Crathorn on Extension

Recherches de Theologie Et Philosophie Medievales 83 (2):423-467 (2016)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In this paper, I analyze William Crathorn’s view on extension and compare it to William Ockham’s reductionist view, according to which extension is not really distinct from substance or quality. In my view, Crathorn elaborates a metaphysical machinery based on mereological and topological relationships in order to solve what he considers to be problems in Ockham’s account of quantity. In order to make my point, I reconstruct Crathorn’s main arguments in favor of his finitist atomism. Crathorn claims that certain fundamental spatial structures are of a mereological nature and that the mereological properties of located entities perfectly match those of their locations. This idea lies at the core of his solution to the paradox of touching and the metrical paradox. It allows him to redefine contiguity in such a way that extensionless magnitudes can touch and succeed each other. Crathorn goes one step further and claims that indivisibles are extended in the sense that they occupy an extended incorporeal space, which is their dimension. In this sense, they can come together to form a continuous magnitude. Thus, Crathorn succeeds in defining a concept of continuity that is compatible with his finitist atomism and that addresses what he takes to be a major weakness in Ockham’s view on extension, namely a murky concept of impenetrability.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 90,593

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

William Crathorn's mereotopological atomism.Aurélien Robert - 2009 - In Christophe Grellard & Aurélien Robert (eds.), Atomism in Late Medieval Philosophy and Theology. Brill. pp. 9--127.
Quaestiones de universalibus magistrorum Crathorn, O.P., anonymi O.F.M., Ioannis Canonici, O.F.M.John Crathorn, Johannes Joannes, Jacobus de Marcia & Kraus - 1937 - Monasterii,: editit Aschendorff. Edited by Jacobus Asculanus, John & Johannes Kraus.
Le langage mental en discussion: 1320-1335.Claude Panaccio - 1996 - Les Etudes Philosophiques 3:323-339.
Crathorn Versus Ockham.Rega Wood - 1989 - Franciscan Studies 49 (1):347-353.
William Crathorn.Stephen E. Lahey - 2011 - In H. Lagerlund (ed.), Encyclopedia of Medieval Philosophy. Springer. pp. 1395--1397.
William crathorn.Aurélien Robert - 2008 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Holkot contra dicta Crathorn.Heinrich Schepers - 1970 - Philosophisches Jahrbuch 77 (2):320.
Holkot contra dicta Crathorn.Heinrich Schepers - 1972 - Philosophisches Jahrbuch 79 (1):106.
Crathorn: Quästionen zum ersten Sentenzenbuch. Einführung und Text. [REVIEW]Dominik Perler - 1989 - Freiburger Zeitschrift für Philosophie Und Theologie 36:208-212.

Analytics

Added to PP
2018-04-22

Downloads
0

6 months
0

Historical graph of downloads

Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Ockham on the Parts of Continuum.Magali Roques - 2017 - Oxford Studies in Medieval Philosophy 5 (1).

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references