Early Modern Scholasticism

This paper argues against traditional interpretations of Clauberg as an occasionalist, as well as more recent ones that attribute to him an interactionist theory of the mind-body relation. It examines his treatment of the mind-body problem in the context of his general theories of substance and cause. It argues that, whereas Clauberg embraces Descartes’s substance dualism, he retains a broadly scholastic theory of causation as involving the action of powers grounded in essences. On his account, mind and body are distinct, (...) power-bearing substances. While there is no causation between mind and body, each is a genuine secondary cause of its own modifications, subordinated to God as primary cause. But although the correlated actions of mind and body are grounded in mental and bodily powers, the correlation itself is not. Clauberg’s view has the consequence that the conjunction of mind and body cannot be understood causally but only descriptively, in terms of the covariations of sensations and brain states, which he regards as mutually referring signs. (shrink)

_ Source: _Page Count 31 This paper analyzes the theories of three representatives of Second Scholasticism, namely Francisco Suárez, SJ, John Poinsot, OP, and Francisco de Oviedo, SJ, on the issue of the intuitive and abstractive cognition of the external senses. Based on a comparison of their theories, linked to the historical starting point of the debate in the first decades of the fourteenth century, the paper argues that the doctrinal and argumentative matrix of these authors’ texts is significantly ‘present’ (...) in the Second Scholastics as well. 1) As far as naturally produced sensation is concerned, all these authors, including Poinsot, follow the Scotistic justification of the natural infallibility of the external senses; 2) regarding the possibility of supernaturally caused objectless perception, Poinsot’s position can be labelled, surprisingly, Scotistic; 3) Suárez’s theory, although partly similar to the doctrine of the late Ockham, is an idiosyncratic stance; 4) Oviedo’s conception, even more distant from that of Ockham, can be characterized as ‘Auriolian’ and ‘Chattonian’. (shrink)

The European Hobbes Society Online Colloquium featured my book, Potentia: Hobbes and Spinoza on Power and Popular Politics. This is a précis of the book.

This paper critiques a narrative concerning causality in later scholasticism due to, among others, Des Chene, Carraud, Schmaltz, Schmid, and Pasnau. On this account, internal developments in the scholastic tradition culminating in Suárez lead to the efficient cause being regarded as the paradigmatic kind of cause, anticipating a view explicitly held by the Cartesians. Focusing on Suárez and his scholastic reception, I defend the following claims: a) Suárez’s definition of cause does not privilege efficient causation; b) Suárez’s readers, from Timpler (...) to Arriaga, did not interpret him as privileging efficient causation; c) it is only much later, in Clauberg, that we find a narrowing of the meaning of causation to efficient causal action; but d) this shift is better explained by Clauberg’s rejection of substance hylomorphism in favor of Descartes’s doctrine of substance, rather than by any troubles within the Aristotelian causal framework. (shrink)

This is a brief introduction to the origin and development of Protestant ethical works in the tradition of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics.

Bernard McGinn was a great historian of Christianity. But in this book under review he fails to do justice to the history of the Summa. He fails to understand the ontologies of the economic theories of Bernard Lonergan and the theology of Karl Rahner, for examples. The book is patchy and seems under-researched. McGinn does not do justice to the influence of the Summa as a text which forms a bridge between St. Augustine of Hippo and Hannah Arendt and Jean (...) Lyotard. The review is marred by a typos which the proofreader(s) of Prabuddha Bharata overlooked. Of course, the onus of the error lies with the reviewer. (shrink)

