tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24721394665850180532024-03-11T04:11:07.415-04:00The SmithyA mediaevalist trying to be a philosopher and a philosopher trying to be a mediaevalist write about theology, philosophy, scholarship, books, the middle ages, and especially the life, times, and thought of the Doctor Subtilis, the Blessed John Duns Scotus.Lee Faberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00476833516234522602noreply@blogger.comBlogger776125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-18112402536786989722023-05-24T17:15:00.002-04:002023-05-24T17:15:15.728-04:00Promotion of Francis of MeyronnesWell, it's the anniversary we have all been waiting for, the date of the letter which promoted Francis of Meyronnes to being a master of theology. Here is a screen shot from the CUP.<div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhATpMxUC6d7VtU0whJTQqVeTbfHC2XudbMX5lYX3fiyB5OCIPpqFG0707qe4XND10cv16Gh196eXTWX5_wk0PhDIMRnVhF_BhkRJzQ9Dy7HnHb-CXUKRQeReCN52ByqS5KRZ8CnkI5obHd-BFimCNv8duV3T2zu-4xPhji1Ip-jQPwUQhVbsE5ew/s914/WhatsApp%20Image%202023-05-24%20at%2012.47.28.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="692" data-original-width="914" height="390" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhATpMxUC6d7VtU0whJTQqVeTbfHC2XudbMX5lYX3fiyB5OCIPpqFG0707qe4XND10cv16Gh196eXTWX5_wk0PhDIMRnVhF_BhkRJzQ9Dy7HnHb-CXUKRQeReCN52ByqS5KRZ8CnkI5obHd-BFimCNv8duV3T2zu-4xPhji1Ip-jQPwUQhVbsE5ew/w516-h390/WhatsApp%20Image%202023-05-24%20at%2012.47.28.jpg" width="516" /></a></div><br /><div><br /></div>Lee Faberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00476833516234522602noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-55271116222312190982023-04-05T09:02:00.004-04:002023-04-05T09:02:38.374-04:00Letter on the Cult of Scotus<p> The Franciscan minister general composed a letter on the occasion of the 30 year anniversary of the confirmation of the cult of Scotus, available <a href="https://ofm.org/30-anniversario-della-conferma-del-culto-del-beato-duns-scoto.html?fbclid=IwAR0nZ78MeEFxeLJ8fymFUoNPBFrjxJKMUJeH6jhxIm6VrwDNTXahU8KFenE" target="_blank">here</a>.</p>Lee Faberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00476833516234522602noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-15771032360718212292023-04-04T14:38:00.003-04:002023-04-04T14:38:23.657-04:00Conference on the Absolute Primacy of Christ<p> There is a conference planned for July on the absolute primacy of Christ, information <a href="https://fathermaxmusic.com/symposium-on-the-absolute-primacy-of-christ" target="_blank">here</a>.</p><p>From their description:</p><blockquote><p>Join us at Our Lady of the Holy Spirit Catholic Retreat Center from July 14th-16th, 2023, for a grace-filled weekend of conferences on the Absolute Primacy of Jesus Christ. In Medieval times all of the great scholastics, including Saints like Anselm, Albert the Great, Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure and Bl. John Duns Scotus, grappled with the question of God's primary motive in bringing about the Incarnation. Was it because of sin - no sin, no Incarnation? Or was Emmanuel God's original plan - sin or no sin, always the Incarnation? The objective of this Symposium is to create an opportunity for scholars to present theological arguments in favor of the absolute primacy of Christ and to create a resource - a handbook, as it were - for theologians and faithful alike who want to learn more about the beauty and intricacies of this Christocentric perspective of creation and salvation history.</p></blockquote>Lee Faberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00476833516234522602noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-81035969405236379852023-04-04T14:26:00.004-04:002023-04-04T14:26:36.732-04:00New Book: Cognitive Issues in the Long Scotist Tradition<p> A book has appeared, edited by Heider and Andersen. Available <a href="https://schwabe.ch/cognitive-issues-in-the-long-scotist-tradition-978-3-7965-4766-9" target="_blank">here</a>.</p><p>The blurb:</p><p></p><blockquote><span style="background-color: white; font-family: MinionPro, Times, serif; font-size: 15px;">The late-scholastic school of Scotism (after John Duns Scotus, † 1308) left considerable room for disagreement. This volume innovatively demonstrates just how vividly Scotist philosophers and theologians discussed cognitive matters from the 14th until the 17th century. It further shows how the Scotist ideas were received in Protestant and Reformed milieus.</span></blockquote><p></p>Lee Faberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00476833516234522602noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-46914116499396871632023-02-16T09:05:00.003-05:002023-02-16T09:05:34.611-05:00Conference on Scotism and Platonism, May 2023Announcing a conference on the interrelations between Scotism and Platonism, Bonn 2023. I hope to see you there! note that you can also attend via zoom.<div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiz-2__90h5zjC_qgwQdmy-Bw-WarCcOk-BmBNA9W0Tu4vuL3PjKZ-Qo6EhQp6U4CokvBf-3h5EU-UWutYcMF2jpyEba4bSN1EEZgj4qBVtKbuwRsTplw30YDvyggye9qeyBOU10CGQtBC1c5IwbvhblR3_5IUNvtp-ZEcWiSVmD6qeH6CVphAuFg/s1650/Poster_Platonism%20and%20Scotism.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1650" data-original-width="1275" height="684" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiz-2__90h5zjC_qgwQdmy-Bw-WarCcOk-BmBNA9W0Tu4vuL3PjKZ-Qo6EhQp6U4CokvBf-3h5EU-UWutYcMF2jpyEba4bSN1EEZgj4qBVtKbuwRsTplw30YDvyggye9qeyBOU10CGQtBC1c5IwbvhblR3_5IUNvtp-ZEcWiSVmD6qeH6CVphAuFg/w456-h684/Poster_Platonism%20and%20Scotism.jpg" width="456" /></a></div><br /><div><br /></div>Lee Faberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00476833516234522602noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-34250859129169439882023-02-16T09:02:00.000-05:002023-02-16T09:02:03.920-05:00Goff on a variety of topics<p> here is an old but good video of Dr. Jared Goff discussing Scotism and Palamism.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="383" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Lep7EwCAses" width="460" youtube-src-id="Lep7EwCAses"></iframe></div><br /><p><br /></p>Lee Faberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00476833516234522602noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-74517468336710918392022-11-09T07:14:00.002-05:002022-11-09T07:14:39.170-05:00Festum Scoti, 2022<p> Hello, and happy feast! A day late, yes.</p><p><br /></p><p>Here is the collect:</p><p><br /></p><p>Domine Deus, fons omnis sapientiae, qui Beatum Ioannem</p><p>presbyterum, Immaculatae Virginis assertorem,</p><p>nobis magistrum vitae et scientiae dedisti, concede, quaesumus,</p><p>ut, eius exemplo illuminati, et doctrinis nutria,</p><p>Christo fideliter adhaereamus. Qui tecum vivit.</p>Lee Faberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00476833516234522602noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-86923468951161467562022-08-20T20:25:00.003-04:002022-08-20T20:25:30.980-04:00Alistair McGrath on Natural Theology<p> The contemporary theologian Alistair McGrath has written an <a href="https://www.saet.ac.uk/Christianity/NaturalTheology">entry on natural theology</a> for the new resource "St. Andrews Encyclopedia of Theology," which will attempt to do for theology what the Stanford encyclopedia has done for philosophy.</p><p>I have written on the topic as well recently (see the first blog entry of the year), so I have a few points of criticism.