Suárez on the Reduction of Categorical Relations
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Philosophers’ volume 13, no. 2 ertrand Russell is often credited with bringing the sig- january 2013 nificance of relations to philosophers’ attention. He not only Imprint B recognizes relations as interesting in their own right but is convinced that one’s account of relations bears on many other cen- tral philosophical issues: The question of relations is one of the most important Suárez on the Reduction that arise in philosophy, as most other issues turn on it: monism and pluralism; the question whether anything is true except the whole of truth, or wholly real except the whole of reality; idealism and realism, in some of their of Categorical Relations forms; perhaps the whole existence of philosophy as a subject distinct from science and possessing a method of its own.1 It is certainly the case that much of the attention analytic philosophy has given to relations has been inspired by Russell’s work. But Russell was not the first philosopher to give relations significant philosophical scrutiny. No other tradition has paid relations as much attention as the medieval and early modern scholastic tradition, in which nearly every theologian and philosopher devoted some ― and often considerable ― discussion to relations.2 One does not have to look far to see why. Sydney Penner This is a tradition with a healthy respect for its intellectual forebears, and two of the most prominent of those forebears were Aristotle Merton College (the Philosopher) and Augustine. Relations form one of the ten University of Oxford basic categories of being for Aristotle.3 A further six categories look suspiciously like they might involve relations. It is hardly surprising, then, that an Aristotelian tradition would take note of relations. If 1. “Logical Atomism”, in Logic and Knowledge: Essays, 1901–1950, ed. Robert Charles Marsh (London: Allen and Unwin, 1956), 333. 2. Assertions such as the following by D.M. Armstrong appear rather ill-ad- vised: “Philosophy has been a long time coming to grips with the category © 2013 Sydney Penner of relations…. It is not until the late nineteenth and the twentieth century with C.S. Peirce, William James, and Bertrand Russell that relations begin (no This work is licensed under a Creative Commons more than begin) to come into focus” (Universals: An Opinionated Introduction Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License. [Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1989], 29). <www.philosophersimprint.org/013002/> 3. Aristotle, Categories 7 6a37–8b24 and Metaphysics V.15 1020b26–1021b11. sydney penner Suárez on the Reduction of Categorical Relations that weren’t motivation enough, Augustine made relations central entitled On Real Relation,9 the 47th of his 54 Metaphysical Disputations. to discussions of the Trinity by suggesting that the divine persons He also deals with relations extensively elsewhere ― e. g., with divine are constituted in some way by relations.4 This combination of relations in De Deo Uno et Trino and with relations of reason in the philosophical and theological motivation gave rise to a rich tradition 54th of the Metaphysical Disputations ― but On Real Relation will provide of sophisticated thought about relations. ample material for present purposes.10 This tradition remains relatively unexplored. Some valuable The history of discussion about relations to which Suárez is heir is work has been done on scholastics from the twelfth century to the both a blessing and a curse, especially to someone of his temperament. early fourteenth century.5 The next philosopher whose work receives Suárez is extraordinarily scholarly, painstakingly judicious with his significant attention is Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716), heir sources, and a harmonist who finds it well-nigh impossible to throw to the medieval discussions.6 Both endpoints have further work left received parts of the tradition overboard. On the one hand, it would be to be done, but in between we have several centuries almost entirely a challenge to find any interesting argument about relations from the unaccounted for. Francisco Suárez (1548–1617), one of the shining previous two millennia of Western philosophical reflection that does philosophical lights of Spain’s Golden Age, falls into that unexplored not receive at least passing attention from Suárez. On the other hand, period.7 He wrote more about relations than anyone else of whom I as we will see later in the paper, there are various places where one know.8 The centrepiece of his discussion is a book-length treatise gets the impression that Suárez ties himself into knots in increasingly desperate attempts to preserve parts of the tradition that he might 4. De Trinitate V. better have jettisoned.11 5. The central English-language works are by Jeffrey E. Brower, “Abelard’s Theory of Relations: Reductionism and the Aristotelian Tradition”, The Review of Meta- 9. About 55,000 words in Latin, to be more precise. While writing my paper I physics 51 (1998): 605–31; “Relations Without Polyadic Properties: Albert