Monday, September 30, 2019

Scotist analogy

A new essay on the Scotist analogy of being (analogia entis) has appeared. Here is the abstract.

It is widely believed today that John Duns Scotus’s doctrine of the univocity of being ushered in various deleterious philosophical and theological consequences that resulted in the negative features of modernity. Included in this common opinion, but not examined, is the belief that by affirming univocity Scotus thereby also denied the analogy of being (analogia entis). The present essay challenges this belief by recovering Scotus’s true position on analogy, namely that it obtains in the order of the real, and that complex concepts of creatures are analogically related to complex concepts of God. Scotus’s doctrine is then compared to the later Scotist tradition. The common opinion of the Scotist school from the fourteenth century onward followed Scotus’s position on analogy and considerably expanded upon his scattered remarks.


Anonymous said...

Cool, I look forward to receiving my copy of the ACPQ. You know, Richard Cross, addressed a similar topic in an issue of The Modern Schoolman (now Res Philosophica) a few years ago. These studies provide a helpful counter-position to the notorious claims that Scotus poo-pooed all thing analogical!

Lee Faber said...

I do know the Cross piece, it is much clearer than mine, though he did not use the Ord I d.8 text that served as the basis of the later tradition. But a fine piece nonetheless.

Bartholomew Masters said...

This looks great! Thanks for alerting us all.

Credo In Unum Deum said...

Good work. I sent you an email.

Anonymous said...

To whomever on the blog who may know, as one not as steeped in the primacy of Christ and Duns Scotus, I have a question I hope you may be able to answer; could it be the cross rather than the Incarnation was the contingent act that Christ undertook because of sin? In other words, the Incarnation came about as a result of God's love for His creation and would have happened whether or not man sinned, but because man sinned, Christ suffered the cross as an act of love to bring about our redemption. Christ's desire that the cup pass shows that it was not something He sought and would have liked for the Father to take the cup away. No such regret seems to come in reference to His Incarnation.