</p><p>One is that McGrath makes no mention of Christian Wolff, who wrote a natural theology that was quite influential on the continent. Indeed, McGrath is focused on the English understanding of natural theology as closely allied with natural philosophy and the physical sciences.</p><p>This means that McGrath makes no mention at all of Nicolas Bonetus, the first person to write a <i>Theologia naturalis </i>and assign it a place among the system of sciences inherited from Aristotle. But perhaps, since this the encylopedia is electronic, the author will update it later. </p><p>More of an oddity than anything else, McGrath treats the natural theology of Raymond Sebonde under the heading of 'Renaissance and Reformation', though he notes that it is from the late fiftheenth century, surely part of the medieval era. And again, Sebonde was writing a hundered years after Bonetus.</p><p>We come to Duns Scotus. McGrath devotes only a paragraph to Scotus, and, given that the English discussion of natural theology and natural philosophy is predominate, the only doctrine of Scotus that is singled out is the notion of Haecceity.</p><p><span style="background-color: white; color: #202024; font-family: "Source Sans Pro", sans-serif; font-size: 18px;"></span></p><blockquote><span style="background-color: white; color: #202024; font-family: "Source Sans Pro", sans-serif; font-size: 18px;">A further development of importance to natural theology was due to the Franciscan theologian Duns Scotus and his successors. The concept of </span><i lang="la" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #202024; font-family: "Source Sans Pro", sans-serif; font-size: 18px;">haeccitas</i><span style="background-color: white; color: #202024; font-family: "Source Sans Pro", sans-serif; font-size: 18px;"> (‘this-ness’) emerged during the fourteenth century as a means of capturing and preserving the distinct identity of any particular aspect of the natural order. Although this concept was important for the philosophy of religion, it was adopted in the nineteenth century by the Jesuit poet Gerard Manley Hopkins, who used it as the basis of a heightened attentiveness to the individual aspects of nature (</span><span class="bibref" data-html="true" data-original-title="<div class="popup">
<p>Boggs, Rebecca Melora Corinne. 1997. ‘Poetic Genesis, the Self, and Nature’s Things in Hopkins’, <em>Studies in English Literature, 1500–1900</em> 37, no. 4: 831–855.</p>
</div>" data-template="<div class="tooltip" role="tooltip"><div class="arrow"></div><div class="tooltip-inner"></div></div>" data-toggle="tooltip" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #007faf; font-family: "Source Sans Pro", sans-serif; font-size: 18px;" title=""><span class="citation" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Boggs 1997</span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #202024; font-family: "Source Sans Pro", sans-serif; font-size: 18px;">), which is particularly evident in his 1877 poem ‘As Kingfishers Catch Fire’.</span></blockquote><span style="background-color: white; color: #202024; font-family: "Source Sans Pro", sans-serif; font-size: 18px;"></span><p></p><p><br /></p><p>So no mention of univocity of being, or Scotus' proof for the existence of God, or the nature of metaphysics and theology. the former doctrine, as is well known, is treated under the rubric of natural knowledge of God. </p><p><br /></p><p>In the end it makes an interesting contrast with Milbank and his school, for whom Scotus is of cosmic catastrophic significance. For McGrath, it seems Scotus is mainly of interest because of the poetry he inspired.</p>Lee Faberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00476833516234522602noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-56974568170906500172022-08-13T09:24:00.001-04:002022-08-13T09:24:14.047-04:00News<p> Hi all, been busy this year, sorry. But here is some recent news of interest to the Scotist community.</p><p><br /></p><p>Tobias Hoffmann has updated his Bibliography of Duns Scotus, find it <a href="https://www.academia.edu/84553496/Duns_Scotus_Bibliography_from_1950_to_the_Present_10th_edition_August_2022_?email_work_card=view-paper" target="_blank">here</a>.</p><p><br /></p><p>Claus Andersen has tracked down volumes of the Vatican edition of Scotus' works on Archive.org and published the links, <a href="https://www.academia.edu/84420916/Duns_Scotus_Opera_Omnia_ed_Vat_Online" target="_blank">here</a>.</p><p><br /></p><p>Finally, I appeared on the "Dogs with Torches Podcast" to discuss Scotus, univocity, and their modern critics, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPsoUqXsy7w" target="_blank">here</a>.</p>Lee Faberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00476833516234522602noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-36230078000833654562022-01-18T06:25:00.005-05:002022-01-18T06:27:31.959-05:00Natural Theology<p> A <a href="https://www.francoangeli.it/Riviste/sommario.aspx?IDRivista=45&lingua=EN" target="_blank">new special issue of the journal</a> <span face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #555555; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 700;">RIVISTA DI STORIA DELLA FILOSOFIA </span>has come out, an issue devoted to the topic of natural theology.</p><p><br /></p><p>Here are the contents, which contain two essays of direct interest to scholars of Scotus and Scotism:</p><p><br /></p>Alberto Frigo, "Radical natural theologies from duns scotus to christian wolff. Introduction."<br /><br />Garrett Smith, "The Natural Theology of Nicholas Bonetus."<br /><br />Alberto Frigo, "Même la Trinité: Descartes, Pascal et Saint-Ange"<br /><br />Gabriel Meyer-Bisch, "Usages et fonctions du concept de «cité de Dieu» dans la première philosophie de Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (Uses and functions of the concept of City of God in the early Leibniz’s Philosophy.)"<br /><br /><br />Pietro Terzi, "Involution and the Convergence of Minds. The Philosophical Stakes of Lalande’s Vocabulaire"<br /><br />Olivier Boulnois, "La teologia naturale, Duns Scoto e la deduzione a priori della Trinità (Natural Theology, Duns Scotus and the a priori Deduction of the Trinity.)"<br /><br />Édouard Mehl, "La Puissance et son nombre, d’Abélard à Kepler"<br /><br />Jean-Christophe Bardout, "Prouver sans démontrer. Malebranche et la Trinité"<br /><br />Gualtiero Lorini, "«Diversa Theologiae naturalis systemata»: Christian Wolff’s Ways to God"<br /><br />Enrico I. Rambaldi, Patrizia Pozzi<br /><br />Lee Faberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00476833516234522602noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-58941977021563367732021-12-27T17:11:00.002-05:002021-12-27T17:11:43.499-05:00Scotist News<p><span style="font-size: medium;"> Hello dear readers, here are a few items worthy of note that have recently appeared.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">1. A digital edition of the debate between Duns Scotus and Guillelmus Petri Godinus is now available on the website of the Scotus Archiv (Bonn), <a href="https://scotus-godinus.de/index.html" target="_blank">here</a>. Website still under construction, but the text and manuscript photos are up now. The debate is about the principle of individuation, and is one of the only, if not the only, place that Scotus directly confronts the Thomist theory.