Celem artykułu jest ukazanie zasadniczych różnic między rozumieniem pojęć kontyngencji, wolności, indywidualności w filozofii Szkota w odniesieniu do tradycji arystotelesowskiej. Podkreślam, że istotnymi elementami koncepcji Szkota, będącymi wyraźnym odejściem od klasycznego arystotelizmu, są: (1) odrzucenie zasady pełności, (2) interpretacja teraźniejszości jako niekoniecznej, (3) rozwinięcie pojęcia synchronicznej kontyngencji, (4) zerwanie związku między niezmiennością i koniecznością. W swej antropologii Szkot kładzie nacisk na (1) pojęcie wolnej wolijako władzy autonomicznej i zdolnej do samodeterminacji, (2) przypisuje woli racjonalność, która nie polega na zależności woli (...) od intelektu czy wiedzy, (3) odchodzi od arystotelesowskiego eudajmonizmu. Boga traktuje jako zdolnego do poznania i miłowania jednostkowych, kontyn- gentnych bytów. W swej aksjologii podkreśla pozytywny wymiar indywidualności, wielości i nie- powtarzalnościjednostek. (shrink)

From the time of Augustine to the late thirteenth century, leading Christian thinkers agreed that freedom requires the ability to make good choices, but not the ability to make bad ones. If freedom required the ability to sin, they reasoned, neither God nor the angels nor the blessed in heaven could be free. This essay examines the work of Peter Olivi, the first medieval philosopher known to reject the asymmetrical conception of freedom. Olivi argues that the ability to sin is (...) essential to creaturely freedom and remains even in heaven. While Anselm is the nominal target of Olivi’s arguments on this topic, they form part of a wider critique directed even more at Aquinas and his followers. Olivi faults them for misunderstanding the nature of the created will and for failing to provide a foundation for a particular kind of moral responsibility: personal merit. (shrink)

Se analiza la interpretación escotista de algunos textos aristotélicos para establecer la contraposición entre naturaleza y voluntad. La posición de Escoto implica una reivindicación de la contingencia frente a la necesidad, de la acción frente a la ciencia. Es decir, la distinción entre naturaleza y voluntad le aboca a proponer una ontología en la que el ser contingente precede al ser necesario. El saber de la ciencia que establece las regularidades necesarias de la naturaleza queda subordinado al saber de la (...) acción humana. Se tiene especialmente presente las Quaestiones super libros Metaphysicorum Aristotelis, IX, q. 15. (shrink)

This paper provides a metaphysical framework which enables the possibility of the hypostatic union. More specifically, social ontology will be used to philosophically ground the distinction between nature or substance on the one hand, and person on the other hand, which is crucial to that debate. There are some historical precedents for a juridical approach in christological debates, but the main sections develop a systematic metaphysical account. Relying on a generic version of dispositional realism, and the distinction between the ability (...) space and the liberty space of a person, a person is the locus or nexus of contingent activations of alternative possibilities. This is distinct from the set or range of alternative possibilities open to a person. Persons can therefore function as artificial persons, paradigmatically exemplified in sovereign states. Extending that framework to the supernatural level enables the possibility of a divine person uniting a divine and a human nature. (shrink)

Thomas Bradwardine (d. 1349) was an English philosopher, logician, and theologian of some note; but though recent scholarship has revived an interest in much of his work, little attention has been paid to an early treatise he wrote on the topic of future contingents, entitled De futuris contingentibus. In this thesis I aim to address this deficit, arguing in particular that the treatise makes original use of the divine power distinction to resolve the apparent conflict between God’s foreknowledge on the (...) one hand, and human free will on the other. Bradwardine argues that God’s foreknowledge operates in accord with God’s ordained power, and so relative to God’s ordained power, our actions are indeed compelled; however, because of Bradwardine’s appeal to the distinction in power, he is able to maintain that our actions remain free relative to God’s absolute power, and are thus free, absolutely speaking. This solution is, I argue, unique to Bradwardine, although it seems to be abandoned in his later writing. Bradwardine’s approach to the problem is heavily influenced by three figures in particular — Boethius, Anselm of Canterbury, and John Duns Scotus — each of whose solutions I discuss in some detail. Furthermore, Bradwardine explicitly places his own solution in opposition to that of William Ockham, and so I give substantial attention to examining Ockham’s position. But while I agree with Bradwardine’s assessment that Ockham’s position undermines God’s foreknowledge in ways that should be untenable to someone of 14th-century Christian commitments, I argue that Bradwardine’s solution amounts to an equally untenable determinism. An appendix contains excerpts from my own English translation of the De futuris contingentibus (the first into any modern language), in parallel with the original Latin. (shrink)