Intentionality

'Intentionality' is a term bandied about a lot today, so in a small concession to contemporary interest I am posting something perhaps more relevant than the usual arcana. Note that when Scotus refers to the 'third' opinion ord. II d.25 he is referring to his own position, although d. 25 is not actually found in the ordinatio. It is among the 15 or 20 distinctions that he never got around to finishing. But a parallel passage can be found in the Lectura, which once again shows that one must be clear on what one means when labelling Scotus as a 'voluntarist'. For in d.25, he develops the position that the intellect and will are related as two essentially ordered causes. It is not, WILL WILL and WILL alone with Scotus (maybe Henry...) but the joint operation of intellect and will is required for a volitional act. That's all for now. Soon I'll have to stop reading for fun and buckle down for school, and then the blogging will go by the wayside unless I blog on some of the Derrida or historiography stuff I'm swamped by.

Ordinatio II d.38 Q.unica:
Respondeo.

Primo videndum est quid dicitur per hoc nomen ‘intentio’.

“‘Intendere’ enim dicit ‘in aliud tendere’. Hoc potest accipi generaliter, sive ab alio habeat quod tendat in illud, sive a se ‘movente se in illud.’ – Potest etiam aliquid tendere in aliquid ut in obiectum praesens, vel ut in terminum distantem vel absentem.

Primo modo convenit omni potentiae respectu sui obiecti.

Secundo modo magis proprie sumitur pro illo quod scilicet tendit in aliud et non ducitur in illud, sed ducit se in illud; et hoc modo non potest esse alicuius potentiae naturalis, sed tantum liberae, quia - secundum Damascenum cap. 33 – ‘appetitus non-liber ducitur et non ducit,’ et ita est do omni potentia naturali.

Hoc ergo modo proprie accipiendo ‘intendere,’ prout scilicet dicit ‘in aliud tendere ex se,’ erit principaliter potentiae liberae; sed cum ‘libere velle’ sit totius liberi arbitrii, quod includit intellectum et voluntatem (secundam illam tertianopinionem distinctione 25 huius), totius erit ‘intendere’ (et hoc si propriissime sumatur), et non erit alicuius respectu obiecti sui sed respectu finis. Et cum in omni volitione – secundum Anselmum – sit accipere ‘quid’ et ‘cur’, ‘intendere’ non respicit ‘quid’ sed ‘cur’, prout scilicet dicit tendentiam in aliquid ut distans, per aliquid tamquam per aliquid medium.

Erit ergo ‘intentio’ actus liberi arbitrii ratione voluntatis, et erit actus eius respectu eius quod vult. Quod si voliti et eius propter quod est volitum, sit idem actus volendi, idem actus erit usus et intentio; si autem alius, intentio dicet formaliter actum illum quo tendit in finem, et materialiter actum utendi quo refert aliud in illum finem.

...

Ad ultimum dico quod conferre per modum iudicii est solus intellectus, sicut et intelligere, - sed referre utendo sive ordinando unum amabile ad aliud, est voluntatis; sicut enim voluntas est relexiva, quia immaterialis, ita et collativa vel potens referre suo modo.”

Translation:
I respond. First it must be seen what is meant by this term ‘intention’. For ‘to intend’ means ‘to stretch into another’. This can be understood generally, either it has from another that which it stretches into that, or from itself ‘moving itself into that.’ – Something is also able to stretch into something as into a present object, or as into a distant or absent terminus. The first way is suited to every power with respect to its object. The second way is understood more properly for that which strains into another and is not led into it, but leads itself into it; and in this way it cannot be of any natural power, but only of a free power, because – according to the Damascene chapter 33 – ‘a non-free appetite is led and does not lead’, and so it is of every natural power. Therefore in this way properly understanding “intention”, inasmuch as it means ‘to strain into another from itself’, it will bwe principally of a free power; but since ‘to will freely’ is of the entire free choice, which includes the intellect and will (according to that third opinion in distinction 25 of Book II), it will be of the totality ‘to intend’ (and this if it is understood most properly), and it will not be of something with respect to its object but with respect to the end. And since in every volition – according to Anselm- it is necessary to understand ‘what’ and ‘why’, ‘to intend’ does not fall under ‘what’ but ‘why’, inasmuch as means a straining into something as distant, through something just as through some medium. Therefore ‘intention’ is an act of free choice under the aegis [ratio: maybe aspect, meaning, definition] of the will, and it will be the act of it with respect of that which it wills. But if of the willed and of that on account of which it is willed, is the same act of willing, the same act will be use and intention. But if another, intention will formally mean that act by which it stretches into the end, and materially the act of using by which it refers another into that end.
...

To the last I say that to compare through the mode of judgment is of the intellect alone, just as is understanding – but to refer by using or ordering one lovable thing to another, is of the will; for just as the will is reflexive, because it is immaterial, so also it is collative or able to refer in its own way.

Scotistic Infelicities

I came across a rather odd passage, that seems to contradict his very explicit comments elsewhere (in d.8). He seems to be saying that a common univocal term, in this case 'voluntas', is related to the particular term or to the term conceived with its intrinsic mode in the way in which genus and species are related, that is, by a contraction by means of a specific difference. In d. 8 he argues precisely against this, as it entails composition in God. Obviously, here it is only serving as an example and may not meant to be taken as a directly analogous case. But the terminology is the same in both passages: Specific difference, pure or irreducible perfections (perfectio simpliciter). Here it is, I've only translated the last bit.

