tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post4843599137019344059..comments2024-03-11T04:11:06.487-04:00Comments on The Smithy: William of Alnwick on intelligible beingLee Faberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00476833516234522602noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-82144571259619147722008-01-27T19:40:00.000-05:002008-01-27T19:40:00.000-05:00Interesting. I don't know much about him either as...Interesting. I don't know much about him either as I just started reading him. A few of his texts have been edited, and a few more are on the way.<BR/><BR/>Does this quote of Alnwick's show up in the florilegia? such as Hamesse Auctoritates AristotelisLee Faberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00476833516234522602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-24250163974776068642008-01-26T03:39:00.000-05:002008-01-26T03:39:00.000-05:00I was intrigued by'destructis primis impossible es...I was intrigued by<BR/><BR/>'destructis primis impossible est aliquod aliorum remanere'<BR/><BR/>I can find no such passage in Boethius translation of the Categories. But it resembles this:<BR/><BR/>'Si ergo primae substantiae non sunt, impossibile est aliquid esse caeterorum. '<BR/><BR/>And I suspect what William is quoting is a later translation, which I do not have a copy of. In any case, 'destructis primis' is clearly referring to 'first substances' i.e. individuals<BR/><BR/>William sounds interesting, tho' I know practically nothing about him.Edward Ockhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.com