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">2. A journal issue dedicated to Antonius Andreae has appeared, <a href="https://revistas.unav.edu/index.php/anuario-filosofico/issue/view/1446" target="_blank">here</a>.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">3. And, finally, the long-awaited book edited by Giorgio Pini, called <i>Interpreting Duns Scotus,</i> <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/interpreting-duns-scotus/2D451B336F10C1546286B40253E73643" target="_blank">has now appeared</a>.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">A veritable end of year feast for all!</span></p>Lee Faberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00476833516234522602noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-52845565177069276722021-11-29T09:19:00.000-05:002021-11-29T09:19:27.325-05:00More on Scotus' Birthplace<p> So back on the theme of where Scotus was born, namely, was he Irish (Scotus, Hibernicus), or Scottish (Scotus). While it is commonly held today that the Scottish position has triumphed, there was some criticism on a post from earlier in the year to the effect that the word "scotus" originally meant someone from Ireland and only later, possibly during Scotus' own time did it come to mean someone from Scotland. <br /></p><p><br /></p><p>While transcribing the <i>Additiones magnae</i>, a text compiled by William of Alnwick from Scotus' Oxford and Parisian teaching, I came across the following sentence, that is obviously sketching a map of Europe and also distinguishes between Scotland (scotia) and Ireland (hibernia). </p><p>"...inter Norwegiam et Scotiam et inter Hyspaniam et Hyberniam..."</p><p><br /></p><p>This is from the end of Add. II d. 14 q. 4. Even if William of Alnwick may be expanding on Scotus' text (studies on the Additiones II are in their infancy, so I don't know if there is a parallel elsewhere in Scotus yet), it shows that ireland was already being called 'hibernia' by about 1315, close to Scotus' lifetime.</p>Lee Faberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00476833516234522602noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-85050451485472984002021-11-08T17:23:00.001-05:002021-11-08T17:23:20.159-05:00Festum Scoti<p> Happy Feast everyone!</p>Lee Faberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00476833516234522602noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-37746433517608741092021-09-26T07:12:00.002-04:002021-09-26T07:12:06.355-04:00Francis of Meyronnes early defense of the univocity of beingFrancis of Meyronnes is probably the most influential and important Scotist of the fourteenth century. His many works survive in hundreds of manuscripts and many were printed in the early days of the printing press. His commentary on the <i>Sentences </i>exists in three versions, called 'ab oriente', 'summa simplicitas' and Conflatus. He became a master in 1323 by decree of the pope after lecturing at Paris.<div><br /></div><div>My post is about the first of the three commentaries. In the 'ab oriente' commentary, most likely to be Francis' first discussion of the univocity of being (given the lack of editions, we cannot be sure; it does not matter much, however, for Francis tends to recycle his arguments), he establishes a series of principles, which he calls regulae, and then derives conclusions from them. basically, the regulae are topical rules or 'maximal propositions' as explained in Boethius' commentary on Aristotle's <i>Topics</i>. It is a fairly interesting dicussion, concluding with a series of doubts. I translate and paraphrase these rules and doubts here.</div><div><br /></div><div>Franciscus de Mayronis, <i>In Sent</i>. I d. 22 'ab oriente'.</div><div><br /></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;">Regulae:</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;">R1. whenever some intellect is certain about
one concept and doubtful about two [concepts], the certain concept is univocal
to the two doubtful ones.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;">R2. Whenever some intellect is certain about
one concept and doubful about either of two others, that certain concept
befalls both according to the same formal notion.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;">R3. no equivocal has a concept distinct from
its equivocates.</span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;">R4. no one can have scientific knowledge of
the equivocal, while its equivocates are unknown.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;">R5: anyone can have scientific knowledge of
univocals.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;">R6: no proposition in which there is an
equivocal term can be verified unless for some of its equivocates.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;">R7: some proposition in which there is a
univocal term cannot be verified for some univocate.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;">R8: nothing befalls an equivocal that does not
befall some equivocate.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;">R9: something can befall a univocal that does
not befall some univocate.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;">R10: the subject of every science is univocal
to everthing about which something is demonstrated in that science.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;">R11: no attribute primarily befalling some
subject can be demonstrated unless of those of which the subject befalls
univocally.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;">R12: nothing can be demonstrated of an
equivocal.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;">R13: every attribute which befalls something
not primarily is demonstrated of something common to itself and some other.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;">R14: the truth of some principle does not
extend unless to the univocates of its subject.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;">R15: no principle extends itself unless to the
univocates of its predicate.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;">R16: no principle can be equivocal.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;">
</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;">R17: whenever something common is said of one
thing in an unqualified way (<i>simpliciter</i>)
and of another in a qualified way (<i>secundum
quid</i>), it is not said of them univocally.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;">R18: whenever something common is said of some
things in a prior and posterior way (<i>per
prius</i> <i>et posterious</i>), it is not
univocal to them.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;">R19: when [something] is said of them
according to more and less, it is not univocal to them.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;">
</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;">R20: every common which is not said univocally
of some things, is said of them equivocally.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;">Conclusiones:</span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;">C1: being (<i>ens</i>)
is said univocally of God and creatures (from R1, R2, R5, R7, R9, R10, R11,
R13, R14, R15).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;">C2: being is not said equivocally of God and
creatures (from R3, R4, R6, R8, R12, R16).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">C3: being is not said analogically of God and
