Introduction -- Conceptual analysis of resolution -- Ontology development method -- Resolution of single observations -- Resolution of observation collections -- Ontology design patterns for resolution -- Ontology of resolution -- implementation stage -- Conclusion.

We study a class of representation mechanisms, based on reports made by a random subset of agents, called representatives, in a collective choice problem with quasi-linear utilities. We do not assume the existence of a common prior probability describing the distribution of preference types. In addition, there is no benevolent planner. Decisions will be carried out by an individual who cannot be assumed impartial, a self-interested executive. These assumptions impose new constraints on Mechanism Design. A robust mechanism is defined as (...) maximizing expected welfare under a vague prior probability distribution, and over a set of mechanisms which is at the same time immune from opportunistic manipulations by the executive, and compatible with truthful revelation of preferences by representatives. Robust mechanisms are characterized and their existence is shown. Sampling Groves mechanisms are shown to be robust. (shrink)

En quoi le corps participe-t-il de l'entente que l'homme a du monde? Que signifie dès lors écouter? Comment établir un rapport juste à l'animal? Quel sens prêter aux couleurs? Pourquoi la tonalité décisive de notre rapport au monde peut-elle advenir à la faveur d'expériences olfactives et gustatives? En quoi la tactilité incite-t-elle à considérer le corps vif comme une donnée originaire et à reconnaître qu'il est bien une vulnérabilité dotée d'aptitudes qui nous dispose au monde? Comment l'angoisse, révélée et cachée (...) tout à la fois par la maladie, est-elle chevillée au corps de l'être-au-monde, le Dasein? Qu'en est-il du corps dans la nostalgie, dans la mélancolie, dans l'ennui et dans la joie? Pourquoi la coexistence, supposant relations et rencontres, implique-t-elle l'articulation des corporéités vives comme dans le tact sensitif ou dans la jalousie amoureuse et dans l'amour pensé en terme de tonalité érotique? Comment comprendre la mobilité et parvenir ainsi jusqu'à l'éminente dignité ontologique du mouvement? De quoi la pensée est-elle redevable au corps? Telles sont les questions qui jalonnent cet ouvrage. Par son orientation résolument phénoménologique, l'Intelligence du corps entend renouveler l'entente du phénomène le plus proprement humain et, cependant, le plus malmené par la métaphysique. Prenant librement appui sur les vues inouïes de Martin Heidegger, consciente de l'actuelle soumission du corps de l'homme à l'arraisonnement technique, Ingrid Auriol ouvre une voie d'accès à l'intelligence du corps libérée de cette violence. (shrink)

Le Quaestiones 2 («Se l’oggetto adeguato della conoscenza divina sia l’essenza di Dio o l’ente universale») e 3 («Se le creature secondo le loro proprie nature e le loro essenze siano vita in Dio e nel Verbo») della Distinctio 35 dello Scriptum di Pietro Aureoli sono importanti per la ricostruzione sia del pensiero del loro autore che della storia della dottrina delle idee divine nel Medioevo. Aureoli rifiuta il modello tradizionale di causalità esemplare, secondo cui Dio avrebbe creato il mondo (...) sulla base di modelli archetipi esistenti dall’eternità nella sua mente. Ricorrendo al concetto di aequivocatio, stabilisce che l’essenza di Dio è in maniera equivoca l’unico esemplare per tutte le creature ed elabora, così, la teoria della causalità esemplare equivoca. (shrink)

This paper looks at the critical reception of two central claims of Peter Auriol’s theory of cognition: the claim that the objects of cognition have an apparent or objective being that resists reduction to the real being of objects, and the claim that there may be natural intuitive cognitions of nonexistent objects. These claims earned Auriol the criticism of his fellow Franciscans, Walter Chatton and Adam Wodeham. According to them, the theory of apparent being was what had led (...) Auriol to allow for intuitive cognitions of nonexistents, but the intuitive cognition of nonexistents, at its turn, led to scepticism. Modern commentators have offered similar readings of Auriol, but this paper argues, first, that the apparent being provides no special reason to think there could be intuitions of nonexistent objects, and second, that despite his idiosyncratic account of intuition, Auriol was no more vulnerable to scepticism than his critics. (shrink)