Ord. II d. 34-37 q. 1-5, n. `17-28.
...quo modo differentia dicitur accidere generi. Hoc enim modo illud quo voluntas nostra specifice est ‘haec voluntas,’ accidit ‘voluntati in communi’, quia ‘voluntas in communi’ est perfectio simpliciter (propter quod ponitur formaliter in Deo), et voluntas sub ista ratione non est proxima causa etiam contingens respectu peccati, quia tunc quodlibet inferius sub ea haberet talem rationem causalitatis, et ita voluntas divina. Sed voluntas, contracta per differentiam aliquam ad voluntatem creatam (quam circum loquimur per hoc quod est ‘limitatum’), est proxima causa defectiva et per accidens respectu peccati...

Ita in proposito. Illam differentiam specificam qua ‘voluntas in communi’ contrahitur ad voluntatem creatam (quae contractio vel differentia nos modo latet), circum loquimur per hoc quod est ‘esse limitatum’ vel ‘defectible’ vel ‘ex nihilo’....


"So is in the question at hand. We speak about that specific difference by which the will in common is contracted to the created will (the contraction or difference is not known to us now)..."

Kedar

In reading Kedar's Crusade and Mission for class I came across the following quote concerning Scotus; the context is the later medieval discussion on the relation between crusade, mission, and forcible conversion. The quote is from p. 187:

"Similarly, the prominent Franciscan theologian Johannes Duns Scotus (d. 1308), tacitly rejecting Thomas's view, argues that a Christian ruler not only may but ought to take Jewish and infidel children from their parents by force and have them baptized; he advises the ruler to do this with proper caution, lest the parents be forewarned and kill the children to prevent their baptism. And the doctor subtilis goes on to say, 'Moreover, I believe that it would be a pious deed to coerce the parents themselves with threats and terror to receive baptism and to cling to it thereafter. For even though they would not be true believers in their hearts, it would be still less harmful for them to be unable to keep safely their illicit religion than to be able to keep it freely. Their descendants, if properly brought up, would become true believers by the third or fourth generation.'"

William Turner's narrative

From the Catholic encyclopedia, at New Advent in an article on Scholasticism:

"With Duns Scotus, a genius of the first order, but not of the constructive type, begins the critical phase, of Scholasticism. Even before his time, the Franciscan and the Dominican currents had set out in divergent directions. It was his keen and unrelenting search for the weak points in Thomistic philosophy that irritated and wounded susceptibilities among the followers of St. Thomas, and brought about the spirit of partisanship which did so much to dissipate the energy of Scholasticism in the fourteenth century. The recrudescence of Averroism in the schools, the excessive cultivation of formalism and subtlety, the growth of artificial and even barbarous terminology, and the neglect of the study of nature and of history contributed to the same result. Ockham's Nominalism and Durandus's attempt to "simplify" Scholastic philosophy did not have the effect which their authors intended. "The glory and power of scholasticism faded into the warmth and brightness of mysticism," and Gerson, Thomas à Kempis, and Eckhart are more representative of what the Christian Church was actually thinking in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries than are the Thomists, Scotists, and Ockhamists of that period, who frittered away much valuable time in the discussion of highly technical questions which arose within the schools and possess little interest except for adepts in Scholastic subtlety. After the rise of Humanism, when the Renaissance, which ushered in the modern era, was in full progress, the great Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese commentators inaugurated an age of more healthy Scholasticism, and the great Jesuit teachers, Toletus, Vasquez, and Francisco Suárez, seemed to recall the best days of thirteenth century speculation. The triumph of scientific discovery, with which, as a rule, the representatives of Scholasticism in the seats of academic authority had, unfortunately, too little sympathy, led to new ways of philosophizing, and when, finally, Descartes in practice, if not in theory, effected a complete separation of philosophy from theology, the modern era had begun and the age known as that of Scholasticism had come to an end."

I've seen articles by this Turner fellow floating around on abebooks for ages, but this is the first I have read. Not terribly surprising for its time (1912). it is influenced by the historiography of the day, which essentially taught that the 14th century was one of decline. Even now, nearly one hundred years later, the scholarship has advanced little. We have here myths that are still with us: Scotus is a destructive not a constructive thinker; Scotus set out explicitly to attack Thomas Aquinas; scholastic discourse was obssessed with trivialities. The contrast between "mysticism" and scholastic thought and the claim that the former is representative of its time is new to me, but not surprising. Soon after this article Anneliese Meier was to begen to write, devoting her life to 14th century scholastic natural philosophy; one of her interesting claims is that the 14th century developed its own natural philsophy, neither making the moves necessary for modern science nor being excessively devoted to Aristotle. It is different than both. She does say, however, that the principle of omne quod movetur ab alio movetur was the major notion that kept the scholastics from developing a more modern natural philosophy (I might add, it was the voluntarists Henry of Ghent and Duns Scotus who rejected this, unlike the intellectualist St. Thomas).

Gerson: a nominalist like his master D'ailly, bitterly opposed to Scotisim. Durandus: I've never heard of this simplification; he seems as or more complex than Scotus. Barbarous terminology: the usual complaint of the humanists against the scholastics in general.

