Among the many things as are by men possessed or pursued in the course of their lives, all the rest are baubles, besides old wood to burn, old wine to drink, old friends to converse with, and old books to read.
--King Alphonsus the Wise of Aragon
"I want only the shrewdest to decide; in my opinion the counsel of fools is all the more dangerous the more of them there are."
--Ólafur Höskuldsson, "Laxdaela Saga"
What wretch can bear a live-long night's dull rest,
Or think himself in lazy slumbers blest?
Fool, is not Sleep the image of pale Death?
There's time for rest, when Fate has stopp'd your breath.
--Ovid, tr. John Wilmot, Earl of Rochester
Showing posts with label Michael. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Michael. Show all posts
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Friday, March 19, 2010
Update
After a pretty good run I've fallen down on the regular posting lately. I was out of town (enjoying the hospitality of Faber and his new wife) for a while putting the finishing touches on my dissertation. I'm back now, but haven't gotten into the swing of blogging again. I'm not sure I should, either, rather than preparing for my defense and thinking about the future. I'll try to do better, however.
By the way, my defense date has been set for April 23, which is a lot later than I'd hoped for a year ago; still, barring any catastrophes and Deo volente, I should graduate with my PhD in May.
By the way, my defense date has been set for April 23, which is a lot later than I'd hoped for a year ago; still, barring any catastrophes and Deo volente, I should graduate with my PhD in May.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Hiatus
In case anyone out there cares, I'm leaving town and state today for a little over two weeks. I won't be posting and probably will not be able to take further part in any ongoing discussions. Those of you who rely on The Smithy for your dose of sweet sweet reason will have to rely on Faber to take the helm in the meantime. Hopefully if I can't post I'll still be able to study.
Felix, qui potest rerum cognoscere causas,
atque metus omnis et inexorabile fatum
subiecit pedibus strepitumque Acherontis avari.
fortunatus et ille, deos qui novit agrestis,
Panaque Silvanumque senem Nymphasque sorores.
illum non populi fasces, non purpura regum
flexit et infidos agitans discordia fratres,
aut coniuratio descendens Dacus ab Histro,
non res Romanae perituraque regna; neque ille
aut doluit miserans inopem aut invidit habenti.
--Virgil, Georgics II.490-499
Felix, qui potest rerum cognoscere causas,
atque metus omnis et inexorabile fatum
subiecit pedibus strepitumque Acherontis avari.
fortunatus et ille, deos qui novit agrestis,
Panaque Silvanumque senem Nymphasque sorores.
illum non populi fasces, non purpura regum
flexit et infidos agitans discordia fratres,
aut coniuratio descendens Dacus ab Histro,
non res Romanae perituraque regna; neque ille
aut doluit miserans inopem aut invidit habenti.
--Virgil, Georgics II.490-499
Friday, September 28, 2007
Guest Post
Here is a quote sent in by Michael, from Monadology.
Longpré, E., "Gonsalve de Balboa et le Bx Duns Scot." Études
Franciscaines XXXVI (1924), 640-645. [Attribution of the Conclusiones
to Gonsalvus, acquaintance with Scotus, etc.] 644: "Ainsi qu'il
résulte du titre de ces Quaestiones, Gonzalve de Balboa aborde, dans
le cadre très souple d'une série de disputes sur la louange divine,
les problèmes essentiels du volontarisme augustinien et franciscain.
Tout contribue à donner à son oeuvre un intérêt puissant . . . Ces
Quaestions en effet ont été disputées à Paris, très probablement entre
1300 et 1302", given parallels with William Ware and Eckart. 645: "The ideas of the Marian Doctor [Scotus] on the will and its role in the psychological life, his arguments against Godfrey of Fontaines in
favor of the liberty and spontaneity of the will, his conception of
theology as a practical science, all this is already presented and
defended with flair [éclat] by Gonsalvus of Balboa." A bit later, "it
will be easy to follow the admirable continuity of Franciscan thought
from 1260 until Duns Scotus. What then will remain of the hateful
judgments brought against the voluntarism of the Marian Doctor, the
successive denunciations of pragmatism, modernism, exaggerated
determinism and autocracy? Nothing, absolutely nothing, save a sad
page in history which it would be an honor never to mention again."
A few random comments from ly Faber: In John Inglis' book on medieval philosophical historiography (in which he identifies the "seraphic" doctor as Duns Scotus) there is a discussion of the two Inglis sees as being responsible for the Thomas-centered historiography of the 19th century which infuenced much of the twentieth, Stockl and Kleutgen. They had an even worse view of Scotus. According to them, Scotus, the founder of the "formalist" movement thought that individuation was through form. Now, since scotus only paid attention to form and not matter/subject, this logically entails that forms inhere in the 'world' as a subject, that is, there is only one subject which means scotus was a pantheist. By positing individuation as being a formal element, then, Scotus really neglected the particular, which is the Scylla to Ockham's Charybdis of claiming only particulars exist and destroying science; that is, the two Hegelian horns that the Thomistic synthesis sailed between. Sadly, it took 50 years after these two were writing for someone to challenge the pantheist claim, Parthenius Minges in the 1920's. Interestingly, Garriogu-Lagrange seems to have known about this defense, as he never accuses Scotus of pantheism (which I have no doubt he would have had he been able).
Longpré, E., "Gonsalve de Balboa et le Bx Duns Scot." Études
Franciscaines XXXVI (1924), 640-645. [Attribution of the Conclusiones
to Gonsalvus, acquaintance with Scotus, etc.] 644: "Ainsi qu'il
résulte du titre de ces Quaestiones, Gonzalve de Balboa aborde, dans
le cadre très souple d'une série de disputes sur la louange divine,
les problèmes essentiels du volontarisme augustinien et franciscain.
Tout contribue à donner à son oeuvre un intérêt puissant . . . Ces
Quaestions en effet ont été disputées à Paris, très probablement entre
1300 et 1302", given parallels with William Ware and Eckart. 645: "The ideas of the Marian Doctor [Scotus] on the will and its role in the psychological life, his arguments against Godfrey of Fontaines in
favor of the liberty and spontaneity of the will, his conception of
theology as a practical science, all this is already presented and
defended with flair [éclat] by Gonsalvus of Balboa." A bit later, "it
will be easy to follow the admirable continuity of Franciscan thought
from 1260 until Duns Scotus. What then will remain of the hateful
judgments brought against the voluntarism of the Marian Doctor, the
successive denunciations of pragmatism, modernism, exaggerated
determinism and autocracy? Nothing, absolutely nothing, save a sad
page in history which it would be an honor never to mention again."
A few random comments from ly Faber: In John Inglis' book on medieval philosophical historiography (in which he identifies the "seraphic" doctor as Duns Scotus) there is a discussion of the two Inglis sees as being responsible for the Thomas-centered historiography of the 19th century which infuenced much of the twentieth, Stockl and Kleutgen. They had an even worse view of Scotus. According to them, Scotus, the founder of the "formalist" movement thought that individuation was through form. Now, since scotus only paid attention to form and not matter/subject, this logically entails that forms inhere in the 'world' as a subject, that is, there is only one subject which means scotus was a pantheist. By positing individuation as being a formal element, then, Scotus really neglected the particular, which is the Scylla to Ockham's Charybdis of claiming only particulars exist and destroying science; that is, the two Hegelian horns that the Thomistic synthesis sailed between. Sadly, it took 50 years after these two were writing for someone to challenge the pantheist claim, Parthenius Minges in the 1920's. Interestingly, Garriogu-Lagrange seems to have known about this defense, as he never accuses Scotus of pantheism (which I have no doubt he would have had he been able).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)