Some medieval authors defend free choice by arguing that, even though human choices are indeed caused by the practical judgment about what is best to do here and now, one is nevertheless able to freely influence that practical judgment’s formation. This paper examines Peter Auriol’s account of free choice, which is a quite elaborate version of this approach and which brings its theoretical problems into focus. I will argue in favor of Auriol’s basic theory, but I will also (...) propose an emendation to his theory in order to respond to some problems he leaves unresolved. (shrink)

This chapter contains sections titled: Epistemology: intentional being Ontology I: individuals and concepts Ontology II: accidents Auriol's historical significance.

_ Source: _Volume 55, Issue 4, pp 239 - 272 According to Peter Auriol, OFM, efficient causation is a composite being consisting of items belonging to three distinct categories: a change, an action, and a passion. The change functions as the subject bearing action and passion. After presenting Aristotle’s account of action and passion, which constitutes the background to Auriol’s theory of causation, this paper considers Auriol’s interpretation of Aristotle’s account in contrast to an alternative interpretation defended (...) by Hervaeus Natalis and William of Ockham. Finally, it shows how Auriol, on the basis of his interpretation of Aristotle, develops his own account of efficient causation as a composite being. (shrink)

My paper aims at presenting Peter Auriol’s theory of cognition. Auriol holds that cognition is “something which makes an object appear to someone.” This claim, for Auriol, is meant to be indeterminate, as he explicitly says that the “something” in question can refer to any type of being. However, when he states how cognition is “implemented” in cognizers, Auriol specifies what this “something” is: for God, it is simply the deity itself; for creatures, cognition is described (...) as something “absolute,” i.e. non-relational, more precisely a complex entity made up of a cognitive power and a “likeness.” However, one also finds Auriol saying that created cognition, as a “likeness,” is relative. Yet, when Auriol talks of created cognition as something relative, he does not make an ontological claim: he means that one cannot think of cognition without thinking of it as having a relation to an object. In brief, created cognition, for Auriol, is ontologically absolute, but it is always represented together with a relation. (shrink)

Peter Auriol is a good example of the debate over the nature of habits, moral habits in particular, that raged at the University of Paris in the early fourteenth century. This chapter examines Peter Auriol’s basic understanding of habits and virtues in his quodlibetal questions and his commentary on the Sentences. The first part is devoted to the ontological status of virtues and other habitual dispositions and examines why, according to Auriol, habits are qualities. The second part (...) turns to the unity of virtues. Since Auriol holds that one and the same moral virtue belongs to different psychological powers, the question arises of how to account for the unity of virtues and other similar dispositions. In the last part, the chapter turns to the question of what role virtues and practical habits have in the causation of action. Interestingly, Auriol denies that virtues have any direct causal role. (shrink)

[What is the Human Being? Peter Auriol and the Role of Cognitive Psychology in the Medieval Definition of the Human Being: ] This paper explores how medieval philosophers used cognitive psychology in defining what the human being is, paying special attention to the Franciscan thinker Peter Auriol (c. 1280 – 1322). First, I examine the motivations of Auriol’s claim that the property of being alive is bound to the property of being cognitive (i. e. being capable of (...) cognition). Then, the foundations of medieval faculty psychology and Auriol’s conception of cognition are introduced. I also argue that the emphasis which Auriol puts on the activity of soul’s faculties leads him to the conclusion (unusual in his days) that the distinction among these faculties is established from the first person perspective. Finally, Auriol’s cognitive definition of the human being is introduced – human beings are human beings precisely because their cognitive experience differs from the way the cognition works in animals on the one hand and in God on the other hand. Whereas animals have only sensory soul’s faculties, humans have the intellect in addition and, therefore, they are capable of universal cognition. Moreover, since humans have not only intellect but also the inner senses (particularly, the phantasy), the universals appear to the human intellect only as blended with the individual that the universal was abstracted from, and the human intellect is not capable of paying attention to no more than just one object at the same moment. Since God and angels have only intellect, these distinctively human features are absent from their cognitive experience. (shrink)