This book offers a detailed study of the political philosophies of Thomas Hobbes and Benedict de Spinoza, focussing on their concept of power as potentia, concrete power, rather than power as potestas, authorised power. The focus on power as potentia generates a new conception of popular power. Radical democrats–whether drawing on Hobbes's 'sleeping sovereign' or on Spinoza's 'multitude'–understand popular power as something that transcends ordinary institutional politics, as for instance popular plebsites or mass movements. However, the book argues that these (...) understandings reflect a residual scholasticism which Hobbes and Spinoza ultimately repudiate. Instead, on the book's revisionist conception, a political phenomenon should be said to express popular power when it is both popular (it eliminates oligarchy and encompasses the whole polity), and also powerful (it robustly determines political and social outcomes). Two possible institutional forms that this popular power might take are distinguished: Hobbesian repressive egalitarianism, or Spinozist civic strengthening. But despite divergent institutional proposals, the book argues that both Hobbes and Spinoza share the conviction that there is nothing spontaneously egalitarian or good about human collective existence. From this point of view, the book accuses radical democrats of pernicious romanticism; the slow, meticulous work of organizational design and maintenance is the true centre of popular power. Three minute video summary available via HPBin3. Extended discussion on The Political Theory Review podcast. First chapter open access available via Oxford Scholarship Online. Videos of book talks at National University of Singapore (Centre for Legal Theory) and Universidad de Buenos Aires (Instituto de Investigaciones Gino Germani) available via YouTube. (See links below.). (shrink)

The problem of Divine Ideas is one of the most consequential in the entire history of Western Thought, and effects of the Medieval debate on exempla-rism can still be found in Early Modern and Modern metaphysics. Speaking of the Middle Ages, such a topic provides a vivid example of the prominent role played by Platonism in the tradition of the Schools in the 13th and the 14th century, often associated with the sole authority of Aristotle. Among the different traditions animating (...) the Schools at this stage, the Franciscan is surely one of the most sensitive to this topic, both because of the relevance attributed to Augustine as a fundamental authority of the Order, and of the turning point brought about by Bonaventure. These are just a few of the reasons why the collective volume Divine Ideas in Franciscan Thought (XIIIth-XIVth Century), edited by Jacopo Francesco Falà and Irene Zavattero, should be welcomed. The book is published within the series of medieval studies Flumen Sapientiae, directed by Irene Zavattero. It collects chapters in English and Italian, all dealing with Medieval Franciscan thought in the 13th to the 14th centuries, authored by a team made up of experienced and younger scholars. Five precious textual appendixes in Latin (Olivi, Trabibus, Novocastro, Caracciolus, Mayronis) accompany the essays, providing very useful study materials. (shrink)

This article studies the academic context in which Cartesianism was absorbed in Germany in the mid-seventeenth century. It focuses on the role of Johann Clauberg (1622-1665), first rector of the new University of Duisburg, in adjusting scholastic tradition to accommodate Descartes’ philosophy, thereby making the latter suitable for teaching in universities. It highlights contextual motivations behind Clauberg’s synthesis of Cartesianism with the existing framework such as a pedagogical interest in Descartes as offering a simpler method, and a systematic concern to (...) disentangle philosophy from theological disputes. These motivations are brought into view by situating Clauberg in the closely-linked contexts of Protestant educational reforms in the seventeenth century, and debates around the proper relation between philosophy and theology. In this background, it argues that Clauberg nevertheless retains an Aristotelian conception of ontology for purely philosophical reasons, specifically, to give objective foundations to Descartes’s metaphysics of substance. In conclusion, Clauberg should not be assimilated either to Aristotelianism or to Cartesianism or, indeed, to syncretic labels such as ‘Cartesian Scholastic’. Instead, he should be read as transforming both schools by drawing on a variety of elements in order to address issues local to the academic milieu of his time. (shrink)

Being questioned about the nature of Christian faith, Mark Twain famously declared it as 'believing what you know ain't so'. Indeed, the role of reason for faith is a matter of dispute. Jesus, some argue, was not a philosopher or a teacher of wisdom. Rather, he is the saviour because of his unassuming sacrificial death and resurrection. Not reason, but the leap of faith is the ultimate condition of salvation. The Enlightenment however epitomises a Copernican revolution in favour of reason. (...) According to Charles Taylor, the dissemination of Jesus' message into Hellenistic culture contains within itself the risk of a secularisation of the faith. At the same time, voices opposing the overemphasis of reason have also been raised throughout the ages. Paul's speech to the Athenians was one such occasion that deals with the ambiguous relationship between faith and reason. Relying purely on divine grace and the Bible alone, Martin Luther rejected any form of speculative theology. According to the Reformer, it is a type of theology that trusts more in human reason than in God's revelation. In Luther's opinion, it also reverses the moral order because theological speculation justifies evil as good while professing as good what is evil. To such a theology of human glory, Luther prefers a theology of the cross that 'calls the thing what it actually is'. For the former Augustinian monk only God's grace is good beyond reasonable doubt. Hence true theologians are lovers of the cross while theologians of glory misuse their reason for the worst. Luther's theology of the cross, Marco Barone claims, has its root in Augustine. Hence, Luther's Augustinism appears to have decidedly broken with Aristotelian scholasticism. In this context, Thomas Aquinas was criticised for his threefold failure. First, the Dominican friar's speculative theology lacks an experiential human dimension. Secondly, it gives too much credit to Aristotle. Thirdly, Thomas is reprimanded for his serious deficiency of a theology of justification. (shrink)

