tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post8694863233279081857..comments2024-03-11T04:11:06.487-04:00Comments on The Smithy: Nicolaus de Orbellis on the Formal DistinctionLee Faberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00476833516234522602noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-14845347627334174922010-06-04T10:29:37.672-04:002010-06-04T10:29:37.672-04:00I'm afraid I don't have much to say on tha...I'm afraid I don't have much to say on that, never having made a comparison. My sense is that infinity does a whole lot more work in Scotus' system, so if he doesn't have a good account he'll have a lot of problems. It is what distinguishes the common, confused sense of being into the proper concept that pertains to God, as well as serving as the feature of the divine nature that makes it simple, preserving divine simplicity in the face of the formal distinction (all the divine attributes are formally infinite, considered apart from their formal rationes).Lee Faberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00476833516234522602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-37784502677843502072010-06-03T18:03:50.704-04:002010-06-03T18:03:50.704-04:00I realize this is somewhat off-topic, but what is ...I realize this is somewhat off-topic, but what is your take on Scotus's idea of infinity as a (positive) intrinsic mode vs. Aquinas's conception of infinity as a mere lack of (accidental?) limits? While it is easy to see that Aquinas's arguments for divine infinity in the Summa are formally invalid (as Scotus notes), it is not so easy to understand how Scotus's teaching is different from Aquinas's, regarding the concept of infinity itself. Any thoughts?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-54630601438890692312010-06-03T11:50:59.735-04:002010-06-03T11:50:59.735-04:00Victor, Thomas doesn't clearly flesh out a the...Victor, Thomas doesn't clearly flesh out a theory of distinctions. What he calls a real distinction, or at least the criterion he gives for it, is what everyone else calls a distinction of reason (separable in thought). It seems to me to be a legitimate development to distinguish "really" between two concrete numerically distinct objects and two entities that are separable within a third entity.<br /><br />Now there was a third kind of distinction, beginning with Bonaventure, that was partially real partially rational. this is the historical origin of Scotus' formal distinction, and Aquinas does have a version like this, found in his Scriptum super sententias and the Quaestio de attributis; this is is distinction in the mind with a foundation in the thing. However, as my dissertation shows (sorry) Aquinas abandoned the doctrine of the Scriptum and the Quaestio, and I think this included the distinction with a foundation in the thing.<br /><br />I made the comment about the impossibility of reconciliation because the formal distinction always obtains prior to the operation of any itnellect, human or divine. Aquinas would never have endorsed this, nor did his followers ever do so; they appealed back to the distinction in the mind based on the thing, which requires the operation of the human intellect to be made actual.Lee Faberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00476833516234522602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-58370373641377253242010-06-02T16:43:58.916-04:002010-06-02T16:43:58.916-04:00Hi Lee,
I'm still not clear on how exactly th...Hi Lee,<br /><br />I'm still not clear on how exactly this formal distinction cannot be reconciled with a Thomist "real distinction." As I understand it, Thomas himself thinks that the "real" distinction is not a function of the intellect but instead of reality. However, I'm not convinced that Thomas thinks the "real" distinction is between a thing and a thing; isn't such a description of the "real" distinction more a product of Giles of Rome than it is Thomas? Thanks for your thoughts,<br />VictorAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-54562774925109406132010-06-02T14:47:03.545-04:002010-06-02T14:47:03.545-04:00I had never heard of this writer before. Thanks fo...I had never heard of this writer before. Thanks for posting!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com