This paper presents the defense by the medieval philosopher Peter Auriol of the thesis that sounds and odors have no real, mind-independent being, but exist only as mental correlates of acts of hearing and smelling. Auriol does not see this as an idiosyncratic position, as he claims to be following not only Aristotle, but also Averroes on the issue. Since it is often thought that non-realism about sensible qualities was “inconceivable” for medieval authors and was made possible only (...) by the early modern scientific revolution led by Galileo, it is crucial to bring Auriol’s position to the fore. Auriol’s view, and its alleged roots in Arabic philosophy, invites us to reassess our standard narrative in the history of philosophy and science. (shrink)

The important impact of the French Franciscan Peter Auriol (ca. 1280-1322) upon contemporary philosophical theology at Oxford is well known and has been well documented and analyzed, at least for a narrow range of issues, particularly in epistemology. This article attempts a more systematic treatment of his effects upon Oxford debates across a broader range of subjects and over a more expansive duration of time than has been done previously. Topics discussed include grace and merit, future contingents and divine (...) foreknowledge, and the logic of the Trinity. (shrink)

Although Auriol’s philosophical psychology has received increasing attention among contemporary scholars in medieval philosophy, his use of connotation has gone largely unnoticed. The aim of this paper is to delve into Auriol’s definition of cognition as a connotation. In his view, cognizing is nothing more than making things appear to the mind. Each concept is the extra-mental particular plus its property of being cognized by or appearing to the mind. It is nothing other than a real individual co-signifying (...) or connoting its being conceived. Being thought as a connotation, then, for Auriol intellectual cognition ultimately describes the following experience: the appearance of something to and its conscious reception by a cognizer. (shrink)

This paper explores the accounts of conceptual thought of Peter John Olivi (1248–1298) and Peter Auriol (1280–1322). While both thinkers are known for their criticism of representationalist theories of perception, it is argued that they part ways when it comes to analyzing conceptual cognition. To account for the human capacity for conceptual thought, Olivi is happy to make a number of concessions to indirect realist theories of representation. Insofar as he criticizes a specific branch of indirect realism about conceptual (...) thought, he does so for theological rather than strictly epistemological reasons. This goes to qualify recent philosophical interpretations of Olivi’s ‘Tractatus de verbo.’ By contrast, Auriol’s account of conceptual thought is thoroughly direct realist. According to Auriol, the natures of external things themselves appear to us directly in conceptual cognition, without the mediation of inner images or other representational devices. (shrink)

Dans son commentaire des Sentences (d. 24, lib. I), le théologien séculier Henri de Harclay (ca. 1270-1317) aborde le problème de l’ontologie du nombre. Il soutient la thèse conceptualiste : les nombres n’existent pas indépendamment de l’activité de l’intellect. D’une part, son argumentation est utilisée chez Pierre Auriol qui défend une opinion semblable ; d’autre part, elle est attaquée chez Thomas Wylton qui adhère à une théorie contraire, celle de l’existence extramentale des nombres. Une édition critique annotée du texte (...) d’Henri de Harclay est présentée ici pour la première fois. (shrink)

This paper investigates the nature of truth and certainty according to the French Franciscan theologian Peter Auriol. In the first section, I attempt to harmonize a few different sections of Auriol’s Scriptum on book i of the Sentences: the accounts of truth as conformity in question 2 of the Prologue and question 10 of distinction 2, and the account of truth as quiddity in question 3 of distinction 19. In the second section, I explore the notion of certainty (...) in question 1 of the Prologue. Here, Auriol’s taxonomy of propositions is explained, and the difference between scientific certainty and the certitude of faith is outlined. God works in the background in the context of both truth and certainty, and the fact that our cognitive processes are generally trustworthy makes Auriol’s epistemological position into a species of reliabilism. (shrink)