De peccato actuali

I'm deep in fall semester now, but am trying to finish up vol. 8. At the moment I am wending my way through the discussion of actual sin, one of the most complicated questions, textually speaking, that I have encountered in the subtle doctor's writings; five interlaced questions. There is a lot of Anselm, Augustine, with ocassional references to arguements of Aquinas and Bonaventure, though it may not be direct "contra Thomam" argumentation, but borrowing arguments for a position from their writings. The editors give quotes from Aquinas, and point out a dual influence from Anselm and Augustine; Scotus discusses Augustine, but is much closer to Anselm's position, and even adopts it explicitly in the matter of original sin. It is a very different account of sin than what I have heard before, and I think I made some errors in my post on penance. Not that I think it falls afoul of Trent or anything. Even Ott points out a few places where Trent specifically left the scholastic dispute unresolved. Anyway, I will put up a few quotes.

Ord. II d. 34-37 qq.1-5, n. 46-47:

"Concedo ergo ... quod peccatum est corruptio rectitudinis in actu secundo... non autem naturalis, nec cuiuscumque habitualis, sed moralis actualis. Sed non intelligo de corruptione quae est mutatio ab esse ad non-esse (potest enim peccatum manere post talem mutationem iustitae ab esse ad non-esse, potest etiam inesse absque tali mutatione ab esse ad non-esse), sed intelligo corruptionem formaliter, sicut privatio dicitur formaliter corruptio sui habitus; hoc enim modo ratio peccati est formaliter corruptio rectitudinis in actu secundo, quia opponitur illi rectitudini ut privatio habitui: non quidem rectitudini quae inest (quia tunc duo opposita simul inessent), nec quae prius infuit isti actui (quia actus non manet ut alteretur ab opposito in oppositum), sed quae deberet inesse."

I grant, therefore, that sin is corruption of rectitude in second act [think of Aristotle's first and second acts here]; not however of a natural act, nor of any habitual one, but of a moral act. But I do not mean by 'corruption' a change from being to non-being (for sin can remain after such a change of justice from being to non-being, it is able also to inhere without such a change from being to non-being), but I use 'corruption' formally, just as a privation is called formally a corruption of its habit; for in this way the definition of sin is formally the corruption of rectitude in second act, because it is opposed to that rectitude as privation is opposed to its habit: not indeed to the rectitude which inheres (because then two opposites would inhere simultaneously), nor what first was present to that act (because act does not reman so that it might be changed from opposite into opposite), but what ought to inhere.

"Voluntas enim libera debitrix est ut omnem actum suum eliciat conformiter regulae superiori, videlicet secundum praeceptum divinum; et ideo quando agit difformiter ab ista regula, caret iustitia actuali debita (hoc est, iustitia quae deberet inesse actui et non inest): haec carentia, in quantum est actus voluntatis deficientis (sicut dicetur in aliqua solutione), est formaliter peccatum actuale."

Free will is a debtor, so that it elicits its every act in conformity to superior rules, namely, according to the divine commands. And therefore when it acts in a manner opposed to those rules, it lacks the actual requried justice (that is, the justice which ought to inhere or be present to the act and does not inhere). This lack, insofar as it as an act of the will turning aside is formally actual sin."

Bad, I know, but "debita" and "deficio" are always a nightmare to translate, almost as bad as "natum."

Scotus, Trent and Penance

In a recent post, "e" raised objections to Scotus's orthodoxy based on the following passages in Cross's book on Duns Scotus. The view that Cross attributes to Scotus, that the sacrament of penance causes no real change in the sinner, "e" maintains to have been censured by the council of Trent. So in this entry I shall try to examine Cross's interpretation, Scotus's own position, and the possibility that it has been censured. I confess my prior claims as to no thesis of Scotus's thought ever being censured to be based on the authority of 19th and early 20th century scholarship. But if it does turn out that Trent went after a Scotistic position, then what? So he got something wrong. It may be due to an erroneous principle or erroneous conclusion, but either way, no one (hopefully) would claim that he got everything right or should be followed in all things. As Scotus himself once wrote, glossing Gregory the Great, "In the process of human generation, knowledge of the truth grows." Thomas Aquinas erred most embarassingly on the Immaculate conception, and he is today a saint and doctor of the Church.

Richard Cross, Duns Scotus, pp. 108-9:

"The gain and loss of this spiritual quality [grace] are real changes in a person."

"Scotus argues, first, that a change from injustice to justification can only occur if God brings about a real change in the sinner."

"...Scotus's understanding of sinfulness is wholly forensic; we are sinners just if God decides to hold us liable to punishment. Scotus's understanding of the remission of sins is likewise forensic. The remission of sins does not involve the removal of any quality or real relation in the sinner. It consists merely of a divine decision not to punish the sinner" [footnot referencing Ord. 4.16.2, nn. 6,9-12]. Thus, God's one will-act involves willing punishment for a person at t1 and non-punishment at t2, without any corresponding real change in the person at all. [footnote to ibid. 10-12]. This does not mean that God does not usually require that we perform acts of penance in the process of the remission of post-baptismal sin...This penance does not, however, cause a real change in the sinner; it is merely a requirement contingently made by God for the remission of post-baptismal sin."

