tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post6412298271775613702..comments2024-03-11T04:11:06.487-04:00Comments on The Smithy: QuaestioLee Faberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00476833516234522602noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-25741091986551764132008-05-07T11:07:00.000-04:002008-05-07T11:07:00.000-04:00They could be beings of reason, constructed purely...They could be beings of reason, constructed purely by the mind based on some comparison ad extra or not. Quantity is outside the mind, upon which mathematics is based, even if it is in some degree of abstraction. Scotus does seem to think metaphysics is a process of analyzing our own concepts about the world, rather than the world itself, or so Richard says. in any case, he does think it is a quia science, or at least a secundum quid propter quid science.<BR/><BR/>And the point is that one actually conceives the divine essence as haec, not under the ratio of infinity as he says in the Ordinatio. That sort of concept I would think would require some sort of closer connection than just being created by the mind out of nothing. It actually does have to represent somehow.Lee Faberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00476833516234522602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-80145964262936799642008-05-06T22:01:00.000-04:002008-05-06T22:01:00.000-04:00Of course I'm in no better position than you are t...Of course I'm in no better position than you are to determine the mens Scoti here, but it occurs to me that it can't be the case that all concepts, whether we call them intelligible species or not, are abstracted from sensible species. This would make a great deal of mathematics, grammar, and metaphysics impossible, wouldn't it? From what sensible species do we abstract imaginary numbers or the future subjunctive?Michael Sullivanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11191322302191384384noreply@blogger.com