Peter Auriol argues that sensation and intellection are both passive and active. They are passive insofar as they involve the reception of species or impressions of extra-mental objects. They are active insofar as both senses and intellect process these species and produce an intentional object. The way in which the senses and the intellect receive and process their own impressions is quite different, though. While perception is beyond our control, Auriol claims that the imagination, and the activity of (...) the agent and possible intellect depend on an act of the will. His idea is that the will pushes the intellect to focus on one of the impressions it receives from external objects, so that the corresponding impression is allowed to be imprinted in the intellect itself and the relevant concept formed. This paper examines the role that Auriol attributes to the will in our intellectual cognition, inasmuch as it is able to determine both (i) what kind of impressions can be picked and then embedded into the mind and, (ii) consequently, which concepts the intellect will form. My view is that, by envisioning the intellect and the will as already interacting during the process of concept formation, and not just during that of choice-making, Auriol provides an account of the intellect and the will strongly integrated with one another, thus offering a unitary vision of our cognitive life. (shrink)

This paper comprises two parts. The first part is an introduction to Auriol’s moderate conceptualism, as it is presented in his Commentary on Book II of the Sentences, distinction 9, question 2, article 1. The second part is an edition of the text. In the introduction, I focus on Auriol’s use of the noetic tool of connotation. My thesis, in particular, is that connotation is a necessary prerequisite to his moderate conceptu- alism. To this purpose, the first part (...) of this introduction will be devoted to a brief presentation of Auriol’s conceptualism. In the second part, Auriol’s theory of essential predication will be presented. In the third part, I will present my claim that Auriol’s theory of essential predication can only be made sense of when read against the background of his theory of connotation as applied to intellectual cognition. Finally, I will offer a collation of Auriol’s Commentary on Book II of the Sentences, dis- tinction 9, question 2, article 1, obtained by collating eight manuscripts, which hand down Auriol’s text, that is, Firenze, Biblioteca nazionale centrale, ms. Conv. Soppr. B.6.121, Firenze, ms. Conv. Soppr. A. 3.120, Napoli, Biblioteca nazionale, ms. VII.C.3, Padova, Biblioteca Antoniana, ms. 161, scaff. ix, Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, ms. latin 15867; Pelplin, Biblioteka Seminarium duchownego, ms. 46/85, Vaticano (Città del), Biblioteca Apostolica, ms. Borgiano 404, Vaticano (Città del), Biblioteca Apostolica, ms. Vat. lat. 942. (shrink)

This article discusses the theory of perception of Peter Auriol. Arguing for the active nature of the senses in perception, Auriol applies the Scotistic doctrine of objective being to the theory of perception. Nevertheless, he still accepts some parts of the theory of species. The paper introduces Auriol's view on the mechanism of perception and his account of illusions. I argue for a direct realist reading of Auriol's theory of perception and propose that his position becomes (...) clearer if we use the distinction between the first- and third-person perspectives which he seems to presuppose. (shrink)

The aim of this paper is to discuss the theory of exemplary causality of Peter Auriol (1280-1322). Until at least the late 13th century, medieval authors claim that the world is orderly and intelligible because God created it according to the models existing eternally in his mind (i.e. divine ideas). Auriol challenges the view of his predecessors and contemporaries. He argues that assuming divine ideas amounts to assuming multiplicity in God and therefore questioning the principle of his absolute (...) simplicity. To avoid this problem, he develops a system that enables him to account for God’s knowledge of creatures (both as individuals and as species) and hence to preserve the theological principle of providence, but at the same time allows him to reject divine ideas as intermediaries for creation. In Auriol’s theory of exemplary causality, divine essence is the only object of God’s knowledge and thus the only exemplar for creation. God’s cognitive act is directed exclusively towards his own essence. However, he knows creatures through multiple connotations, i.e. the multiple ways divine essence is connotated when God knows himself. But these connotations play no role in creation, because imitability is only proper to divine essence. To explain how an object can be the only exemplar for the creation of many different creatures, Auriol has to rethink the concept of imitability and develop a new model of exemplary causality enabling him to account for the relationship between God and his creatures. The traditional model was that of analogy: a cause produces an effect which is partly similar and partly different from it. Auriol relies on the concept of equivocity. He argues that it is unnecessary to assume a particular similarity between a cause and its effect. Quite the contrary: for an object to be the exemplar of multiple different things, it is necessary that it should not be similar to any of them. The concept of aequivocatio allows Auriol to reject the traditional model of creation. Aequivocatio does not entail a resemblance between idea and ideatum. There is no contradiction, then, in claiming that a single object (divine essence) is in an equivocal way (aequivoce) the exemplary cause of multiple different objects. This is Auriol’s new theory of divine exemplarism: the theory of similitudo aequivoca. (shrink)