To summarize Cross,

1. The gain and loss of grace are real changes.

2. Justification requires a real change in the sinner.

3. The remission of sins does not involve the loss of any real quality (and therefore does not entail a real change?)

4. Acts of penance undertaken in reparation for sin do not involve real changes.

As for Trent, the fear is that Scotus falls afoul of the following, Canon 9 of Trent’s 14th Session: “If anyone says that sacramental absolution by a priest is not a judicial act, but a mere ministry of pronouncing and declaring to the penitent that his sins are forgiven. . . let him be anathema.”

From #1 above we can see that this does not apply to Scotus. Grace, by means of a real change (though Trent does not use this scholastic terminology), are infused into the penitent who partakes of this sacrament.

From what I've been able to find on Scotus and Trent, it seems that there were some disagreements between various council fathers who espoused Scotistic doctrine; but these disputes were on the proper interpretation of Scotus. In particular was mentioned a dispute on what he had to say about the assurance of salvation, about which he made only a few remarks in passing. This did involve the sacrament of Penance, but only contrition vs. attrition.

What, then, does Scotus have to say?

Cross refers us to book IV of the Ordinatio, to d.16 q.2, "Whether the remission or expulsion of fault, and the infusion of grace, are simpliciter one change."

I haven't had much time lately to work on this, and will have less in the future so i'll post it anyway. I skimmed through the Scotus and it seems that Cross is accurate here. At least, Scotus does posit that the infusion of grace is a real change, while the accompanying remission of sins is distinguishable only by reason, ie., a distinction of reason. From the four arguments Scotus makes at the beginning of the question it seems as if this is due to his use of Aristotle. Grace is a form in the will. sin corrupts this form in a real change. In the sacrament of penance, grace is infused again, in a real change. As sin seems to be a privation of grace (this would bear further investigation; I didn't see this spelled out explictly by Scotus), it cannot be corrupted by a real change like grace can. Privations aren't forms in the category of quality.

That's it for now. As for Cross, he seems to have all the right pieces, but hides the bit about grace at the end of one paragraph, and then spends the next two pages emphasizing the remission of sin without a real change. The net result is to make Scotus sound like a proto-protestant if one has missed the bit about grace. It is somewhat distorted and I do not know why Cross put it that way. But he had a lot on his plate in that book and so perhaps can be forgiven. The question would bear more looking into, however, as this is a long question in Scotus, with even lengthier commentary by the 16th century scotist. Trent is mentioned left, right, and center. But, it does not seem to be relevant to the issue at hand, ie, did Trent censure this alleged protestant teaching of the subtle doctor. The answer is no. The Council wasn't looking to settle longstanding scholastic disputes.

Divisions of the Will

For those of you out there who are just dying to hear about Scotus and the will, check out Ord. II d. 6 qq.1-2 (in vol. 8 of the vatican ed., for those privileged few who have obtained this volume). There we find almost all of the famous distinctions Scotus makes in the will. We have the amor amicitiae vs. the amor concupiscentiae, the affectio iusitiae and the affectio commodi. As far as I could tell, these are all found within the actus elicitus; at least, the actus imperatus was not mentioned (for this latter distinction see the prologues to the various sentence commentaries; the difference seems to be between an act willed only and an act willed as well as carried out...but that's just a guess).

There are certain oddities as well, as we would expect from Scotus. For example, he seems quite clearly to state that the affectio commodi (affection for the advantageous) is the will considered as a rational appetite. This provokes two reactions from me: 1. Will as rational appetite is the preferred way that Thomas talks about these matters, which means, as Scotus locates the native freedom in the will not in the affectio commodi but in the affectio iustitae that he probably thinks Thomas unable to account for free will in any fashion whatsoever, and 2. There is a possible contradiction. On the one hand, Scotus says that there is only one will, that the two affectiones are not two wills. But from book IX of his Questions on the Metaphysics we have a strong distinction between Will and Nature, Intellect being included in the latter as it is determined by its object. Indeed this is an important element of Scotus's voluntarism. But which is it, Will as an appetite of the Intellect, or Will as somehow separate from natural, determined processes. The answer undoubtedly lies in looking again at book IX, which I have not done in over a year.

News

If you haven't already heard, another volume of the Opera Omnia was released at the end of June, completing book 3 of the Ordinatio. It lists at 180 euros, and is available from Quaracchi or Deastore, both listed in my bookseller links. This leaves four volumes for book IV, and a single volume of indices which will bring the numbering up to the beginning of the Lectura.

According to the introductory discussion by the editors, the Assisi manuscript 137, A in the app. crit., is only trustworthy to around distinction seven of book III. It also is trustworthy for all of book I up through d. 2 of book II; I don't know about IV (though it is probably discussed in the lengthy prolegomena to the entire edition in vol. 1 which I haven't waded through yet). A professor of mine who taught manuscript editing and worked on the Scotus de anima questions was highly critical of the vatican editors use of this manuscript, which purports to be a copy of the Liber scoti. This latter ms. was Scotus's autograph, probably kept at Oxford until it was burned by the prots in 1535 or 1550. It is imporant as it contains lots of marginalia designating the order of paragraphs and additions, deletions and other authorial notes. Its text serves as the base text of the edition, save where the editors find it untrustworthy (bks 2 and 3). According to my professor, though the comments is preserves are precious, and the scribe probably did have some access to the autograph, he only wrote in Scotus's comments; the text itself is from somewhere else, and is inferior to some of the other manuscripts in the tradition. I'm still trying to sort all this out and don't have strong opinions either way.