creatures, insofar as analogy is taken to be a middle way between equivocity
and univocity (from R20).</span></div><div><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;">C4: being is said univocally of substance and
accident (from R1, R2, R5, R7, R9, R10, R11, R13, R14, R15, R16).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;">C5: substance is not equivocal to substance
and accident (from R3, R4, R6, R8, R12, R16).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;">C6: being is said univocally of the absolute
and relative (from R1, R2).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;">C7: being is not said of them [=the absolute
and relative] equivocally (from “the same rules as above”).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;">C8: being is not said equivocally but
univocally of the ten categories (from “the same rules”).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;">C9: being is said univocally of everything
contained in the ten categories (from a rule in Aristotle’s <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Categories</i>).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;">C10: the notion of the absolute is said
univocally of all absolute categories (from “the rules stated above”).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;">C11: ‘relative’ is said univocally of all
relative categories (from R1?, “other rules”).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;">C12: ‘accident’ is said univocally of the nine
categories (from R1, “other rules”).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;">C13: being is not said univocally of real
being and being of reason (from R17, R18, R19).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;">C14: being is said equivocally of real being
and being of reason (from R20).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;">C15: our intellect cannot form one concept
that is common to real being and being of reason (no appeal to a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">regula</i>).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;">C16: those who posit such a concept (that is,
a concept univocally common to real being and being of reason) have that unity
in imagination and not in the intellect (no appeal to a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">regula</i>).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;">C17: the division of being into being in the
soul and being outside the soul is of an utterance (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">vox</i>) into what is signified (no appeal to a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">regula</i>).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;">C18: the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">ratio</i>
of being is said of being in potency and being in act (no appeal to a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">regula</i>).<o:p></o:p></span></p><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">Difficultates:</span></div><div><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">D1: why being is not a genus, even though it
is said of many things in different species.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">D2: if being were a genus, whether God would
be in the genus of being.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">D3: why it is denied that being is a genus,
since if it were, God would not be in it (from D2).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">D4: if the formality of being (<i>ratio entis</i>) </span></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">is included in something that is irreducibly
simple.</span></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;">D5: if the formality of being can be included
in things that are primarily diverse.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;">D6: if the formality of being is included
quidditatively in some transcendental.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;">D7: if the formality of being is included
quidditatively in some transcendental that is constituted from divided and
dividing being.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;">D8: if the formality of being is included
quidditatively in some category.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;">D9: if the formality of being is included in
some pure perfection.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;">D10: if the formality of being is included
quidditatively in some genus or species.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;">D11: if the formality of being is included
quidditatively in some individual immediately corresponding to it.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;">D12: whether the formality of being is
included universally in something other than a quiddity.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;">D13: if some transcendental is included
quidditatively in some quiddity.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;">D14: why it is not the case that being is part
of the quiddity of substance in the way that substance is part of the quiddity
of humanity or of body.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;">D15: if the formality of being taken with an
inferior is only accidentally one.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;">D16: if the formality of being taken with an
inferior can make one concept.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;">D17: if an inferior of being can be conceived
without being.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;">D18: if being would be part of the quiddity of
something.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;">D19: if the attributes (<i>passiones</i>) of being can be conceived without being.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;">D20: why the formality of being does not make
a composition with its inferiors the way the formality (<i>ratio</i>) of a genus does with its differences.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;">
</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;">D21: if it is necessary to posit two orders (<i>coordinationes</i>) of being.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">D22: if those two
orders are from the nature of the thing (<i>ex
natura rei)</i></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;"></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;">D23: if to abstract one common concept is
repugnant to everything that is primarily diverse.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;">D24: whether there is some common concept that
embraces everything other than nothingness.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;">D25: if the notion of nothingness is adequate
to the notion of non-being.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;">D26: if every non-being can said to be
nothing.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;">D27: if there is some common attribute for
everything that is separate from the notion of nothing.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;">D28: if there is some formality (<i>ratio</i>) more common than the formality of
univocal being.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;">D29: if everything separate from the notion of