In the paper I argue that medieval philosophers proposed several notions of the senses’ activity in perception. I illustrate the point using the example of two Franciscan thinkers – Peter Olivi (ca. 1248–1298) and Peter Auriol (ca. 1280–1322). Olivi’s notion of active perception assumes that every perceptual act demands a prior focusing of the mind’s attention. Furthermore, Olivi is partially inspired by the extramissionist theories of vision and reinterprets the notion of a visual ray postulated by them as a (...) useful model for explaining attention and attentional shifts. In Auriol’s view, perception is active because it participates in producing a perceptual content. e senses not only receive information from the environment, they also actively process it and, in Auriol’s words, put the external object into apparent being. e peculiar feature of Auriol’s account is his obvious tendency to conceive perceptual content as both dependent on our perceptual activity and external to the senses. Finally, I consider the two theories in the context of mirror perception – while Olivi focused on the ability of mirrors to switch attention’s direction, Auriol investigated the metaphysical nature of mirror images. (shrink)

Résumé — À la suite d’Aristote, le maître parisien Pierre Auriol prit le parti de nier la possibilité rationnelle d’ensembles transfinis et, comme Descartes, n’admit qu’un seul infini vrai, ou actuel : Dieu. Nous examinerons la façon dont Pierre invoque l’infinité divine dans trois contextes différents afin de cerner sa motivation profonde, qui fut, selon nous, de faire valoir la saturation, et donc l’insurpassabilité, de la promesse de salut qui régit la théologie chrétienne.

Este artículo pretende estudiar la crítica de Antonio Pérez a la teoría de la identidad intencional de Pedro Auréolo. La teoría de la cognición de Pérez es claramente deudora de la doctrina de la intencionalidad de Auréolo. El jesuita español utiliza a menudo las mismas expresiones lingüísticas que Auréolo (como "ser aparente") y coincide con él en la identidad intencional entre el conocedor -que coincide en acto con el acto de conocer- y el objeto conocido, que es lo mismo que (...) existe fuera del intelecto. Tanto Pérez como Auréolo basan su teoría de la identidad intencional en el De anima de Aristóteles, pero el jesuita español señala una incoherencia en la doctrina de Auréolo, que contradice la concisa afirmación de Aristóteles sobre la identidad entre el conocedor y lo conocido durante el acto de conocimiento. Al examinar a fondo la teoría de la identidad intencional de Auréolo, concebida como una especie de identidad de indistinción, Pérez señala una incoherencia entre la descripción que hace Auréolo del acto de cognición y su concepción de la identidad de indistinción. Además, Pérez parece considerar insuficiente la identidad de indistinción de Auréolo utilizada para describir la identidad intencional que caracteriza el acto de cognición. En consecuencia, ofrece una nueva definición de identidad indistinta para presentar el ser aparente como una realidad indeterminada que puede ser determinada por cualquier contenido inteligible. Esta revisión péreziana de la teoría del ser aparente de Auréolo, por un lado, puede verse como un caso de revisionismo escolástico temprano moderno aplicado a un pensador medieval y, por otro, encuentra una aplicación más amplia en la metafísica y la antropología filosófica de Pérez. (shrink)

In this paper, I examine Peter Auriol’s contribution regarding (i) what it is for a thing to be an intention or a concept and (ii) what kind of relation connects the object cognized to the cognizing mind as soon as intellectual cognition is occurring. First, I consider Auriol’s criticism of Brito’s thesis, according to which intentions are the same as cognitive acts, and “being cognized,” or for a thing to be objectively in the mind, is just for there (...) to be a cognitive act directed at that thing. Then, I discuss Auriol’s thesis, according to which each and every act of thinking must be thought of as a connotative notion, that is, as something implying or connoting an intentional object appearing to the cognizer. In this regard, Auriol’s view, as opposed to Brito’s, allows him to think of “being cognized” as more than an extrinsic denomination of the object cognized, as well as to incorporate into intellectual cognition a phenomenon that proves to be unique to our cognitive life, viz. the fact that we consciously experience what we cognize while we cognize it. Finally, I offer some concluding remarks on Auriol’s doctrine, as well as a brief evaluation of his theory. (shrink)