Beyond Dordt and ‘De Auxiliis’ explores post-Reformation inter-confessional theological exchange on soteriological topics including predestination, grace, and free choice. These doctrines remained controversial within confessional traditions after the Reformation, as Dominicans and Jesuits and later Calvinists and Arminians argued about these critical issues in the Augustinian theological heritage. Some of those involved in condemning Arminianism at the Synod of Dordt (1618-1619) were inspired by Dominican followers of Thomas Aquinas in Spain who had recently opposed the vigorous defense of free choice (...) by Jesuit Molinists in the Congregatio de auxiliis (1598-1607). This volume, appearing on the 400th anniversary of the closing of the Synod of Dordt, brings together a group of scholars working in fields that only rarely speak to one another to address these theological debates that cross geographical and confessional boundaries. (shrink)

While classical sources including Aristotle, Cicero and Boëthius addressed different notions of probability, medieval contributions to probability seem rather scarce. The situation changes during the Second Scholasticism with the post-Tridentine debates on “probable opinion” in moral theology and the introduction of “moral necessity” and “moral implication” in the debates on compatibilism and theological optimism. The eighteenth-century transformation of scholastic philosophy was marked, among other characteristics, by a gravitation towards the early modern scientific revolution. In his Philosophia Pollingana ad normam Burgundicae, (...) the renowned moral theologian Eusebius Amort addressed the basic issues of probabilistic logic from the philosophical, logical, and mathematical points of view in an attempt to synthesise earlier scholastic conceptual analyses of probability and probabilistic epistemic logic with the cutting-edge mathematical calculus introduced by Jacob Bernoulli. (shrink)

Renaissance Thomists knew Thomas Aquinas spoke of natural happiness, but some believed this happiness is absolutely impossible; others impossible in a state of elevation. Most Thomists rejected both forms of skepticism. An example is the Dominican theologian Pedro de Godoy (1608–1677). This article reconstructs Godoy’s main arguments with a view toward uncovering his method and originality. While his arguments are diverse, they mostly depend on the relation of happiness to human psychology. Godoy repeatedly appeals to the natural abilities of intellect (...) and will, yet natural abilities can depend on God’s grace, which is natural or supernatural. Some natural abilities are even impossible without natural grace, like that of loving God above all things. For Godoy’s part, then, it is chiefly psychological considerations that explain why the Thomist School of his day held firm against rising doubts over natural happiness. Above all, it was considerations of knowing and loving God. (shrink)

In the period of emergence of early modern science, ‘monsters’ or individuals with physical congenital anomalies were considered as rare events which required special explanations entailing assumptions about the laws of nature. This concern with monsters was shared by representatives of the new science and Late Scholastic authors of university textbooks. This paper will reconstruct the main theses of the treatment of monsters in Late Scholastic textbooks, by focusing on the question as to how their accounts conceived nature’s regularity and (...) teleology. It shows that they developed a naturalistic teratology in which, in contrast to the naturalistic explanations usually offered by the new science, finality was at central stage. This general point does not impede our noticing that some authors were closer to the views emerging in the Scientific Revolution insofar as they conceived nature as relatively autonomous from God and gave a relevant place to efficient secondary causation. In this connection, this paper suggests that the concept of the laws of nature developed by the new science –as exception-less regularities—transferred to nature’s regularity the ‘strong’ character that Late Scholasticism attributed to finality and that the decline of the Late Scholastic view of finality played as an important concomitant factor permitting the transformation of the concept of laws of nature. (shrink)

Scotus’s account of the two affections of the will has received extensive attention from recent scholars, in part because this is often seen as one of Scotus’s key departures from Aquinas and from the eudaimonist tradition more generally. Curiously, however, the early modern followers of Scotus seem largely to ignore the two affections doctrine. This paper surveys the reception of the doctrine in Francisco Lychetus, Francisco Macedo, Juan de Rada, Sebastian Dupasquier, and Claude Frassen.