nothing is contained under equivocal being.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">D30: if being taken equivocally is the subject
of that principle ‘affirmation or negation of whatever being’.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;">D31: if being univocally taken can be the
subject in that principle.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;">D32: if that principle has some subject that
is adequate and common to itself.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;">D33: what is that common subject that can be
attributed to such a principle?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;">D34: if intelligibility can be an attribute of
everything of which this principle is verified.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 107%;">
</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;">D35: if intelligibility is distinct from its
subject from the nature of the thing.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;">D36: if that attribute, intelligibility, is
absolute or relative.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;">D37: if
that principle ‘affirmation of whatever’ etc. can have place in that subject,
nor does it prescind from this attribute of intelligibility.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;">D38: if that metaphysical principle is
verified of beings of reason.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;">D39: if the predicate of that principle is ‘to
be or not to be’.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;">D40: concerning the division of being. This <i>difficultas</i> is subdivided into fifteen <i>conclusiones</i>:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;"> DC
1: the division of being into being in the soul and being outside the soul is
not a division of univocals but rather equivocals.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;"> DC
2: just as entity is said equivocally and univocally, so also is reality.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;"> DC
3: the same is true of the other attributes of being.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;"> DC
4: the division of being into substance and accidents is not quidditative.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;"> DC
5: division is of a common notion of something divided into quidditative and
non-quidditative.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;"> DC
6: division of being into act and potency is not quidditative.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;"> DC
7: division of being into the finite and infinite is not quidditative.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;"> DC
8: the same is true of the division of
being through the contingent and the necessary.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;"> DC
9: the same is true of the division of being through the existing and
non-existing.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;"> DC
10: the same is true of the division of being through the real and the
non-real, with the latter taken as in objective potency.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;"> DC
11: the division of being into the simple and the complex is not quidditative.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;"> DC
12: the division of being into the absolute and relative is quidditative.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;"> DC
13: only that (i.e. DC 12) division of being is quidditative.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;"> DC
14: that (DC 12) is the first division of being.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;">
</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;"> DC
15: being cannot be divided immediately into the ten categories.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;"><br /></span></p><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;"></span></div>Lee Faberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00476833516234522602noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-25581839446730712882021-07-29T07:33:00.001-04:002021-07-29T07:33:04.994-04:00The Poetics of the Equivocity of Being<p><span style="font-size: large;"> Here are some poetical remarks on the equivocity of being by William Desmond. Enjoy!</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Desmond, <i>Being and the Between</i>, 87</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">The war of philosophers against unintelligibility has made them generally hostile to the equivocal. This is manifest in the oscillation with the univocal we examined in the last chapter. It is no less true that this war is never finished, and many victories turn out pyrrhic, indeed brief lulls before the hydra of the equivocal sprouts another head to replace the one just chopped. The equivocal is a hydra that cannot be completely killed by univocity; for to kill its many heads demands many hands, and univocity has only one hand at a time. Indeed, I think equivocity is not to be killed but charmed from being a mythic monster into a fabling of the plurivocity of being. We must come to terms with the beautfy of the beast. Logical murder, murder repeated methodically, will not do.</span></p></blockquote><p><br /></p>Lee Faberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00476833516234522602noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-41199770904303878482021-07-07T15:39:00.005-04:002021-07-07T15:55:50.592-04:00William Desmond, Being and the Between<p> The title above is a book I have been reading lately. usually I will be excited for a month with a new acquisition and then the taedium sets in and I abandon the book. My shelf of "current books" grows ever longer. Surprisingly, I have stuck with Przywara's <i>Analogia entis</i>, though it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me in either German or English.</p><p>Desmond is a scholar of continental philosophy, mainly of Hegel it seems, with little to no interest in medieval philosophy. The book listed in the title of the post is loosely based on Aristotle, Plato, and the moderns. The auther seems rather adverse to scholastic thought; consider the following, from p. 12:</p><p><br /></p><blockquote><p>But were there no <i>happening </i>of astonishment, metaphysics would be a mere scholastic juggling of empty abstractions, perhaps with great virtuosity in the formal mastery of argumentation, but ontologically barren nonetheless.</p></blockquote><p>The author, though not possessing knowledge of Scotus' position on univocity, effectively rules out Scotus' position at the very beginning. p. 3:</p><blockquote><p>Hence, the question of being is not first one for philosophers, understood as an elite of thinkers. It transcends the difference of the few and the many, for it strikes our humanity simply in virtue of its being, as mindful of itself and what is other to itself. Of course, this matter may degenerate into platitude. Then being will be said to be the emptiest of abstractions--a vacuous generality, indifferently applicable to everything and anything, and hence not applicable with illuminating power to anything in particular. Against this degrading of being we must fight strenuously. There may be a sense of the universal, and the community of being that transcends any abstract universal.</p></blockquote><p>As nice a short summary of Scotus as was every written. But we might fight against it.