The editors have also tried to lay out for us (though here I'm talking about the discussion prefaced to vol. 8) the layers of interpolations and editorial work by Scotus's own students. the initial layer is by an anonymous scribe who inserted Ord. I d. 39 (William of Alnwick refers to it as genuine, but MS. A says that there was a blank space in the Liber Scoti; all the other mss. have it, but the vatican editors placed it in an appendix, much to the wrath of certain scholars. Already we can see the consequences of this close adherence to ms. A). Then we have William of Alnwick, Scotus's secretary. He inserted passages from all sorts of places; Reportationes, Lecturae, his own works, the list goes on. For example, some ten distinctions are missing from book III, though Alnwick filled them in. Then there is a smattering of interpolated passages by other anonymous scribes, some of whom apparently inserted things to make Scotus look bad or seem heretical, as none of the early mss. contain them.

That's all for now, I hope you all run out and by vol. X. I know you want to.

Plurality of (Substantial) Forms

One of the issues that arose in the discussion in the 1277 post was the compatibility of Scotus's views on the plurality of forms and the intellectual soul's relation to the body. In my continued reading of the (long) question mentioned in the post de materia, I came across some comments that are related to some of the wider issues of the plurality of forms, though it does not directly touch on whether or not the intellective soul is the form of the body. Scotus thinks that it is, but he does not say so clearly here. One thing that is clear is that Scotus, while deciding in favor of a plurality of forms against Aquinas, does partially accept the latter's view that there can only be one esse per being. Partially, in that Scotus thinks there is an ultimate form that interacts "completive" with the previous forms that dispose matter so that it can receive the intellective soul (either the forma corporeitatis or the forma mixti).

Now for some Scotus. Scotus is here responding to an argument identified by the commentator in the wadding-vives to be that of Aquinas: "of one being (ens) there is one act of being (esse). one act of being (esse) is from one form. therfore of one being (entis) there is one form." To this Scotus takes issue with the second proposition, and makes a number of interesting comments that I will be quoting here.

Ord. IV d. 11 q. 3 (whether the bread can be transubstantiated):

"To the first, I grant the first proposition, that of one being there is one act of being; but the second, that one act of being requires only one form, should be denied, by taking 'act of being (esse)' uniformly in the major and the minor. For just as being (ens) and one are divided into the simple and the composite, so also to be (esse) and to be one (or one 'to be': ita esse et unum esse) is distinguished into to be such and such; therefore to be (esse) per se one does not determine itself precisely simple (?? non determinat sibi esse simplex praecise), just as neither something divided determines for itself precisely the other of the dividing ones. In that way there is one act of being (esse) of the entire composite, and nevertheless it includes many partial acts of being, just as the total is one being (ens), and nevertheless has many partial entities. For I know not (nescio quid) that fiction, that esse is something supervening to a non-composed essence, if essence is composite.. In this way the esse of the entire composite includes the being (esse) of all the parts, and includes many partial esse's of many parts or forms, just as a total being (ens) from many forms includes thos partial actualities.

"If, nevertheless, there be made any force in speech, I grant that the formal esse of the total composite is principally through one form, and that form is that by which the total composite is this being, that however is the ultimate advening to all the preceding (forms); and in this way the total composite is divided into two essential parts, in its proper act, namely ultimate form, by which it is that which it is, and proper potency of that act, which includes prime matter with all the preceding forms. And in that manner I grant that that total being (esse) is completed by one form, which gives to the total that which it is. But from this it does not follow, that in that total is included precisely one form, or that in the total are included many forms, not just as specifically constituting that composite, but just as certain things included in the potentiality of that composite."

The wider context of this (if anyone is interested) is that of eucharistic conversion. Aquinas holds (and here Scotus agrees) that transubstantiation entails a conversion of the matter and the form of the bread into the matter and form of Christ. Scotus thinks Thomas's view is problematic because of the latters' thesis of the unicity of the substantial form. The identity of the terminus ad quem is supplied by the words of institution: the body of Christ. On Aquinas's view, the body of Christ is the term of the change and the soul is only present by natural concomitance, that is, what is present naturally in the body of Christ. But it isn't the term of the change. Aquinas tries to get around it with a clipped remark that since the intellective soul virtually contains all the lower functions, one of which is esse corporeum, this lower function can act in place of the soul. Scotus attacks this as insufficient due to the fact that the functions of the soul (on Aquinas's view) amount to only being distinct by reason and instead postulates that the terminus ad quem must instead be the forma corporeitatis of Christ.

One could ramble on all day about this stuff.

De materia

One of the facets of Scotistic philosophy that the uniniated gawk at and find shocking are his views on matter. He is often presented (no references will be supplied; just take my word for it-besides, its just a blog!) as claiming that matter can exist without form. Now, in Lectura II.12 (a locus-possibly erroneous- for what little modern discussion there is on the potentially embarassing question of Scotus and spiritual matter) there is some indication on this, as Scotus says that matter has some positive entity, enabling it to act as a substrate for change, to subsist beneath a succession of forms. The other day, while studying for exams, I came across the following interesting passage from Ord. IV d.11 q.3, the place where Scotus analyzes the merits of transubstantiation, consubstantiation, annihilation. Here he is more explicit than in the Lectura, and analyzes matter in terms of potency as a disjunctive transcendental (transcendental pairs that between them divide being: another example would be the necessary and contingent) and matter as potency to form. The second paragraph is pretty strange; either reflective of ms. problems or just a long run-on sentence.