Martin Luther has given little explicit influence on philosophy, and in 1950 Jaroslav Pelikan called for further work into investigating a ‘Lutheran philosophy.’ The beginning of this work lies in Luther’s Heidelberg Disputations, in which he attacks the method of scholasticism and counters with the method of truly Christian theology, a theologia crucis. Such counter, this article argues, entails a shift in Christian philosophizing, a shift that sharply distinguishes between God and man and yet, through this distinction, as Luther asserts, (...) allows one to “call the thing what it actually is”—and thus leads to a truly Christian philosophy. (shrink)

This paper explains Sebastián Izquierdo's (1601-1681) theory of priority. Izquierdo was a seventeenth-century Spanish scholastic philosopher who was best known in the seventeenth century for his ambitious work, Pharus Scientiarum (“Lighthouse of the Sciences”), which attempts to carry out the Baconian project of establishing a universal art of acquiring and disseminating knowledge. Disputation 15 of the Pharus contains one of the most detailed treatments of priority in the history of philosophy. The purpose of this paper is to limn the contours (...) of that theory. Taking Aristotle as a source of inspiration, Izquierdo distinguishes between absolute and relative priority, and the former he divides into priority of duration, priority of worth, priority of origin, and priority of non-mutual connection. These priorities can also be “chained” and “mixed” in various ways. The task for Izquierdo is to explain what unifies the various priority relations: why do they all count as instances of a single phenomenon (or do they)? I argue that Izquierdo answers this question by means of his notion of a series, which is central to his theory of priority. I explain what a series is, and I explain how Izquierdo’s entire theory of priority is generated from his notion of a series. In the end, Izquierdo’s theory is admirably simple, yet remarkably flexible and able to accommodate a wide variety of priority claims. (shrink)

Spanish translation of Cajetan’s commentary on quaestiones 22 and 116 of the first part of the 'Summa'. The translator precedes the text of Cajetan with a broad introduction in which he compares the views of the author with the interpretation of the same problems by Báñez in the context of the 'De Auxiliis' controversy. According to the translator, Báñez would have been more faithful to the thought of Saint Thomas than Cajetan. However, the core of the contribution of this great (...) commentator will also be assumed by Báñez; it was so important for him that he implicitly quoted it in his last words. (shrink)

The pendulum clock was one of the most important metaphors for early modern philosophers. Christiaan Huygens (1629-1695) discovered his pendulum clock in 1656 based on the principle of isochronism discovered by Galileo (1564-1642). This paper aims at exploring the broad historical context of this invention, showing the role of some key figures such as Andreas Colvius (1594-1671), Elia Diodati (1576-1661), Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) and Constantijn Huygens, the father of Christiaan Huygens. Secondly, it suggests - based on this context - that (...) it is hard to believe that Huygens did not know about Galileo’s idea to construct a pendulum regulated clock. Finally, this article illustrates how the Dutch philosopher Spinoza (1632-1677) might have been inspired by Huygens’ discovery of the synchronization of the pendulum clocks in his views on the agreement between bodies in the universe. -/- Resumo: O relógio de pêndulo foi uma das metáforas mais importantes para os filósofos modernos. Christiaan Huygens (1629-1695) inventou o relógio de pêndulo em 1656 baseado no princípio do isocronismo descoberto por Galileo (1564-1642). Este artigo busca explorar o amplo contexto histórico dessa invenção, demonstrando o papel de algumas figuras-chave como Andreas Colvius (1594-1671), Elia Diodati (1576-1661), Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) e Constantijn Huygens, o pai de Christiaan Huygens. Em segundo lugar, sugere-se - baseado nesse contexto - que é difícil acreditar que Huygens não sabia da ideia de Galileo de construir um relógio regulado por um pêndulo. Por fim, este artigo ilustra como o filósofo holandês Espinosa (1632-1677) pode ter se inspirado nessa invenção de Huygens da sincronização do relógio de pêndulo em suas visões sobre o acordo entre os corpos no universo. -/- Palavras-chave: Galileo; Relógio de pêndulo; Huygens; República holandesa; Espinosa. -/- . (shrink)

