Thursday, March 19, 2009

Were the Scotistae Jerks?

Some amusing quotes I have come across in the articles of Pius Sagues Azcona and Ludger Meier.

Petrus de Navarra (14th cen.): "quantum ad tertium dico quod, quantum mihi videtur, primi et secundi non discordant in re; loquor de principalibus doctoribus qui praedictas opiniones posuerunt; si aliqui alii declaraverunt aliter, non curo."

"Per istam distinctionem non intelligo ponere plures formalitates vel plures modos reales, ut quidam dicunt, nec hoc posuit Scotus, iudicio meo, quamvis hoc sibi multi male imponant".

"Quantum ad secundum, licet ista positio sit pulchra et bene declarata tam in Quodlibet suo quam in Scripto super Primum, non capio. Et movet me potissime illa ratio..."

Petrus Thomae (14th cen.): "Ad argumenta alterius opinionis, solvas quomodo volueris, quia doctor non solvit ea nec eorum solutiones ponit."

"cum non scotizes, nam Scotus ponit...Non legi quod expresse ponat quod ens praedicetur in 'quid' de mediis differentiis, tamen vulgus imposuit sibi..."

"Ipse non habuit intellectum doctoris sui"

"Iste sic opinans non habet intellectum Scoti"

"Nec intelligo hic proprietates... esse ultimas differentias, sicut aliqui dicunt volentes exponere Scotum; falsum est, nec intelligunt ipsum."

"Forte diceres: tu dicis contra doctorem tuum. Dico quod non dico contra doctorem meum; immo tu, qui non capis ipsum, arguis ex ignorantia"

"circa secundam partem quaestionis, quae est de rerum inquisitione, sic est procedendum: nam in principio quaestionis disputabitur acriter contra adversarios, secundo dulciter ad amicos."

Ioannes Bremer (15th cen.): "Alia est opinio Scoti et suorum sequacium sc. Franciscus de Maronis, Cathon, licet Petrus de Navarra in hac opinione apostataverit a schola Scoti"

Matthias Doering (15th cen.): [on John of Ripa] " [rationes] hae sonant ac si non habuissent mentem Scoti vel forte noluit eum intelligere".

[on Francis of Meyronnes]: "Sed salva reverentia istius doctoris, qui in multis extollit Scotum, in hoc passu minus bene eum respexit"

"Aliter respondent subtiles, credentes se scotizare, sc. Petrus Thomas et Petrus de Ravenna"

8 comments:

Michael said...

Scotus, QQ In Metaphysicam, Lib. VII Q. 19.42: "Qui melius scit exponere differentiam intentionis, evandendo dictas difficultates, exponat."

So Scotus talks like this too sometimes. Maybe it's just being frank. This stuff is hard and not everyone who can use the terminology really understands what's going on. That said some of these were pretty stinkin' funny.

Michael said...

My favorite:

"Forte diceres: tu dicis contra doctorem tuum. Dico quod non dico contra doctorem meum; immo tu, qui non capis ipsum, arguis ex ignorantia"

"Maybe you would say: you speak against your doctor. I say that I don't speak against my doctor but rather than you, who don't understand him, argue out of ignorance!"

Ha ha.

ePonyMous said...

"...but rather than you, who don't understand him, argue out of ignorance!"


HILARIOUS!

That sounds like the very line typically used by commenters against their detractors!

Doctorsubtilis said...

Did you find them on the edition of Petrus de Atarrabia on the 1st of Sentences ?

Lee Faber said...

Yes, the Peter of Navarre and Peter Thomae quotes are from Pio Sagues Azcona's introduction, the Erfurt scholars quotes are from Ludger Maier's article in Antonianum on the erfurt school.

ePonyMous said...

Just who is this notable/notorious "Lee Faber" they keep talking about in these comments posted by a James Chastek at W4?


"Re. the analogy problem in Scotus and St. Thomas:

It's better to see St. Thoams and Scotus using different senses of the words "univocal" and "analogous". For the Thomist, univocity means most of all a single genus for the members. Scotus never says that there is a single genus for God and creatures, and in fact he denies this altogether, which is enough to preserve (most of) the sense of what we Thomists mean by analogy. Lee Faber at the Smithy could give you the pertinent texts.

When Scotus affirms univocity between God and creatures he is taking "univocal" in a logical sense where it means "the term, when used in a syllogism maintains sufficient unity to make conclusions possible." To use an example: both St. Thomas and Scotus agree that this argument structure works:

A exists
A is being caused by B
so B exists

(A is something given in sensation, B is something "all call God")

For Scotus, however, univocity is nothing other than the unity in the term "exists" that allows you to have it meaningfully in the premises and the conclusion. So stipulated, no thomist needs to deny the univocity of being and "to exist". We thomists simply deny that this is what "univocal" means. Cajetan at one point describes Scotus's argument that God and creatures are univocal, but not homogeneous by saying something like "Scotus gives an argument for this, but it is beneath his dignity".

Calling Lee Faber..."


(LINK: http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2009/03/the_less_rey_knows_the_less_he.html#comment-50922)

Anonymous said...

LINK:

Paging Lee Faber...

Anonymous said...

Lee,

Thanks -- just saw your comment!

I thought that the thread could use somebody who actually knew and studied Scotus.

Appreciate it!