By the way, when I get back into town I intend to look into the penance issue, and consult the wadding ed. with its accompanying post-Tridentine commentaries to see Scotus's relation to the doctrinal formulations and the analysis by Richard Cross.

Here's the passage on matter (the context is eucharistic conversion):

"And when it is argued against the first, because then matter would be without form, and so in act, and not in act, there is an equivocation regarding 'act', because in one mode act is a difference of being opposed to potency, inasmuch as every being is divided, that is, into act or into potency. In another mode act means that relation [habitudinem: At one point in Book one Scotus says that the terms respectivum, relatio, and habitudo all mean the same thing], which is that of form to the informable, and is to the totality of it. And in the same way there is an equivocation about 'potency', because as it is opposed to act in the first mode, it means diminished being [ens diminutum], to which namely, it is not repugnant to be outside its own cause. Being however in act opposted to that potency, is being complete in its own being [esse] outside its own cause, whatsoever that may be. In another mode potency means a receptive principle of act in the second of the aforesaid modes, just as matter is called potency and form act. [there follows an omitted paragraph reciting passages of Aristotle in support].

"To the question at hand [propositum], matter without form is in act in the first mode, and not in potency, which is proved by the Confessions of Augustine. Note his words: 'matter itself receives from God its imperfect being, which it has, namely in potency,' And it is necessary for him to say this, because he grants that matter is created by God, but before it was created, it was in potency in the first mode. This is proved, because otherwise it would be created, which is impossible to be created, therefore after creation it was in potency, not by that mode, because then by creation there would not have been some entity of produced matter, only therefore after creation was in potency in the second mode, because it was receptive of act in the aforesaid second mode. but then there is ignorance of dialectics [elenchi?], when it is said, matter is in act in the first mode, and not in act in the second mode; therefore it is in act, and not in act. In the same way there is an equivocation about potency here as there."

There's a gloss in the margin here by Wadding or Antonius Hiquaeus Hibernus (the commentary printed in this volume) that refers this matter prior to creation to be first in objective potency and then in subjective potency, which to my mind squares with what Scotus says elsewhere. Basically, what he seems to be saying in the second paragraph here (no latin today) that matter had to be created, but before it was it was in potency; it was potency as disjunctive transcendental/ens diminutum (though I think this latter term is sometimes synonymous with esse cognitum). after creation it was in potency in the second way, as related to form. weird.

Condemnations of 1277

I had always been under the impression that though the condemnations of 1277 were in someways a "watershed" event in medieval philosophy, they were quickly dismissed by the thinkers affected by them or working in the aftermath. Apparently this is not true. Though Ockham reports some Thomists in Britain claiming that they don't pass over the sea, and Godfrey of Fontaines claims that they are only in effect on the Ile de France, they were considered serious enough that the condemnations pertaining to Thomistic doctrine had to be formally lifted in 1323 prior to Aquinas's canonization. Yesterday I was reading a question on the place of the angels (one of those scholastic disputes highly relevant to contemporary analytic philosophy) and came across Aquinas's position that an angel is in place via its operation around a place. Scotus criticizes this, with a series of arguments and authorities, but, interestingly, begins his critique of the position with an appeal to the Parisian Condemnations; here it is in latlish:

"Against this is that that was condemned just as a certain article, condemned and excommunicated by the bishop of Paris. But if should be said that 'excommunication does not pass over the ocean or diocese,' - if, nevertheless, the article was condemned as an heretical article, it seems to be condemned just as heretical not only by the diocesan authority but also by the authority of the lord Pope [there follows a reference to the Decretales of Gregory IX]. Or at least the opinion is suspect, because in some university it was solemnly condemned."

This may explain some of the character of Scotus's theology, what with the rare comment that he only asserts something without prejudice to another opinion (cf. the formal distinction in the trinity, the "absolute" consitution of the Persons, etc.), and the high view of Church authority (making explicit appeals to determinations of the Church as arbiters of acceptable opinion, which may be in the background of other thinkers like Aquinas or Bonaventure, but Scotus makes it quite clear what he is up to). The Condemnations of 1277, then, were taken pretty seriously by some, it would seem. Of course, Godfrey of Fontaines and the Thomists naturally would want to minimize its influence, while Scotus and Ockham, sometime opponents of Thomistic doctrine, would naturally want to rely on its censure of Thomism. Stay tuned for more FACTS OF INTeREST!

The subject of the Eucharistic accidents

This is a quote a propos of a conversation I had with a certain someone a year or so ago, regarding the question of whether the accidents of the bread and wine can inhere in the substance of Christ. For what it's worth, this is what St. Thomas has to say.

ST IIIa q. 70 a. 1:

Respondeo dicendum quod accidentia panis et vini, quae sensu deprehenduntur in hoc sacramento remanere post consecrationem, non sunt sicut in subiecto in substantia panis et vini, quae non remanet, ut supra habitum est. Neque etiam in forma substantiali, quae non manet; et, si remaneret, subiectum esse non posset, ut patet per Boetium, in libro de Trin. Manifestum est etiam quod huiusmodi accidentia non sunt in substantia corporis et sanguinis Christi sicut in subiecto: quia substantia humani corporis nullo modo potest his accidentibus affici; neque etiam est possible quod corpus Christi, gloriosum et impassibile existens, alteretur ad suscipiendas huiusmodi qualitaties.