Descartes analysed the mind into various faculties or powers, including pure intellect, imagination, senses, and will. This article focuses on his account of the sensory power, in relation to its Aristotelian background. Descartes accepted from the Aristotelians that the senses serve to preserve the body by detecting benefits and harms. He rejected the scholastic Aristotelian sensory ontology of resembling species, or ‘forms without matter’. For the visual sense, Descartes offered a mechanistic ontology and a partially mechanized account of sensory processes, (...) including some previously ascribed to judgement. He did this in the context of his theory of brain signs that prompt sensations. The article contends that Descartes’s use of the sign-relation was modelled on standard discussions of non-resembling signs in commentaries on Aristotle’s De interpretatione. It follows three uses of the sign-relation: brain states that cause colour sensations; brain states that cause experiences of spatialized contents, such as shapes; and brain states that realize a ‘natural geometry’. It argues that Descartes’s natural geometry does not involve mental operations but physiological mechanisms that co-vary with the distance to seen objects. While retaining the language of sensory powers, Descartes offered a partial mechanization of those powers. (shrink)

Статья представляет собой попытку обнаружить «испанский след» в богословской мысли Киевской митрополии XVII в. на примере наставлений об отправлении церковных таинств («Наука о седми тайнахъ церковных» в составе виленского Требника 1617–1618 гг.) и первого православного печатного пособия по моральному богословию («Мир с Богом человеку». Киев, 1669). Одним из источников для «Науки» стало сочинение испанского иезуита Франсиско де Толедо (1534–1596)) «Summa de Instructione Sacerdotum» (известное также как «Summa casuum conscientiae»), в основу которого был положен курс по моральной теологии в Collegium Romanum (...) в Риме. Составители виленской «Науки» прибегали не только к буквальному переводу значительных порций текста испанского иезуита и близкому к оригиналу пересказу отдельных фрагментов, но также дополнили заимствованные из де Толедо фрагменты рассуждениями о церковных ритуалах, цитатами из отеческой традиции, из канонов Вселенских и Поместных соборов, из гражданских правовых памятников. Несмотря на то, что виленская «Наука» вышла из униатских кругов, она получила широкое распространение и среди православных: именно посредством данного памятника отдельные фрагменты сочинения де Толедо попали в «Мир с Богом человеку». Но при этом совершенно очевидно, что в толковании семи смертных грехов и в рассуждениях о милостыни заметно прямое обращение составителей «Мира с Богом» к сочинению де Толедо. Оба памятника Киевской митрополии послужили впоследствии источником для рукописной компиляции о таинствах московского книжника Евфимия Чудовского, который, таким образом, способствовал распространению «Суммы» де Толедо и в московской традиции. (shrink)

There are several interpretations of how Aquinas views the moral virtues connected through prudence and possessed through our natural powers. One is the traditional view. As described by Thomas Osborne, the traditional view holds that two supernatural conditions are ‘necessary’ for united acquired virtue. One is ingratiating grace (gratia gratum faciens), which heals and elevates the soul. Another is supernatural finality, that is, an orientation to God through charity. My main objective is to show how we can meet an objection (...) to the traditional view, one that uses Aquinas’s own words on necessary and per se predication: eodem modo praedicantur necessario quo per se. I proceed with three distinctions from Scholastic metaphysics. The first is between absolute and moral necessity; the next two are between per se and per accidens efficient causes and between intrinsic and extrinsic finality. Failing to make any of these distinctions risks repeating the error of the objection I address, which is to misunderstand how Thomists have historically related the supernatural order to the virtues united in the natural order. The overall purpose of these distinctions is to help us avoid doing this. (shrink)