</p><p>Finally, a word of warning: be careful when buying academic books! I bought my copy from Amazon, which sells it, I found, as a print on demand volume. But alas, every page of the text, as well as the front and back cover, contains the stamp "copyrighted Material". One would think this could have been dispensed with, given that there is a copyright page, but no. The stamp even covers page numbers and sometimes obscures the last line of the text on a page. So find a used copy, if you want to read this book.</p>Lee Faberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00476833516234522602noreply@blogger.com31tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-67520263166457031822021-06-19T05:24:00.001-04:002021-06-19T05:24:04.561-04:00Byzantine Univocity<p> I recently came across an essay on univocity among the Byzantine theologians that might be of interest to our readers. Essay is <a href="https://www.academia.edu/25795271/Christ_The_Mystery_of_God_Truly_Made_Manifest_Leontius_of_Byzantium_and_the_Univocity_of_Being?email_work_card=title" target="_blank">here</a>.</p><p><br /></p><p>Johnathan Bieler, "Christ: the mystery of God truly made manifest? Leontius of Byzantium and the Univocity of Being."</p><p><br /></p><p>From the conclusion:</p><p><br /></p><blockquote><p>After reading this long passage we cannot go into all the details but we will summarily say
that Leontius opposes univocity and equivocity. He accuses his opponents of adhering to a
pure equivocity of terms in Christology and Trinitarian Theology by separating the terms
from their definitions. Thus, equivocity negates the true manifestation of the divine in the
manifest mystery of Christ. Naturally, for Leontius as well as for the Severian interlocutor,
God in himself is hidden and beyond word, intellect and nature. However, for Leontius this
God has truly revealed himself in Christ and thus we must speak in univocal terms of the Trinity and Christ. He achieves the univocity of God and the world by subsuming all beings
(God, angels, human beings etc.) under one single definition of existence as such, which ousia
stands for when defined simply.</p></blockquote><blockquote><p>In this respect, Leontius falls short of Ps-Dionysius’ strong language for the transcendence of
God as beyond ousia or being, even though he knows his writings and quotes him even by
name.7 Leontius seems to make a bit of a desperate move here and puts all beings and God
under the same category of existence as such. In this, Leontius even found a successor in
Duns Scotus, who also holds a univocal concept of being, ens, for God and the world. A few
questions are in order to point to the problems of Leontius’ view: Is the transcendence of God
not corrupted if he is put in the same genus of existence as the world? Does not the world then
somehow share in God’s uncreated and eternal being, as both share the same sort of
existence? This would remind us of the Origenist doctrine of the fall of beings from some sort
of unity with God. Can Leontius’ univocal use of the term ousia still fully affirm the
distinction of the created and the uncreated existence, which was so important for example to
Athanasius as well as Ps-Dionysius and in turn, Maximus the Confessor? Part of an answer to
these questions has to be given by an analysis of the relation between predicative logic and
ontology in Leontius which I cannot serve with here. At any rate, we have a sense now for the
task of later authors so diverse as John Philoponus and Maximus the Confessor to reject PsDionysius or integrate him into a Theology that holds together both transcendence and true
manifestation of God without falling into the simple alternative between univocity and
equivocity. Maximus, in my view, will come forward with a solution that resembles more
Aquinas’ analogy of being than Duns Scotus’ univocity of being. </p></blockquote>Lee Faberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00476833516234522602noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-41543844388798754242021-06-06T11:07:00.001-04:002021-06-06T11:07:56.499-04:00<p><span style="font-size: large;"> <a href="https://slantbooks.com/close-reading/essays/the-dunce/?fbclid=IwAR38z4ws-xnTBBDcvgdyA6CWEgIXt5rVRzw-fx4tk60ATbjuyiSiRraacHs" target="_blank">Here </a>is a recent post about Scotus, with many interesting reflections and reminiscences of the particular writers experiences in grad school.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">He had some discussion of what he thought Scotus was trying to do that I think is not right, but worthy of consideration and reflection nevertheless.</span></p><p><br /></p><blockquote><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0a0a09; font-family: Cormorant, serif; font-size: 22px; margin-bottom: 3rem; margin-top: 0px;">The question I was trying to get to a little earlier was whether Duns Scotus was himself, ironically, rather less committed to the procedures of Scholastic philosophy than he seemed. By this I mean that there are at least two ways to do Scholastic philosophy though, I am sure, there are really many more than two ways. But we can establish at least these two possibilities. You do Scholastic philosophy in good faith, because you basically believe that it can deliver the goods, as it were, or you do it in bad faith, you do it in order to show what it can’t do. You run it into the ground. It’s possible that Duns Scotus was more or less of the latter sort. He was playing Scholastic philosophy against itself. To some degree. He was using the tools of Scholastic philosophy in order, in a sense, to break them, to destroy those tools. That’s probably too strong. But it was a tricky business, I think, what Scotus was up to.</p></blockquote><blockquote><p style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0a0a09; font-family: Cormorant, serif; font-size: 22px; margin-bottom: 3rem; margin-top: 0px;">Take the concept of haecceity, for instance, which must be one of the more unwieldy sort of words (how do you pronounce it?) in the history of philosophy and which is one of Scotus’ great gifts to us, though actually his students, the Dunses, came up with the word as their best shot at naming an idea that Scotus had elaborated in his philosophical treatises. Haecceity comes from the Latin word <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">haec,</em> which means ‘this’. So haecceity is best translated as ‘thisness’. Duns Scotus was trying to isolate the particular thisness that makes each thing a ‘this’ and therefore completely and totally unique. This is a rather perverse thing for a metaphysician to do. To focus on thisness is, in the mood of it, to turn philosophy on its head. It’s to say that the strange, unaccountable, irreducible quality of all things, that which makes each thing of creation just what it is, that this is the central and unsolvable mystery. The only way you are going to come into contact with thisness, and thus to know and to relate to anyone else, anything else, is to pay attention to that thing, that person, that object in its ineluctable, weird, unique specialness. That’s not really the sort of thing that a philosopher, especially a medieval Scholastic philosopher, is supposed to say. That’s the sort of thing a poet or a mystic says (Gerard Manley Hopkins, for instance, loved Scotus). But Scotus said it. He just said it with the words of Scholastic philosophy, so it sounds like a bit of philosophy when, in fact, it is a thought by which philosophy collapses in on itself. Or maybe truly becomes itself, finally. You could say that as well, maybe.