So, basically, two reasons the accidents of the bread and wine can't inhere in the substance of Christ: 1) the human body is unable to be modified by such accidents, 2) Christ's glorified body is impassible.

Holding hands with Aristotle

Here we have a highly inaccurate photo of Scotus, Aquinas, and Aristotle embracing and agreeing to disagree. Scotus is saying, "real being is univocal to God and creatures, substance and accidents". Aquinas is saying, "Real being is analogical to God and creatures, substance and accidents". Aristotle, ever the gentleman, is saying, "Univocity stands with analogy".

Aristotle: Didn't he say that being is said in many ways? In any case, he was on the analogy side of things, though what became known as "analogy" in the west was really pros hen equivocity, while Aristotelian analogy is rather a proportional relation between four terms discussed in the Nicomachean ethics.

Aquinas: I don't think he makes the distinction between real and cognitive being. And besides, it is pretty clear from the summa and de pot. dei that he is thinking of analogy on both the real and conceptual level (all that talk of there being two different ratio's kind of rules out a harmony with Scotus).

Scotus: While he does in fact hold to a distinction between esse reale and esse cognitum (I may blog on this later-see for now Ord II d.1 q.2), he definitely does not think univocity holds on a real level (though this is debated and sometimes rejected by some early Scotists. And then there's Henry of Harclay, who thinks there are only grades of univocity and leaves no place for analogy). Rather, univocity is predicated of concepts and the trick Scotus pulls off is to deny the isomorphism between things and concepts (at least in this instance) and have a common concept without a corresponding common reality. Well, that's a bit muddled, but I'll probably go into it more a bit later.

So all in all, the Scotus scroll-comment is wrong. Source: its a detail from a "estampe" from the cover of the Melanges Berube.

Descartes and the Formal Distinction

Now that class is over for a while, I may post a bit more. The collatio is still coming along, it is probably too long to expect anyone, even the loyal Sullivan, to read online. But I'll post it anyway. In the meantime, here are some quotes from Descartes and his critics pertaining to the Formal distinction. The issue here is the soul, and Descartes' claim that it is really distinct from the body. We should keep in mind Scotus's separability criterion, that is, that two things are really distinct iff one can exist without the other (for an analytic-style analysis of these matters see Adams "Ockham on Identity and Distinction"). Caterus, Descartes objector, argues that soul and body are only formally distinct, though with the separability criterion in mind I think this is a misapplication of the formal distinction. According to Descartes and Scotus the soul can exist without the body when separated (though the latter would qualify a great deal on the ability of natural reason to demonstrate such a state of affairs), hence it fulfills the requirements of a real distinction. I don't know that I''ve seen Scotus ever talk about this particular question (there is some discussion translated at the end of Wolter's "Duns Scotus Philosophical Writings" volume); certainly not in book I of the Ordinatio. Scotus holds to a plurality of substantial forms, basically the intellective soul and a forma corporeitatis (which according to Bettoni serves to prepare the body for the reception of the soul), but due to their ordering to each other in the potency-act relations I don't know if Scotus would go for a real distinction between them. They're not two separate substances. In any case, the precise details of his theory are disputed in the literature.

Surprisingly, Caterus gives an accurate description or defintion of the formal distinction, though I am not sure what "objective" is doing there. Perhaps reinforcing the "real" aspect of the distinction holding between formalities that are one in re. As for Descartes, while I think he may be right to reject a formal distinction here, he has no idea what it actually is. I don't know what he means by "modal", for the modal distinction is not the same as a formal distinction or at least they are not synonymous; the modal distinction may be a weak grade of the formal distinction, but as usual this is highly disputed in the scholarship. I doesn't come up much in Soctus's actual writings. The place I've seen it is between the concept of being and its intrinsic modes, but there the intrinsic modes (if they're somehow related to a modal distinction) serve to differentiate finite from infinite being, that is, from two things that would be really distinct. But the formal distinction always holds between formalities that are one in re. Anyway, here are the texts, enjoy. I've copied them out of the Great Books edition.

End of the first objection, by Caterus.

I shall add but a few words about the essence of the soul and the distinction between soul and body; for I confess that the speculations of this wonderful genius have so exhausted me that I can add but little more. It appear that the distinction between soul and body, if real, is proved by the fact that they can be conceived as distinct and as isolated from each other. Here I leave my opponent to contend with Scotus, who says that-Insofar as one thing can be conceived as distinct and separate from another, the adequate distinction to draw between them is what he calls a formal and objective one, which is intermediate between a real distinction and a distinction of reason. It is thus that he distinguishes between the Divine justice and the Divine pity. They have, he says, concepts formally diverse prior to any operation of the understanding, so that, even then, the one is not the other: yet it does not follow that, because God's justice can be conceived apart from his pity, they can also exist apart.