I argue that Diego Alvarez and Thomas de Lemos through their participation in the De auxiliis controversy developed and defended Cajetan’s view of the causation of sin in such a way that they were able to defend the predetermination of the material aspect of sin while at the same time assimilating important aspects from his critics. It is important to recognize that Lemos and his associates hold both that the premotion of sin’s material aspect is not necessarily connected with the (...) Catholic faith and that it is knowable by natural reason. Even though they argued that other Molinist theses should be condemned as heretical, they held that this rejection of the Dominican thesis concerning sin is simply wrong but not heretical. First, I consider Cajetan’s position. Second, I consider the reception of this position by Medina, Zumel, and Báñez. Third, I show that Alvarez and Lemos make distinctions that allow them to incorporate the insights of both Cajetan and his critics. (shrink)

Edwards’s views on the nature of the human will demonstrate his unique ability to unite philosophical rigor and theological fervor. Edwards was a staunch defender of the Reformed doctrines of absolute divine sovereignty and meticulous providence, but he was also a proponent of the intellectual tools and methods of early modern philosophy (and of John Locke in particular). His ultimate statement of his doctrinal position, Freedom of the Will, is the masterful result of these dual commitments.

У статті здійснено порівняльний аналіз концепцій ментального слова (verbum mentis) могилянських професорів Інокентія Ґізеля і Йосифа Волчанського. Аналіз спирається на латинськомовні рукописні трактати «De anima» Ґізеля (1646–1647 рр.) і «De corpore animato» Волчанського (1715–1717 рр.). Запропоновані тут концепції інтелектуального пізнання розглядаються у контексті західної схоластичної традиції. З’ясовано, що розуміння інтелектуального пізнання Інокентієм Ґізелем і Йосифом Волчанським суттєво відрізнялися. Концепція Ґізеля відзначається еклектичним характером і поєднує в собі елементи томістичної, скотистичної і суаресіанської інтерпретацій, тоді як Волчанський орієнтується на Франсиско Суареса та (...) Фансиско де Овієдо. (shrink)

Стаття присвячена трактатам «Про виникнення і зникнення» викладеними у Києво-Могилянській академії у XVII–XVIIІ ст. як складова філософського курсу. Ці трактати мають історичну і тематичну прив’язку до однойменної книги Аристотеля і зосереджені на обговоренні виникнення, субстанційної і якісної зміни та зникнення. Однак деякі могилянські професори, як Стефан Яворський і Теофан Прокопович, включили сюди і теологічні питання. Яворський обговорює питання про транссубстанціацію св. Євхаристії, намагаючись з’ясувати, як ця субстанційна зміна відбувається і коли вона має місце на Божественній Літургії Східного обряду. Він доводить, (...) що транссубстанціація відбувається під час Слів Освячення, а не Епіклези. На його думку, так вчили найбільш авторитетні теологи Східної церкви. Обговорення цього питання у філософському курсі (1691–1693) найімовірніше було реакцією на Московський собор 1689 року, де було осуджено доктрину про транссубстанціацію під час Слів Освячення. Яворський, натомість, хотів захистити вчення, притаманне українській православній традиції (Петро Могила, Сильвестр Косов, Інокентівй Ґізель тощо). Інший професор, Теофан Прокопович, у своєю курсі (1707–09) звертається до питання про особливу збереженість мощей Києво-Печерських святих. Він доводить, що мощі, які покояться у Київських Печерах, зберігаються завдяки особливій Божій благодаті, і детально аналізує 16 аргументів противників, які це заперечують. На думку автора статті, введення теологічних тем у філософські курси було пов’язане з особливою соціальною значущістю цих питань у той час. (shrink)

Richard Baxter, one of the most famous Puritans of the seventeenth century, is generally known as a writer of practical and devotional literature. But he also excelled in knowledge of medieval and early modern scholastic theology, and was conversant with a wide variety of seventeenth-century philosophies. Baxter was among the early English polemicists to write against the mechanical philosophy of René Descartes and Pierre Gassendi in the years immediately following the establishment of the Royal Society. At the same time, he (...) was friends with Robert Boyle and Matthew Hale, corresponded with Joseph Glanvill, and engaged in philosophical controversy with Henry More. In this book, David Sytsma presents a chronological and thematic account of Baxter's relation to the people and concepts involved in the rise of mechanical philosophy in late-seventeenth-century England. -/- Drawing on largely unexamined works, including Baxter's Methodus Theologiae Christianae (1681) and manuscript treatises and correspondence, Sytsma discusses Baxter's response to mechanical philosophers on the nature of substance, laws of motion, the soul, and ethics. Analysis of these topics is framed by a consideration of the growth of Christian Epicureanism in England, Baxter's overall approach to reason and philosophy, and his attempt to understand creation as an analogical reflection of God's power, wisdom, and goodness, understood as vestigia Trinitatis. Baxter's views on reason, analogical knowledge of God, and vestigia Trinitatis draw on medieval precedents and directly inform a largely hostile, though partially accommodating, response to mechanical philosophy. (shrink)