</p></blockquote>Lee Faberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00476833516234522602noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-79734284280531059452021-01-07T14:36:00.006-05:002021-01-07T14:36:39.016-05:00Was Scotus Irish?<p>Recently I was sent a discussion about the national origins of Duns Scotus. It is <a href="http://www.orwellianireland.com/scotus.html" target="_blank">here</a>. There was a big controversy about this among the 17th century Scotists. Many of the Irish Scotists claimed him as their own. They did not, however, assign a town where he was born.</p><p><br /></p><p>The author of the piece linked to above rejects the current scholarly view that Scotus was Scotish. The problem is, the Irish thesis is based purely on hearsay. There is no positive evidence in the form of a medieval document.</p><p><br /></p><p>What about the Scottish claim? The author claims that "Scotus" could mean someone from Ireland or Scotland, that we don't know when it changed to mean only someone from Scotland. Think of the other "Scotus", Eriugena, who unquestionably was Irish. According to the author, people in the thirteenth century could be described as being either 'hibernicus' or 'scotus' depending on their racial origins as native Irish or Norman invaders.</p><p><br /></p><p>But whether or not such a distinction is true or not, it isn't relevant to the question of Scotus' origins. For we have a contemporary document that contains enough evidence to show Scotus' Scottish ancestry. This is the adhesion list of 1303. In the dispute between the pope and the king of France, the king sent officials to the various religious houses at the university and had them affix their names to a list accepting the king's claims or denying them. Scotus is on the list denying. The most recent edition of this list is in Courtenay.</p><p><br /></p><p><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">“Early Scotists at Paris: A Reconsideration,” <i>Franciscan Studies</i> 69 (2011), 175-229</span></p><p><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">This list describes people from England as 'de anglia,' those from Ireland as 'de hymbernia', leaving 'Scotus' to be Scottish. What is more, the list organizes people by regions: thus, on the page on which Scotus appears, we have scholars from the Iberian peninsula, followed by Scotus, the English, the Irish, and then the beginning of the Germans.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;">I quote the list from Courtenay , p. 226:</span></p><p><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: 14.6667px;">fr. Poncius de Catelonia</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: 14.6667px;">fr. Gondissalvus magister</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: 14.6667px;">fr. Martinus ejus socius</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: 14.6667px;">fr. Petrus de Villa franca</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: 14.6667px;">fr. Franciscus de Colimbria [Coimbra]</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: 14.6667px;">fr. Femandus</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: 14.6667px;">fr. Johannes scotus</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: 14.6667px;">fr. Thomas eius socius</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: 14.6667px;">fr. Johannes65. Johannes de Anglia</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: 14.6667px;">fr. Johannes Crombe</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: 14.6667px;">fr. Thomas anglicus</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: 14.6667px;">fr. Ricardus yberniensis</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: 14.6667px;">fr. Odo yberniensis 67. Odo de Ymbernia</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: 14.6667px;">fr. Dyonisius yberniensis 68. Dyonisius de Ymbernia</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: 14.6667px;">fr. Thomas Coloniensis</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: 14.6667px;">fr. Henricus saxoniensis</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: 14.6667px;">fr. Johannes saxoniensis</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: 14.6667px;">fr. Bemardus saxoniensis</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: 14.6667px;">fr. Eglosus almannus</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; line-height: 115%;"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: 14.6667px;">fr. Henricus almannus</span></span></p>Lee Faberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00476833516234522602noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-2928741463696036902020-12-24T09:12:00.007-05:002020-12-24T09:12:50.512-05:00Mayronis on the Analogy of Being<p> Just in time for Christmas I have uploaded a fresh collation of Mayronis' Conflatus q. 12, the question on analogy, to the <a href="https://lyfaber.blogspot.com/p/digital-conflatus-francisci-de-mayronis.html" target="_blank">Digital Conflatus</a>. There is some interesting annotation identifying the opinions of the Scotists, Thomists, Artists, and Aureolists, though the content of the question is not terribly exciting. Mayronis rejects analogy at least for the purposes of philosophy and theology (whether he accepts 'real' analogy remains to be seen). The basic reason is how he classifies analogy, which he does by placing it under equivocity, like Boethius and most of the Latin tradition.</p>Lee Faberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00476833516234522602noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-7636589703170106182020-12-23T18:59:00.001-05:002020-12-23T18:59:03.787-05:00Latin Help from Robert Pasnau<p> Bob Pasnau reviews a<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Shortcut-Scholastic-Latin-Dylan-Schrader/dp/1734018925/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=Shortcut+to+Scholastic+Latin&qid=1608767912&sr=8-1" target="_blank"> book</a> aimed at helping people move from reading classical Latin to Medieval Latin, and adds some helpful discussion of his own, <a href="https://inmediasphil.wordpress.com/2020/12/18/how-to-read-scholastic-latin/" target="_blank">here</a>.</p>Lee Faberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00476833516234522602noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-2884963456487241852020-12-23T18:56:00.001-05:002020-12-23T18:56:06.638-05:00New Book on the Analogia entis<p> Several Italian scholars have put together an anthology of texts, available for free <a href="http://cirfim.unipd.it/lanalogia-dellessere-testi-antichi-e-medievali/?fbclid=IwAR3VHjscM882LJ3jjYvuK9UFNzYufbfJowGMl3M-xSv9Faf0MBvKNb_FX-w" target="_blank">here</a>. It has the original language plus Italian translations and introductions to the texts. but they are all important, from Aristotle, the Greek commentators on Aristotle, Avicenna and Averroes, Aquinas, Scotus, Eckhart and Cajetan. The volum jumpts from Eckhart to Cajetan, omitting the author who wrote the most about analogy, in the middle ages, at least, Petrus Thomae. An odd omission, since there was a section in the companion volume on Peter Thomae by Porro. Also, Alexander of Alexandria has a fair bit on analogy in his commentary on the Metaphysics. But enjoy what we have.