the was not aware of any other English-language discussions of Suárez on rela- Great on the Nature and Ontological Status of Relations”, Archiv für Geschichte der tions, but another paper has just been published: Jorge Secada, “Suárez on Philosophie 83 (2001): 225–57; “Medieval Theories of Relations”, The Stanford En- the Ontology of Relations”, in Interpreting Suárez: Critical Essays, ed. Daniel cyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2010 Edition), ed. Edward N. Zalta, URL = <http:// Schwartz (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 62–88. Secada plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2010/entries/relations-medieval/>; and by covers some of the same material that I do, though our emphases differ. On Mark G. Henninger, Relations: Medieval Theories 1250–1325 (Oxford: Clarendon reading his paper, I was gratified to see that our interpretations appear to be Press, 1989). Some additional works will be cited in the course of the paper. broadly in agreement. 6. I will not cite the large literature on the question of whether Leibniz was a 10. I will cite Metaphysical Disputations (henceforth: DM) by disputation, section, reductionist about relations; interested readers can consult Anja Jauernig’s and paragraph number. Latin quotations are from the 1597 Salamanca edition, “Disentangling Leibniz’s Views on Relations and Extrinsic Denominations” which provides the most reliable text. The work is most easily available, how- (Journal of the History of Philosophy 48 [2010]: 171–205) for references to the ever, as volumes 25 and 26 of the Opera omnia published in Paris in 1856–78 relevant literature, not to mention reading her paper for its own excellent and reprinted in Hildesheim in 1965. Quotations from other works are from discussion of the question. the Opera omnia and are cited by the relevant division numbers. All transla- 7. For an introduction to Suárez, see Jorge J.E. Gracia’s “Francisco Suárez: The tions are mine, with consultation of John P. Doyle’s valuable translation of the Man in History” (American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 65 [1991]: 259–66) 47th disputation (On Real Relation [Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, and the other articles in the same journal issue. Alfred J. Freddoso provides 2006]) in relevant cases. a nice overview of Suárez’s metaphysics, albeit with an eye to efficient causa- 11. Cf. Karl Eschweiler’s comment: “Das eigentümlich Neue dieser [jesuitischen] tion, in his introduction to On Creation, Conservation, and Concurrence: Meta- Schulphilosophie … wird bei Suarez noch gern im Kompromiß mit den aus der Hoch- physical Disputations 20–22 (South Bend, IN: St. Augustine’s Press, 2002). scholastik überkommenen Denkgewohnheiten vorgetragen” (“Roderigo de Arriaga 8. The qualification “of whom I know” is necessary, given the state of our knowl- S. J.: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Barockscholastik”, Gesammelte Aufsätze zur edge of the period. Kulturgeschichte Spaniens 3 [1931]: 255). philosophers’ imprint – 2 – vol. 13, no. 2 (january 2013) sydney penner Suárez on the Reduction of Categorical Relations The paper will proceed as follows: Section 1 presents some of the prefer to use the archaic English cognate rather than a more elegant relevant terminology and taxonomy for talking about Suárez’s account translation). In some texts it looks like Suárez may be using it as just of relations. In section 2, I introduce the motivation for a reductionist another term for relations. In other texts, however, one senses that account of relations and look at Suárez’s main treatment of that question there may be a distinction lurking in the background, a distinction as well as a related question about whether relations constitute an that he, unfortunately, does not spell out. What is clear is that he Aristotelian category. Sections 3 and 4 take a closer look at Suárez’s primarily uses ‘habitude’ when he has transcendental relations in reductionism, especially some of the reasons why he is reluctant to mind (see the taxonomy below). Since the focus in this paper is on throw in his lot with other reductionists wholeheartedly. Section 5 categorical relations, just what Suárez means by ‘habitude’ is less of sketches some worries concerning reductionism about relations and a concern for us.13 reveals that Suárez’s reductionism may not be as thoroughgoing as it He also frequently uses the term ‘relative’ (‘relativum’), which in its appears at first glance. I end by addressing a lingering issue concerning strict sense he defines as something that consists of a subject together relations’ status as a distinct category of real being. with its relation — so Peter, with his relation of similarity to John, is a relative. Suárez notes that the term is also used more loosely to refer 1. Terminological and taxonomic preliminaries to the subjects of relations.14 Medieval philosophers quickly developed a professional vocabulary Second, there are the terms for the different elements needed to for talking about relations. Suárez shares this standard vocabulary construct a theory of relations.