tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post2796129906113928595..comments2024-03-11T04:11:06.487-04:00Comments on The Smithy: Eco on Beauty in Thomas Aquinas and ScotusLee Faberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00476833516234522602noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-4769453462938812962008-08-19T01:49:00.000-04:002008-08-19T01:49:00.000-04:00What he seems to mean is that it is not one catego...What he seems to mean is that it is not one categorical item, i.e. one of the species of quality. It may be a relation in a very loose sense, and not in the sense of the category of relation. Proportion would seem to be the best word to describe all this, the proportion of all of the objects characteristics taken as a whole. I am not sure that the unicity/pluralist debate Eco brings up is relevant here, unless Thomas really does think things are beautiful by having the form of beauty inhere in them, though that sounds rather childish and non-explanatory to me. In any case, both Thomas and Scotus think that humans are unified, ie have unity.<BR/><BR/>I'm also not sure what is meant by "analytical" here, and his talk on haecceitas is all wrong. And the bit on the intellect is just plain non sensical.Lee Faberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00476833516234522602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-74630257982501605192008-08-17T15:14:00.000-04:002008-08-17T15:14:00.000-04:00I don't understand Eco's quote from Scotus. If Sc...I don't understand Eco's quote from Scotus. If Scotus thinks beauty is an aggregate of properties belonging to the beautiful thing, what makes one aggregate beautiful and another ugly? Is beauty then a kind of relation (i.e. a kind of relation between a think and its properties)?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com