</p>Lee Faberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00476833516234522602noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-35798200963466908142020-12-09T08:35:00.004-05:002020-12-09T08:35:47.111-05:00New Scotus essay<p> Scotus seems to be in danger of becoming more mainstream. I came across the announcement of a forthcoming article in the American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly today, abstract is below.</p><p><br /></p><div ng-non-bindable="" style="background-color: white; color: #8f8f8f; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; font-size: 13.3333px; font-weight: bold;">Yul Kim</div><div ng-non-bindable="" style="background-color: white; color: #8f8f8f; font-family: Arial, Helvetica; font-size: 13.3333px; font-weight: bold;"><span ng-non-bindable=""><a class="ArticleEntryLink" href="http://www.pdcnet.org/acpq/content/acpq_2020_0999_12_8_216" ng-non-bindable="" rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">Why Does the Wood Not Ignite Itself? Duns Scotus’s Defense of the Will’s Self-Motion</a></span><br ng-non-bindable="" /><span ng-non-bindable="" style="color: black; font-weight: normal;">The goal of this paper is to analyze the response of John Duns Scotus to Godfrey of Fontaines’s argument against Henry of Ghent’s theory of the will’s self-motion. Godfrey’s argument is that, if the object is assumed to be causa sine qua non and the efficient causality is totally attributed to the will in the act of volition, it would also follow that not only the will’s motion but every motion in nature, such as, for example, the igniting of wood, is a self-motion. In this paper, I will explain that Scotus’s refutation of this argument in Reportatio II, d. 25 is based on his reflection upon the general possibility of self-motion as well as upon the indeterminacy of the will’s act. In doing so, I will show that the development of Scotus’s theory of the will’s motion is closely related to his universalized theory of self-motion.</span></div>Lee Faberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00476833516234522602noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-47934872579840310462020-11-08T15:20:00.003-05:002020-11-08T15:20:40.517-05:00Feast of Scotus 2020<p> Happy feast dear readers!</p><p><br /></p><p>Here is a <a href="https://stmungomusic.org.uk/scotus-a-hymn/" target="_blank">link </a>to a terrible song about Scotus for your entertainment. well, they tried at least. </p><p><br /></p><p>Here's an old poem that appears in some mss of Scotus' works:</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Scotia plange, quia periit tua gloria cara,</p><p>Funde precem, confunde necem, tibi cum sit amara.</p><p>Troia luit florem de viribus Hectora visum (!).</p><p>Sic luo Doctorem iuvenili flore recisum.</p><p>Caelum, terra, mare nequeunt similem reparare.</p><p>Si quaeras, quare, - probat hae editio clare.</p><p>Quam fera, quam nequam sit mors, tribuens tibi legem</p><p>Cum reliquis aequam, rapiens ex ordine regem.</p><p>Lux, lex doctorum rex, iudex philosophorum,</p><p>Ut documentorum demonstrant dicta suorum.</p><p>Fletibus immensis urbs plorat Parisiensis,</p><p>Nuda suo flore, solo spoliata decore.</p><p>Ergo, legens, plora, quia non huic subfuit hora,</p><p>Sed ruit absque mora: pro quo, studens, precora, ora.</p>Lee Faberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00476833516234522602noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-52632094418791188162020-10-25T11:43:00.001-04:002020-10-25T11:43:11.985-04:00Alexander Lugo's Metaphysical Controversies<br />While perusing various Scotus-related google search results, I came across an interesting volume. The Latin title is <i>Controversiae metaphysicalium inter Scotistas in quibus potiores difficultates examinantur atque germana mens Scoti aperitur</i>. a single volume printed at Bologna in 1653. Here is a <a href="https://reader.digitale-sammlungen.de//de/fs1/object/display/bsb10008533_00005.html" target="_blank">link </a>to the volume.<br /><br /><br />The author is Alexnder de Lugo, regarding whom I have copied the following from the <a href="http://users.bart.nl/~roestb/franciscan/" target="_blank">Franciscan Authors website:</a><blockquote><br /><br /><br />Alexander Rubeus/Rossus (Alessandro Rossi da Lugo, 1607-1686)<br /><br />OFMConv. Spanish friar. Born on 14 November 1606 as the son of Alessandro Rossi da Lugo and Isabella Mengacci da Bagnacavallo. He joined the order in 1624, finishing his noviciate in Cesena. Afterwards, he received his philosophical, religious and theological education in Parma, Cesena (under Mastrius and Belluto), and in Bologna (under the regent master Paolo Antonio Losi da Carpi and Guglielmo Plati da Montaino). After completing his studies, he was regent in Piacenza, Baccalareus in the Assisi friary, regent in Urbino and later in regent in Assisi and Bologna (together with Lorenzo Brancati da Lauria). Subsequently active as order secretary. Later in life, he was again regent master of Bologna and 20 years lector of the Franciscan seminary of Lugo and guardian of the Lugo friary. In 1680, he became order procurator and in 1683 provincial minister of the Bologna province. He died on 2 November 1686. Alessandro Rossi was a propagator of Scotist thought</blockquote><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p> The controversiae concern the classic debates in Scotist thought:</p><p>Controversia 1: an conceptui formali entis correspondeat propria realitas</p><p>Controverisa 2: An conceptus entis dicatur de ultimis differentiis modis et passionibus et quomodo</p><p>Controversia 3: An ens dicatur univoce de ente reali et rationis</p><p>Controversia 4: An ens rationis possit fieri ab intellectu divino</p><p>Controversia 5: An voluntas possit facere ens rationis formale</p><p>Controverisa 6: An ens habeat passiones de ipso demonstrabiles et quomodo</p><p>Controverisa 7: An dentur formalitates seu realitates passiones et naturae communes ex natura rei distinctae a rebus quarum sunt formalitates passiones et naturae</p><p>Controversia 8: Quam unitatem conservet natura communis in suis individuis</p><p>Controversia 9: An natura communis ut prior haecceitate possit intuitive cognosci</p><p>Controversia 10: An si natura per impossibile esset sine existentia et singularitate esset etiam sine duratione</p><p>Controversia 11: An substantia suscipiat magis et minus</p><p>Controversia 12: An generatio fiat in instanti vel potius in tempore</p><p>Controversia 13: An potentia receptiva formarum ex natura rei distinguatur a substentificativa earundem</p><p>Controversia 14: An totum integrale distinguatur relaiter a suis partibus</p><p>Controversia 15: An actus sit causa partialis habitus an solum causetur ab ipsa potentia</p><p>Controversia 16: An natura dicatur de principio passivo tantum</p><p>Controversia 17: An cessante actuali dependentia effectus creati ad propriam causam restet in ipso alia relatio qua actualiter referatur ad causam</p><p><br /></p><p>Some of the names whose opinions are discussed in the text are: Scotus, Lichetus, Bargius, Henry (of Ghent), Mastrius, Thomistas, Scotistae, Pontius, Nolanus, Vulpes, Canonicus (=Marbres), Bassiolus, Mayronis, Aureolus, Pater Franciscus Pontelongus de Faventia, Rada, Bonetus, Ockham, Soncinas, Augustine, Aristotle, Tataretus, Faber, Cajetan, Molina</p>Lee Faberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00476833516234522602noreply@blogger.com1