGRAPHY This bibliography is supplementary to the bibliographies contained in the following previous works of mine: J. Hopkins, A Companion to the Study of St. Anselm. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1972. _________. Anselm of Canterbury: Volume Four: Hermeneutical and Textual Problems in the Complete Treatises of St. Anselm. New York: Mellen Press, 1976. _________. A New, Interpretive Translation of St. Anselm’s Monologion and Proslogion. Minneapolis: Banning Press, 1986. Abulafia, Anna S. “St Anselm and Those Outside the Church,” pp. 11-37 in David Loades and Katherine Walsh, editors, Faith and Identity: Christian Political Experience. Oxford: Blackwell, 1990. Adams, Marilyn M. “Saint Anselm’s Theory of Truth,” Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale, I, 2 (1990), 353-372. _________. “Fides Quaerens Intellectum: St. Anselm’s Method in Philosophical Theology,” Faith and Philosophy, 9 (October, 1992), 409-435. _________. “Praying the Proslogion: Anselm’s Theological Method,” pp. 13-39 in Thomas D. Senor, editor, The Rationality of Belief and the Plurality of Faith. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1995. _________. “Satisfying Mercy: St. Anselm’s Cur Deus Homo Reconsidered,” The Modern Schoolman, 72 (January/March, 1995), 91-108. _________. “Elegant Necessity, Prayerful Disputation: Method in Cur Deus Homo,” pp. 367-396 in Paul Gilbert et al., editors, Cur Deus Homo. Rome: Prontificio Ateneo S. Anselmo, 1999. _________. “Romancing the Good: God and the Self according to St. Anselm of Canterbury,” pp. 91-109 in Gareth B. Matthews, editor, The Augustinian Tradition. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1999. _________. “Re-reading De Grammatico or Anselm’s Introduction to Aristotle’s Categories,” Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale, XI (2000), 83-112.
    [Show full text]
  • Notes on Dialogue, St. John's College
    Notes on Dialogue by Stringfellow Barr Perhaps the first obstacle to writing even these random notes on dialogue is that the very word, dialogue, has been temporarily turned into a cliché. Everybody is loudly demanding dialogue, and there is not much evidence that most of us are prepared to carry one on. Indeed, to borrow a traditional phrase from professional diplomats, conversations have deteriorated. But both radio and television, whether public or commercial, remind us daily that a lonely crowd hungers for dialogue, not only for the dialogue of theatre but also for the dialogue of the discussion program. * * * There is a pathos in television dialogue: the rapid exchange of monologues that fail to find the issue, like ships passing in the night; the reiterated preface, "I think that . .," as if it mattered who held which opinion rather than which opinion is worth holding; the impressive personal vanity that prevents each "discussant" from really listening to another speaker and that compels him to use this God-given pause to compose his own next monologue; the further vanity, or instinctive caution, that leads him to choose very long words, whose true meaning he has never grasped, rather than short words that he understands but that would leave the emptiness of his point of view naked and exposed to a mass public. There is pathos in the meaningless gestures: the extended chopping hands, fingers rigidly held parallel and together, the rigid wayward thumb pointing to heaven. A knowledgeable theatrical director would cringe at these gestures and would perhaps faint when the extended palms, one held in front of the other, are made to revolve rapidly around each other, thereby imitating and emphasizing the convolutions of a mind that races like a motor not in gear.
    [Show full text]
  • Dialogue on Babbitt and Epistemology
    Dialogue on Babbitt and Epistemology Babbitt, Literary Positivism, And Neo-Positivism A. Owen Aldridge University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign In a recent issue of this journal Professor Claes G. Ryn has raised the question of the legitimacy of classifying Irving Babbitt as an adherent to the method of literary criticism known as positivism.1 His remarks were stimulated by my own advocacy of restoring to common use a critical methodology, positivism, widely designated under that name, which Babbitt looked upon with favor. Labelling my renewed version neo-positivism, I described it as “a method of objective description allowing for esthetic and moral evaluations and welcoming multicul- turalism as represented by Babbitt at the beginning of the century and Etiemble at its end.” 2 Seeking a compromise between ap- proaches based on analysis of technique and those on culture, I pro- posed that “such a neo-positivism could embrace both stylistically- oriented studies and those tending toward history.” I also described Babbitt as “a self-proclaimed positivist.” Professor Ryn objected to my proposal on two principal grounds: 1) that positivism is a system appropriate to the natural sciences, but not to the humanities; 2) that Babbitt used the terms “positivist” and “positivism” loosely and that he did not in his own practice follow positivistic methodology. Before venturing an opinion on whether Professor Ryn’s objections are well founded, I shall give a brief sketch of the meaning of positiv- ism in history and a somewhat more extensive sketch of Babbitt’s treat- 1 “How We Know What We Know: Babbitt, Positivism and Beyond,” 8:1 (1995), 6- 25.