Lo studio verte in primo luogo sul commento di Pietro alle Sentenze, in cui viene proposto un «catalogo» delle sette parti della metafisica, intesa come disciplina scientifica. L'A. propone un'indagine dettagliata sul tema, partendo dalla considerazione che il rapporto problematico fra la metafisica intesa come ontologia e la dottrina dell'essere in Aureolo sembrerebbe mettere in discussione lo statuto scientifico della metafisica. Nelle sezioni successive dello studio l'A. si concentra sulla gnoseologia e il significato in Aureolo e Ockham del modus cognoscendi, (...) in particolare mettendo a fuoco il concetto di circumflectio e della metafisica come scientia circumflexiva e della sua possibile fondazione come scientia realis. (shrink)

It is commonplace in mainstream analytic philosophy to conceive of causation as a relation between events. On this picture, both causes and effects belong to the same ontological category—event—and in order to have an instance of causation you need at least two of them. ‘Dropping’ causes ‘breaking,’ ‘cutting’ causes ‘splitting,’ and ‘raising my arm’ causes it ‘to be raised.’ It is well-known that philosophers from the ancient through the early modern period conceived of the relata of causation quite differently. On (...) their accounts causes are substances—not events. The ball which strikes causes the nine ball to sink, the child who drops causes the vase to break, and the person who raises her arm causes it to go up. (shrink)

Peter Auriol was one of the most influential authors of the generation after Scotus. He developed an anti-realist ontology (he denied the extra-mental existence of common natures and consequently the necessity of a principle of individuation) and a new epistemology. In his view, the mental world is somehow richer than the extra-mental one, since our mind can abstract general notions (such as humanitas) that are not matched by general objects in reality. The article is aimed to show how, according (...) to Auriol, the individual things existing outside are the grounds on which all our notions (even the general and abstract ones) are based. Accordingly, the first section analyzes the internal composition of the individual things: material suppositum and singular form, which are interrelated as potency and act. The second section deals with Auriol’s theory of knowledge. In particular, it focuses on the relation between our notions, both concrete and abstract, and the metaphysical parts of extra-mental individuals. The general, abstract notions originate from the formal parts (the singular substantial form) of extra-mental individuals, while the concrete notions from the whole individuals. (shrink)

