tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post453662678671579053..comments2024-03-11T04:11:06.487-04:00Comments on The Smithy: WOD: NihileitasLee Faberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00476833516234522602noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-41540773843436667832008-10-18T12:05:00.000-04:002008-10-18T12:05:00.000-04:00Interesting. Could you give me a page or paragraph...Interesting. Could you give me a page or paragraph number? I skimmed through the question but couldn't find it. Even here he seems to favor the term "individual difference"Lee Faberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00476833516234522602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-40507840957503513612008-10-18T07:15:00.000-04:002008-10-18T07:15:00.000-04:00Aha found it. So he did.From 7.13 Metaphysicorum....Aha found it. So he did.<BR/><BR/>From 7.13 Metaphysicorum<BR/><BR/>... nulla unitas realis naturae est minor HAECITATE, nec unitas realis suppositi est minor. Patet: nulla erit realis unitas minor etc. Consequens falsum, quia tunc omnis unitas realis erit numeralis; quod improbabitur postea.<BR/><BR/>[...] si intelligis "separari" realiter, sic quod non coniungatur intellecto in re, falsum est: "abstrahentium enim non est mendacium"; si in quantum ad actum cognoscendi, sic in sensu, quia HAECITAS non sentitur. Similiter in exsistendo, quia illo esse priori quod est albedinis proprium, non est differentia indiuidualis, quia posterius nisi dicatur quis uidere colorem.Edward Ockhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-67455062922479672002008-10-18T07:05:00.000-04:002008-10-18T07:05:00.000-04:00Thanks. The reference I have is in Moderate Realis...Thanks. The reference I have is in Moderate Realism and its Logic by D.W. Metz, p. 127. "To account for uniqueness, Scotus posited for each particular a haeccetias (thisness) as a positive principle of individuation (RP, 2.12.5, 1,8,13, 14, Quaestiones in libros Metaphysicorum, 7.13, 9&26).<BR/><BR/>Metz implies that Scotus uses the actual term. However he is clearly using a secondary source, C.R.S. Harris, Duns Scotus vol 2, 1959.<BR/><BR/>In "Duns Scotus, Metaphysician" by Frank and Wollter p. 197, they say that Scotus refers to thisness as 'haecceity', but give no reference. Frustrating.Edward Ockhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-19829330234296044772008-10-17T13:37:00.000-04:002008-10-17T13:37:00.000-04:00Ocham,I have never seen Scotus use the term myself...Ocham,<BR/>I have never seen Scotus use the term myself. The reportatio would make sense if he introduced it in oral teaching. I don't think that's been printed yet, and the reportatio in wadding is really the Additiones magnae, so if it ocurrs there it would already be one of his students. It is pretty early though, if its not by Scotus himself. I've seen it in an anonymus quesiton in a Mazarine ms. that dates ca. 1280-1320.Lee Faberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00476833516234522602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-72307353806742052072008-10-17T07:32:00.000-04:002008-10-17T07:32:00.000-04:00Who else but the Duns? On a related topic (I am w...Who else but the Duns? On a related topic (I am working on a new translation of Book II D3, on the principle of individuation) did the Duns ever use the term 'haecceitas', or was that just followers or reporters such as Cajetan?<BR/><BR/>I have a reference which quotes the Reportata parisiensa as a possible source for the term. But it definitely does not occur in the Ordinatio. Best, OckhamEdward Ockhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.com