Descartes' Reply:

In the matter of the formal distinction which the learned Theologian claims to draw from Scotus, my reply is briefly to the effect that this distinction in no way differs from a modal one, and applies only to incomplete entities, which I have accurately demarcated from complete beings. This is sufficient to cause one thing to be conceived separately and as distinct from another by the abstracting action of a mind when it conceives the thing inadequately, without sufficing to cause two things to be thought of so distinctly and separately that we understand each to be an entity in itself and diverse from every other; in order that we may do this a real distinction is absolutely necessary. Thus, for example, there is a formal distinction between the motion and the figure of the same body, and I can quite well think of the motion without the figure and of the figure apart from the motion and of either apart from the body; but nevertheless I cannot think of the motion in a complete manner apart from the thing in which the motion exists nor of the figure in isolation from the object which has the figure; nor finally can I feign that anything incapable of having figure can possess motion, or that what is incapable of movement has figure. So it is also that neither can I understand justice apart from a just being, or compassion apart from the compassionate; nor may I imagine that the same being as it is just cannot be compassionate. But yet I understand in a complete manner what body is [that is to say I conceive of body as a complete thing], merely by thinking that it is extended, has figure, can move, etc., and by denying of it everything which belongs to the nature of mind. Conversely, also, I understand that mind is something complete which doubts, knows, wishes, et.c, although I deny that anything belongs to it which is contained in the idea of body. But this could not be unless there were a real distinction between mind and body.

Instants of Nature

The instants of nature (signum naturae, instans naturae) are an analytic tool employed by Scotus. I am unclear as to its origin, however. Vos, in his recent book, mentioned a name or two and then ran on to something else without giving much explanation. I have seen it in Henry of Ghent, though I don't recall ever seeing it in Thomas or Bonaventure. Basically, it seems to amount to analyzing the divine nature through logical or conceptural divisions in divine processes. By processes I mean cognition and volition, not Trinitarian relations or processions. If one is unfamiliar with this, it sounds as if it amounts to saying God can change. But Scotus would clearly deny this; for as we have hopefully shown already on previous blogs, he is very sensitive (far more so than any other scholastic I have read to date) to explicit doctrinal positions that must be held on authority of Church or Scripture. Furthermore, back around d.8 of book I of the Ordinatio he had a question in which he denied that God can change. So at least in his own mind, he's absolved of the charge. He also uses this mode of analysis without calling attention to it, which is also telling. This is to say, he doesn't ever (that I have seen) make an argument for its appropriateness or try to show that it doesn't involved heresy. In his mind, its part of the scholastic package he's inherited from Henry et al. This is confirmed by various places where he does go against the tradition, such as in d. 2 where he introduces the formal distinction/formal non-identity, or d.26 where he advances the idea that the Trinitarian persons are consituted by something absolute, not relative. In the former case, he advances his postion without "prejudicio" and submits it to the judgment of the Church. In the latter, though in the Ord. it is ambiguous, he seems to be saying that it is more probable than the common opinion but gives different sets of answers to the initial objections from both perspectives. In the Lectura he is more explicit and also says that he holds his opinion without prejudice to the common one (or so say the vatican editors; i skimmed through the section but didn't see it). I should probably admit, however, that in d.2 in the Lectura he is a little more brazen about his opinion and says something like "he has understanding, let him undestand. There is no doubt in my mind". Anyway, here's a quote that seems typical of his use of instants of nature. I give this particular quote because it is the first time I've seen "instantibus naturae" paired with "signum naturae" which may or may not be significant.

Here is the objection [almost unintelligible] that he responds to, Ord. I d. 39 q. un. n.8:

"Et praeterea, si primo offeratur intellectui divino aliqua lex universalis (puta esse glorificandum, esse gratificandum), et istam acceptat voluntas divina (et ex hoc statuitur lex sapientiae), et secundo offerat intellectus voluntati Petrum esse beatificandum, - si voluntas illum acceptet, videtur ex hoc intellectum cognoscere Petrum esse glorificandum, et hoc cognitione dictativa, non accepta in se formaliter a voluntate, licet voluntas verificaverit praemissas ex quibus intellectus istam habet."

And furthermore, if some universal law is first offered to the divine intellect (for example, that something should be glorified or gratified/graced [i'm lazy], and the divine will accepts that (and from this the law of wisdom is established), and second the intellect offers to the will that Peter should be beatified - if the will accepts that, it seems from this that the intellect knows that Peter should be glorified, and this by dictative [?] cognition, not received in itself formally from the will, although the will will have verified the premises from which the intellect has it.

Ord. I d. 38 q. un n.10:

"Ad secundum dico quod intellectus divinus non sic cognoscit aliqua, discurrendo, sicut procedit argumentum; sed distinguendo de instantibus naturae, in primo apprehendit quodcumque operabile (ita illa quae sunt principia operabilium, sicut operabilia particularia), et in secundo offert omnia ista voluntati (quorum omnium aliqua acceptat, tam principiorum practicorum quam particularium operabilium), et tunc in tertio signo intellectus scit aeque immediate illa particularia sicut illa universalia, et ita non acquirit cognitionem illorum particularium ex principiis praedeterminatis per voluntatem. Hoc magis patebit in quaestione De scientia Dei respectu futuorum contingentium."

To the second, I say that the divine intellect does not so understand somethings, discursively, as the argument alleges; but by distinguishing out of instants of nature, in the first he apprehends whatever operable (those which are the principles of operables, just as particular operables), and in the second he offers all those to the will (some of all those he accepts, both of practical principles as of particular operables), and then in the third instant the intellect knows equally immediately those particulars just as those universals, and so he does not acquire the cognition of those particulars from principles predetermined by the will. This will be clearer in the question about God's knowledge of future congingents.