The aim of my dissertation is to investigate how universal concepts are formed according to the later medieval Franciscan theologian Peter Auriol (d. 1322). Specifically, in the dissertation I inquiry into the relation between Auriol's ontology - according to which only individuals, and not universals, have real, extra-mental existence - and his philosophical psychology, a study of how extra-mental particulars can give rise to universal concepts, according to Auriol's view. In the past academic year I refined the (...) topic of my PhD thesis in two ways : first, I have delineated the definitive table of content ; second, I have wrote down the results of my research. The thesis comprises two volumes. The second one contains a collation of Peter Auriol's,Reportatio II, d. 9, qq. 2 - 3. The text has been obtained by confronting two manuscripts, considered as the exemplars of the two main families that convey his Second Book of the Sentences: ms. Firenze, Biblioteca nazionale centrale, ms. conv. soppr. A.3.120 (Fb); (iii) il ms. Padova, Biblioteca Antoniana, ms. 161 scaff. IX (Pg). The first volume, instead, has been divided into five chapters: the first two offer a historical introduction, while the remaining three are dedicated to the study of Auriol's doctrine, starting from the analysis of the text proposed in the collation, then extending the investigation to all the documentary heritage available relating to the Franciscan master. The first chapter provides a survey of the main theories of the universals of the early fourteenth century, taking into account in particular the opinions of those thinkers who, like Duns Scotus, in addition to marking a philosophical era, have been significant for Auriol's developing of his theory of universals. These are: John Duns Scotus, Henry of Harclay, Walter Bulery and Hervaeus Natalis. In order to properly understand the philosophical proposal of the Doctor facundus, it is necessary to know how it fits into a debate that in the academic debate of the fourteenth century. The second chapter is mainly aimed at the identification of the sources of Rep. II, d. 9, qq. 2 - 3. In the quaestio secunda, Auriol deals with the foundation of the universals. In a.1, he discusses the opinion of multiwho he labels as 'platonic'. We tried, therefore, to detect the targets of his criticism. Burley, Wylton, Bacon, Duns Scotus have been identified as possible addresses. In a. 2 of the same question, Auriol analyzes the position of Duns Scotus on the common nature. It has been then hypothesized that the two articles - aa. 1-2 - has to be considered as a general presentation and specific case of it; as a thesis common to several forms of realism and the realism of one of its most important interpreters. The third chapter focuses Auriol's criticism of the different forms of realism reported in a. 1 and of Duns Scotus's theory, as it is found in a. 2. In both cases, Auriol reproaches the realists for breaking the unity of substance, into a multiplicity of formalitatesreally occurring in reand corresponding to the concepts of genus and difference. On the contrary, Auriol maintains that universal concepts have no unity in the extra-mental reality. Only individuals really exist and numerical unity the only fully existing unity. As a consequence, the unity of the universal concept is just similitudinaria,that is only given a concept. Successively, the criticisms that Auriol makes to the principle of individuation are considered. Generally speaking, everything that exists, insofar as it exists, is singular, according to him. It is a primitive fact and it is not, therefore, necessary to search for the causes of its individuation. Thus, mirroring the structure of the quaestio secunda, in q. 3, Auriol discusses, in the first place, Duns Scotus's position and secondly a group of theories, arisen during the scholastic debate between the end of the thirteenth and the beginning of the fourteenth century. Interestingly, to reconstruct this set of doctrines, Auriol follows almost literally the reconstruction that Scotus himself makes of the same theories in his Ordinatio. Now, relying on the assumption that everything that exists is individual, Auriol gives shape to the notions of individuality and singularity and their mutual difference. This is one of the hubs of the dissertation. According to Auriol, a singularity is an entity that does not admit the existence of other realities that can be considered as similar with it. In this sense, God is the only authentic singularity. Ordinary reality, on the other hand, is made up of individualities. An individuality is an entity that, being finite, does not exhaust in itself the totality of the species to which it belongs (as far as the species as such exists only in virtue of an act of the intellect), admits the existence of other realities conceivable as similar with it. Thus, inasmuch as reality is made up of individuals or individualities, the mind is able to form the corresponding universal concepts. Being finite, for Auriol, is the condition of the validity of universals. In this respect, the relation between the concept of individuality and that of singularity is taken into account. Subsequently, we analyze the function of the category of Quantity, as it is related to individuality. According to Auriol, Quantity has no individuating capacity. At most, in bodily substances, it functions as principle of distinction. Being, in fact, discrete realities, a material substance spatially ends where another one begins. The fourth chapter is a kind of juncture between the third one, in which the structure of the concrete individual is analyzed, and the fifth one, in which the cognitive side of the process of concept formation is discussed. What is discussed here are the rationes. According to Auriol, the rationesare the basic units that constitute the quiddity of each individual and serve to direct our thought to form certain concepts. Each concept is the concept of a ratio,indeed. In this respect, Auriol claims that, say, Socrates has the rationes substance, corporeality, sensitivity, rationality. Additionally, rationes of the same type occurring in different objects are "maximally similar" (simillimae). For example, the rationesof Socrates are utterly similar with those of Plato (Cf. Scriptum, d. 2, q. 1, a. 4). Therefore, although these rationes are non-universal characteristics - inasmuch as a ratio belongs to one and only one individual - due to their maximal similarity they do count as the extramental ground for our general concepts (Cf.II Sent., d. 9, q. 3, a. 1). According to these premises, Auriol can hold that different singulars can be mutually highly similar, without participating in the same common nature (Cf. II Sent., d. 9, q. 3, a. 3).At the same time, it is relevant to note these rationesdo not compromise the unity of an existing particular. Rather each ratiocoagulates into each other giving birth to the individual's ultimate ratio. This final ratiois an indivisible ratio (ratio atoma), which cannot be further specified or divided (II Sent., d. 9, q. 3). According to Auriol, then, the rationesqua rationesdo not exist in extra-mental reality. Rather, the exist as such only in virtue of an act of the intellect. This means that they have an ambiguous being. On the one hand, they indicate a nature that cannot be altered by the intellect. On the other, the need the mind's activity to exist as rationes. According to Auriol, therefore, the rationesare independent of any cognitive act, with regard to the content they express, while they depend on mind's activity with regard to their unity and their existence. Now, the opaqueness concerning the ontological consistency of rationesdirectly depends on Auriol's understanding of cognition. Chapter five mainly deals with the different stages of the process of formation of the universal concept. In this respect, the notion of impressiois what is firstly analyzed. The impressionescan be considered, for Auriol, as the rationesthat are 'deposited' in the intellect and constitute, in cooperation with the cognitive faculty, what the Franciscan theologian calls the actus intellectus. The intellectual act, according to Auriol, is an entity composed of the impressed similarity of the object and the intellectual power, in fact. Moreover, in his view, it is really identical to the intelligible species. Now, the identity that the Franciscan theologian establishes between these two noetic tools, which were traditionally considered as distinct, imposes a reinterpretation of the notion of species. Coinciding with the act, the species can no longer be considered as an entity juxtaposed to it, deputed to the activation of the cognitive process performed by the intellect. Indeed, all those theories of universal concepts that add other noetic tools to the act, be they a species, a quality, or something else, would necessarily compromise intellection, preventing it from having acquaintance with extra-mental reality. According to Auriol, considering intellectual cognition as a connotation allows us to avoid such inconveniences. According to this view, the intellectual cognition must be regarded as an activity that poses nothing but to allow something to appear to the cognizer. In this respect, the concept, for Auriol, is nothing but the real object qua appearingto the intellect, fully identical with the intellectual act in recto,while denominatively distinct in obliquo. In this perspective, the definition of intellection that the Franciscan theologian proposes is analyzed, trying, in particular, to determine the ontological status of the concept and its epistemological function. In conclusion, with this study we have tried to give an account of Auriol's philosophical attitude, of the scope of his theory of universals, focusing on the relationship between ontology and philosophical psychology. Using Auriol's texts and specifically the collation of Rep. II, d. 9, qq. 2 - 3, the answers to these questions were searched for in the words of the Franciscan theologian himself. The picture emerged is that of an autonomous, critical thinker, but perfectly inserted in the historical context in which he lives. A thinker who places himself, so to speak, halfway between Duns Scotus's realism and Ockham's nominalism, nevertheless succeeding, albeit with some opacity, in balancing an ontology in which the metaphysical priority is granted only to the individual and the universal concepts have a solid foundation and validity. (shrink)