An early modern scholastic conception of moral possibility helps make sense of Descartes's own perplexing use of that concept and solves the exegetical puzzles surrounding Descartes's conflicting remarks about free will.

A seventeenth-century scholastic attempt to restrict the truthmaker principle to positive truths.

The Scientific Revolution was far from the anti-Aristotelian movement traditionally pictured. Its applied mathematics pursued by new means the Aristotelian ideal of science as knowledge by insight into necessary causes. Newton’s derivation of Kepler’s elliptical planetary orbits from the inverse square law of gravity is a central example.

The Scientific Revolution was far from the anti-Aristotelian movement traditionally pictured. Its applied mathematics pursued by new means the Aristotelian ideal of science as knowledge by insight into necessary causes. Newton’s derivation of Kepler’s elliptical planetary orbits from the inverse square law of gravity is a central example.

This paper analyzes the theories of three representatives of Second Scholasticism, namely Francisco Suárez, sj, John Poinsot, op, and Francisco de Oviedo, sj, on the issue of the intuitive and abstractive cognition of the external senses. Based on a comparison of their theories, linked to the historical starting point of the debate in the first decades of the fourteenth century, the paper argues that the doctrinal and argumentative matrix of these authors’ texts is significantly ‘present’ in the Second Scholastics as (...) well. 1) As far as naturally produced sensation is concerned, all these authors, including Poinsot, follow the Scotistic justification of the natural infallibility of the external senses; 2) regarding the possibility of supernaturally caused objectless perception, Poinsot’s position can be labelled, surprisingly, Scotistic; 3) Suárez’s theory, although partly similar to the doctrine of the late Ockham, is an idiosyncratic stance; 4) Oviedo’s conception, even more distant from that of Ockham, can be characterized as ‘Auriolian’ and ‘Chattonian’. (shrink)

A few months before his death, Leibniz wrote to Des Bosses, My doctrine of composite substance seems to be the very doctrine of the Peripatetic school, except that their doctrine does not recognize monads. But I add them, with no detriment to the doctrine itself. You will hardly find another difference, even if you are bent on doing so.1 It is tempting to take Leibniz’s profession of Aristotelian orthodoxy as circumstantial: the entire correspondence he had with the Jesuit Father Bartholomew (...) Des Bosses is based on a project of reconciliation between his “system” and the dogmas of the Catholic Church, mediated by Aristotelian philosophy.2 But even so, this circumstantial... (shrink)

Seventeenth century scholastics had a rich debate about the ontological status and nature of lacks, negations, and privations. Realists in this debate posit irreducible negative entities responsible for the non-existence of positive entities. One of the first scholastics to develop a realist position on negative entities was Thomas Compton Carleton. In this paper I explain Carleton's theory of negative entities, including what it is for something to be negative, how negative entities are individuated, whether they are abstract or concrete, and (...) how they affect their subjects. I argue that for Carleton, negative entities are conceived as spatially extended simples that affect their subjects by means of spatial overlap. I also show how Carleton responds to some theological worries about his realism concerning negative entities. (shrink)

17th-century Iberian and Italian scholastics had a concept of a truthmaker [verificativum] similar to that found in contemporary metaphysical debates. I argue that the 17th-century notion of a truthmaker can be illuminated by a prevalent 17th-century theory of truth according to which the truth of a proposition is the mereological sum of that proposition and its intentional object. I explain this theory of truth and then spell out the account of truthmaking it entails.

