tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post8740826517125234561..comments2024-03-11T04:11:06.487-04:00Comments on The Smithy: Divine Simplicity againLee Faberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00476833516234522602noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-68807163334671026552019-09-20T12:45:42.648-04:002019-09-20T12:45:42.648-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.HDVOGOhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03198950163081211447noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-77194649399590657942019-09-13T16:39:56.790-04:002019-09-13T16:39:56.790-04:00I would second the suggestion of Duns Scotus Metap...I would second the suggestion of Duns Scotus Metaphysician. Not only does it provide some important texts, but it doesn't require that you understand (in advance) the matrix of texts and traditions in which the Ordinatio and Reportatio is embedded; thus it is useful for beginners. In a similar vein, Thomas Williams' recent edition/translation of texts from Oxford UP is very good, titled John Duns Scotus: Selected Writings on Ethics. <br /><br />There is a decent amount of good secondary material. I have benefited much (even where I disagree) from Richard Cross's Great Medieval Thinkers volume, simply titled Duns Scotus, also from Oxford UP. The Cambridge Companion to Scotus contains some excellent material, as well.<br /><br />Fun fact: OUP has declared John Duns Scotus the September Philosopher of the Month. Sadly, there are no pinup pictures:<br />https://global.oup.com/academic/category/arts-and-humanities/philosophy/philosopher-of-the-month/jdb41https://www.blogger.com/profile/02662228859270832073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-31506237008471085312019-09-12T16:04:32.348-04:002019-09-12T16:04:32.348-04:00Scotus is just hard, but you should read him for y...Scotus is just hard, but you should read him for yourself. The 'Duns Scotus metaphysician' is a nice place to start, since it has commentary too. Ther are introductions, probably the best is Bettoni. Also, Wolter's Book on the Transcendentals can serve as an introduction.Lee Faberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00476833516234522602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-56699150664420348292019-09-10T21:51:40.378-04:002019-09-10T21:51:40.378-04:00Hi
this is not directly related to the topic, but...Hi<br /><br />this is not directly related to the topic, but I hope i could get some help. I want to study and tackle Scotus's works. Is there any order that you recommend for reading his works? Should I read some introductions to Scotus before reading Scotus himself?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-64873955278751989362019-08-26T20:53:17.614-04:002019-08-26T20:53:17.614-04:00Anonymous,
Nobody has refuted my argument yet.Anonymous,<br /><br />Nobody has refuted my argument yet.A Counter Rebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08504216290980600901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-81036484501081712692019-08-25T17:38:42.976-04:002019-08-25T17:38:42.976-04:00You were also actually banned by Fese, aYou were also actually banned by Fese, aAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-69610154730006848472019-08-24T16:48:23.267-04:002019-08-24T16:48:23.267-04:00Well, my apologies. The Williams/Steele article ha...Well, my apologies. The Williams/Steele article has not yet been published - and doesn’t appear to be listed yet as forthcoming on the ACPQ website. Hopefully it will be out soon. I will see if there is any access to it elsewhere yet.<br /><br />My piece has only appeared in BJHP online - it has not appeared in the print version yet. Here is the paywalled link:<br />https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/10.1080/09608788.2019.1624946<br /><br />I have another link that I can give to folks privately because I get 50 free downloads of the article. Given the overwhelming popularity of Scotus, though, I can't guarantee that they aren't all gone already! (No, I don't track analytics. It's too depressing.)<br /><br />jdb41https://www.blogger.com/profile/02662228859270832073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-26703774560154181252019-08-24T15:59:37.869-04:002019-08-24T15:59:37.869-04:00I would love to read theses papers, too, Josh. Tha...I would love to read theses papers, too, Josh. Thanks for alerting us to them!