Whereas several researches have been devoted to Auriol’s philosophical and theological works in the last fifty years, Auriol’s sermons have been basically neglected. The aim of this paper is to partially fill this gap, by focusing on one of Auriol’s sermons: the so-called De Compassione Virginis Sermo. The main argument defended here is that, while put into poetic and rhetorical language, Auriol’s theological insights lose nothing of their theoretical sharpness. They rather acquire an unexpected clarity and (...) power of persuasion, of which the De Compassione Virginis Sermo proves to be a remarkable example. In this regard, analyzing the formal structure of this sermon and examining the manner in which some of Auriol’s most notable tenets are presented there will provide an unusual, but still useful way to approach his rich thought. (shrink)

The main aim of this paper is to propose an adequate interpretation of the concept esse ap-parens (apparent being) which was used by Franciscan philosopher and theologian Peter Auriol (c. 1280 – 1322), especially focusing on his account of sensory perception. Basing on the analysis of relevant passages of the commentary on the Sentences by Auriol, first, I introduce his famous account of sensory illusions, and then his own claims about nature of esse apparens (Auriol refuses both (...) that it is separate entity serving as a mediator of perception, and that it is only extrinsic denomination of the perceived object). In the next part, I refuse the interpretation which esse apparens identifies with mental representation. In my opinion, it is more appropriate to engage this concept into the context of scholastic doctrine of objective or intentional being (popularized mainly by Duns Scotus and his disciples). In the end of the paper, I return to the Auriol’s account of illusions and show that it is compatible with esse apparens understood as mode of being. (shrink)