Contemporary scholars routinely cast Aquinas’s imperfect happiness of this life as one of only acquired virtue, yet the Scholastics of the Late Renaissance all saw this happiness as one of acquired or infused virtue. This dispute goes unspoken today, as does the question it raises, namely, whether the infused virtues, rather than offer supernatural happiness only in the afterlife, offer it now even in this life. Further unsettled is why this question is even worth asking. I argue it is worth (...) asking for several reasons: historical, doctrinal, and methodological. The problem has implications for Aquinas’s reception of the Nicomachean Ethics. It also bears, on the one hand, on two of Aquinas's doctrines on twofold beatitude and, on the other hand, on Aquinas's teaching on the relationship of philosophy and theology. Moreover, an answer could lend support to the use of Late Scholastic commentary in the interpretation of Aquinas. I first defend the importance of our question, illustrating in turn its historical, doctrinal, and methodological value. I then give some direction for a balanced study of the problem. Finally, I clarify the status of our question and propose some ideas for further discussion. (shrink)

This essay presents Descartes’s anti-hylomorphism in The Meteors published in 1637 and in the unpublished works that precede it, The World (Treatise on Light) and the Rules for the Direction of the Mind.

Special issue of the Journal for Early Modern Studies (4.1., Spring 2005) Guest Editor: Lucian Petrescu. -/- .

This review-article examines Daniel Novotny’s new book on entia rationis in Baroque-Age scholasticism. Novotný’s presentation of Francisco Suárez’, Pedro Hurtado’s, Bartolomeo Mastri’s and Bonaventura Belluto’s as well as Juan Caramuel’s theories of beings of reason is discussed. Beyond Novotný’s results, it is pointed out 1) that Suárez’ theory of the causation of beings of reason is anticipated by his explanation of the relationship between formal and objective concepts, and 2) that the traditional division of distinctions of reason lies in the (...) background of some scholastic authors’ differentiation between entia rationis ratiocinatae and entia rationis ratiocinantis; this latter motif is echoed in German Enlightenment metaphysics. (shrink)

Studies on Early Modern Aristotelianism is a collection of seventeen essays by Paul Richard Blum, previously published over the last three decades in German and Italian, French and English, as well as Hungarian. Two concluding chapters serve as appendices, with the remaining fifteen divided into three sections: Philosophy at Early Modern Schools, Science from the Renaissance through the Enlightenment, and Metaphysics and Theology. While Blum’s Studies is not a monograph, it is neither simply a collection of works which are incidentally (...) related by either their topical or historical scope. Rather, there are threads running throughout these essays which are emphasized in different ways, and we hope here to draw attention to a few of these. (shrink)

Parmi les différentes approches possibles de la matière historique, on observe souvent, dans la littérature, une tension entre les deux options suivantes : faire d’un auteur le précurseur d'une révolution dont notre modernité serait l'héritière directe, ou au contraire, et par réaction, se livrer à un travail de remise en contexte détaillé qui prend parfois le risque de gommer l'originalité possible de ce même auteur. Le Traité sur les signes de Jean Poinsot (appelé également Jean de Saint Thomas), dominicain du (...) début du XVIIe siècle, a ainsi d’abord été édité comme un texte annonciateur de la sémiotique de Peirce, la thèse de cette originalité révolutionnaire étant fondée sur le traitement de la catégorie de la relation. Le travail critique qui s’est effectué en réaction tempère, parfois de façon excessive, la nouveauté de cet auteur du point de vue de sa contribution à la pensée des signes. Cet article s’inscrit dans cette démarche de remise en contexte en proposant une comparaison entre le texte de Poinsot et les Quaestiones sur les signes, que l'on doit à Sebastião do Couto, commentateur de l'université de Coimbra. Optant pour une contextualisation qui vise à mesurer l’originalité relative de Poinsot, cette étude porte sur les variations de la description du rapport du signe à l'intention. Nous montrerons ainsi que même si les contenus du discours sur les signes ne comportent que de maigres différences, on peut cependant constater une certaine originalité de Poinsot dans son traitement de la relation, qui l’amène à reconfigurer l’ordonnancement de la question des signes. (shrink)

In this groundbreaking book, Daniel D. Novotny explores one of the most controversial topics of Suarez's philosophy: "beings of reason." Beings of reason are impossible intentional objects, such as blindness and square-circle.