<br /><br />Jared Isaac GoffBartholomew Mastershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08163331140275529298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-52601995984373720352019-08-24T04:29:47.025-04:002019-08-24T04:29:47.025-04:00thanks for these, Josh, do you happen to have copi...thanks for these, Josh, do you happen to have copies?Lee Faberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00476833516234522602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-31099638173875764372019-08-23T13:52:40.844-04:002019-08-23T13:52:40.844-04:00Here is a very good recent piece by Thomas William...Here is a very good recent piece by Thomas Williams & Jeff Steele discussing simplicity and distinction/complexity in Scotus:<br /><br />https://philpapers.org/rec/STECWC-2<br /><br />And sorry for the ugly, blatant self-promotion, but my own views about the formal distinction seem to allow for greater complexity than traditional simplicity doctrines permit:<br /><br />https://philpapers.org/rec/BLASAI-4jdb41https://www.blogger.com/profile/02662228859270832073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-78168589442202736352019-08-22T15:33:18.112-04:002019-08-22T15:33:18.112-04:00Michael: no, that is a transcription of the 1520 e...Michael: no, that is a transcription of the 1520 ed. maybe a glance at mss here and there, but nothing more. Still, better than nothing and still in print.<br /><br />Bubba: sure, I was just repeating conventional wisdom on Pierre Roger. I haven't read it in quite a while, though Mayronis does take pains, even against PR to show how his notion of formalities is not so far off from Aquinas. <br /><br />ah, so the 'schola minorum' might actually just be the literal school, not an idealogical orientation?<br /><br />I await your complete edition of Mayronis' principia debates.Lee Faberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00476833516234522602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-85412032776447401262019-08-22T05:36:47.115-04:002019-08-22T05:36:47.115-04:00Well, how "Thomist" Pierre Roger is, is ...Well, how "Thomist" Pierre Roger is, is open to debate. The "Pax" referred to by Meyronnes is a little tricky, since we don't know what exactly it's about. In spite of such clowns (as myself) talking about the Meyronnes and the first mention of the "schola minorum", it should be noted that Meyronnes only uses the term (that I've found) in his writings as a bachelor; the importance of this point is that a regent master is in charge of his own school, so Meyronnes-the-master might have a different attitude towards schools.<br />And before Meyronnes, the Dominican Matteo Orsini openly mocked Hugh of Novocastro's defense of <i>formalitates</i> - if, that is, you believe the word of Meyronnes' secretary, and if that's what he really was.<br />All this is an aside, of course. Barbet's "edition" of the principia debate pretty much comes from a single manuscript, and Maier has shown that the last part is directed against a Dominican, and not Pierre Roger. Moreover, that first question of the Conflatus was part of Meyronnes' principia.<br />...which reminds me that I have an article to finish on that.Bubbanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-18789693220588651722019-08-22T03:34:55.485-04:002019-08-22T03:34:55.485-04:00Is the portion of the Conflatus you gave me not cr...Is the portion of the Conflatus you gave me not critically edited?Michael Sullivanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11191322302191384384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-7999527131590346782019-08-21T23:15:10.115-04:002019-08-21T23:15:10.115-04:00I'm "self-banned" from commenting on...I'm "self-banned" from commenting on Feser's blog. I wanted to see what Thomists (or those friendly to or knowledgeable about it) think about the following objection to Thomism and divine simplicity: So I would say I am 99% sure that foreknowledge is incompatible with libertarian free will (the categorical ability to do otherwise in a non-random way). Now, if "Mullins reply to Feser on 8/26" is true right now, then Mullins can't do otherwise without falsifying the truth value of the sentence. To be free, "Mullins reply..." would have to false (or neither true nor false), then becomes true if and when Mullins replies to Feser on 8/26. Since it becomes true, it seems to me there is a change and/or succession in God's intellect (in God, therefore). This suggests to me that even if I (a layman, mind you) can't pinpoint exactly what goes wrong in Thomist arguments, there must be something wrong at the root of it. If I'm right, the true debate is between open theism and atheism. That is, unless the Thomist wants to reject libertarian free will and say we are all puppets of Pure Act.A Counter Rebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08504216290980600901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-74291124280701649222019-08-21T19:19:24.451-04:002019-08-21T19:19:24.451-04:00Beautiful.Beautiful.Matthew Guertinnoreply@blogger.com