    [Show full text]
  • Genuine Dialogue and a Rhetoric of Virtue Daniel Anthony Grano Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, [email protected]
    Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Doctoral Dissertations Graduate School 2003 The means of ignorance: genuine dialogue and a rhetoric of virtue Daniel Anthony Grano Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations Part of the Speech and Rhetorical Studies Commons Recommended Citation Grano, Daniel Anthony, "The means of ignorance: genuine dialogue and a rhetoric of virtue" (2003). LSU Doctoral Dissertations. 3079. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations/3079 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized graduate school editor of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please [email protected]. THE MEANS OF IGNORANCE: GENUINE DIALOGUE AND A RHETORIC OF VIRTUE A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in The Department of Communication Studies by Daniel A. Grano B.A., University of Memphis, 1995 M.M.C., Louisiana State University, 1997 August 2003 DEDICATION This is for Dee, who sustained me with love, support, patience, and turkey sandwiches. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS A special thanks goes to my mother and father, Lucille and Anthony Grano, for teaching me the values reflected in this study, and what it means to work hard on things that matter. I am also grateful for a blessed relationship with my brother, Ken. My deepest gratitude goes to Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Religion As a Virtue: Thomas Aquinas on Worship Through Justice, Law
    RELIGION AS A VIRTUE: THOMAS AQUINAS ON WORSHIP THROUGH JUSTICE, LAW, AND CHARITY Submitted by Robert Jared Staudt A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctorate in Theology Director: Dr. Matthew Levering Ave Maria University 2008 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION CHAPTER ONE: THE CLASSICAL AND PATRISTIC TRADITION CHAPTER TWO: THE MEDIEVAL CONTEXT CHAPTER THREE: WORSHIP IN THE WORKS OF ST. THOMAS AQUINAS CHAPTER FOUR: JUSTICE AS ORDER TO GOD CHAPTER FIVE: GOD’S ASSISTANCE THROUGH LAW CHAPTER SIX: TRUE WORSHIP IN CHRIST CONCLUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY ABBREVIATIONS 2 INTRODUCTION Aquinas refers to religion as virtue. What is the significance of such a claim? Georges Cottier indicates that “to speak today of religion as a virtue does not come across immediately as the common sense of the term.”1 He makes a contrast between a sociological or psychological evaluation of religion, which treats it as “a religious sentiment,” and one which strives for truth.2 The context for the second evaluation entails both an anthropological and Theistic context as the two meet within the realm of the moral life. Ultimately, the study of religion as virtue within the moral life must be theological since it seeks to under “the true end of humanity” and “its historic condition, marked by original sin and the gift of grace.”3 Aquinas places religion within the context of a moral relation to God, as a response to God’s initiative through Creation and 4 Redemption. 1 Georges Cardinal Cottier. “La vertu de religion.” Revue Thomiste (jan-juin 2006): 335. 2 Joseph Bobik also distinguished between different approaches to the study of religion, particularly theological, philosophical, and scientific, all of which would give different answers to the question “what is religion?.” Veritas Divina: Aquinas on Divine Truth: Some Philosophy of Religion.
    [Show full text]
  • Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion
    Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion David Hume Copyright © Jonathan Bennett 2017. All rights reserved [Brackets] enclose editorial explanations. Small ·dots· enclose material that has been added, but can be read as though it were part of the original text. Occasional •bullets, and also indenting of passages that are not quotations, are meant as aids to grasping the structure of a sentence or a thought. Every four-point ellipsis . indicates the omission of a brief passage that seems to present more difficulty than it is worth. Longer omissions are reported with square brackets in normal-sized type. First launched: July 2004 Last amended: November 2007 Contents Letter from Pamphilus to Hermippus 1 Part 1 2 Part 2 9 Part 3 16 Part 4 20 Part 5 24 Part 6 27 Part 7 30 Dialogues concerning Natural Religion David Hume Part 8 34 Part 9 38 Part 10 40 Part 11 47 Part 12 54 Dialogues concerning Natural Religion David Hume Pamphilus to Hermippus Letter from Pamphilus to Hermippus It has been remarked that though the ancient philosophers deserves to be taught repeatedly, seems to require some mostly taught through dialogues, the dialogue form hasn’t such method of handling it. In a dialogue, the novelty of the been much used in recent times, and has seldom succeeded manner of presentation may make up for •the triteness of the when people have tried it. ·There is a good reason for this·. subject; and the liveliness of the conversation may •reinforce Philosophical enquirers these days are expected to produce the teaching. Also, the variety of different angles from which precise and orderly arguments; and someone aiming at those the characters in the dialogue approach the subject may will naturally proceed with a methodical exposition in which appear neither tedious nor redundant.
    [Show full text]
  • Anselm of Canterbury's Theory of Meaning
    Anselm of Canterbury’s Theory of Meaning: Analysis of Some Semantic Distinctions in De Grammatico María Cerezo The dialogue De Grammatico, written by Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109), has received little attention, due most likely to its complexity.1 The work includes a conception of paronymy according to which a paronym signifies a quality and is appellative of a substance. The received interpretation of the dialogue was offered by Desmond Paul Henry in 1964,2 but the more recent research of Alain Galonnier, Marilyn McCord Adams, John Marenbon, Peter King and Peter Boschung has brought fresh issues to light, revealing the importance of Anselmian doctrines in the dialogue.3 I have chosen to study De Grammatico on this occasion because Angel d’Ors considered that work and its doctrines significant and encouraged me to read 1 For an analysis of the reasons why St Anselm’s place in the history of logic has been over- looked, cf. Sara Uckelman, ‘The Reception of Saint Anselm’s Logic in the Twentieth and Twenty-First Centuries’, in Saint Anselm of Canterbury and His Legacy, ed. G.E.M. Gasper and I. Logan (Toronto, 2012), 405-26. 2 Desmond Paul Henry, The De Grammatico of St. Anselm: The Theory of Paronymy (Notre Dame, 1964). 3 Alain Galonnier, ‘(Au sujet) de Grammarien’, in Le Grammarien; De la vérité; la liberté du choix; la chute du diable: Anselme de Cantorbéry, ed. A. Galonnier, M. Corbin and R. de Ravinel (Paris, 1986), 25-49; idem, ‘Le De Grammatico et l’origine de la théorie des proprietés des termes’, in Gilbert de Poitiers et ses Contemporains: aux Origines de la Logica Modernorum, ed.
    [Show full text]