This article contains a discussion and edition of two questions on the eternity of the world in Galfridus de Aspall’s Questiones super De celo et mundo (book I), viz. his question of whether the world is generable and perishable speaking about proper generation (i.e., generation from pre-existent matter) (q. 99) and his question of whether it was Aristotle’s intention to argue that the world began in some way (q. 100). These questions are preserved in the mss. Cambridge, Peterhouse 157, ff. (...) 17va-b (on which the edition is based) and Todi, Biblioteca Comunale 23, ff. 210ravb. Aspall holds, on the one hand, that the world is generable and perishable in this sense that it has from itself a potentiality to non-being. On the other hand, the elements in their totality are ungenerable, because their inclination to non-being is stopped by the power of the celestial orb. Aspall interprets Aristotle’s statement that the world is ungenerable and imperishable in this sense that Aristotle meant that the world is not generated from pre-existent matter, but that he did not hold that the world did not begin by creation. The main source of Aspall’s questions is Averroes’ Commentarium magnum on De celo. In q. 99 Aspall holds that he agrees with Averroes, but he misunderstands Averroes’ position. In q. 100 he states that he disagrees with Averroes’ interpretation of Aristotle. (shrink)

In his Quaestiones supra librum De Caelo et Mundo which are preserved in the manuscripts Vienna, Dominikanerkonvent 150/120, fols. 47ra-68va and Paris, Bibliothèque Mazarine 3493, fols. 95ra-136rb, Peter of Auvergne deals with the question of whether there is one world or whether there can be many worlds 24). Peter raises this question because Aristotle refutes the existence and possibility of a plurality of worlds in De Caelo I, 8-9. I shall first discuss the three sets of questions on De Caelo (...) attributed to Peter of Auvergne . In the second section I shall present the answers of authoritative ancient and medieval scholars on the problem of whether a plurality of worlds exists or is possible . Finally I shall examine Peter’s question and indicate its probable sources. (shrink)

Several medieval commentators on De caelo II, 7 investigate the question of whether local motion causes heat. I analyse the theories of Averroes, Albert the Great, Thomas Aquinas, Peter of Auvergne, John of Jandun, John Buridan and Nicole Oresme and two anonymous theories. Although all of these authors agree that local motion generates heat, each of them presents his own explanation of the heating effect of motion. Averroes, Thomas Aquinas, John of Jandun and John Buridan argue that motion is the (...) per se cause of heat. Their explanations of the heating effect of motion are based on metaphysical considerations such as the relation between a subject and its characteristics or perfections and the causal order in a genus. Albert the Great, Peter of Auvergne, Nicole Oresme and the anonymous commentators, on the contrary, defend the thesis that motion is the accidental cause of heat. Their explanations refer to physical processes caused by motion. (shrink)

Traces of and tracks towards philosophy and philosophizing in Flemish secondary education At present philosophy has only a minor place in the Flemish secondary education curriculum. In the first part of the article, I defend the view that philosophy deserves a place as an autonomous subject in the final two years of secondary school. I sketch the content of such a philosophy course and I propose a didactical model for this course. The second part of the article discusses social tendencies (...) that explain the current debate over whether there should be more philosophy in secondary schools. In the third part I try to explain why philosophy still lacks a structural place in Flemish secondary education. Finally I present a survey of ‘traces’ of philosophy and philosophizing in Flemish secondary education and I formulate a conclusion. (shrink)

During more than a century scholars have argued that the translatio vetus of De sensu can be dated to the first decade of the 13th century or to the 12th century. My investigation of the manuscripts which contain the translatio vetus of De sensu and my survey of the earliest references to De sensu in the Latin West reveals that there is no evidence that this translation was made during the 12th century. The absence of De sensu in 12th century (...) manuscripts and the absence of references to De sensu in treatises of the late 12th and early 13th century could indicate that the translatio vetus was only made at the beginning of the 13th century. If one assumes that the translation of De sensu was made much later than the translations of De anima and De memoria by James of Venice, this could help explain why in the earliest tradition, it is not De sensu but De memoria that follows on De anima. However, we cannot exclude the possibility that the translatio vetus of De sensu already existed during the 12th century, but was not used because scholars were more interested in the other newly translated Aristotelian works or because the translation of De sensu was too difficult to understand. The fact that the 13th- century manuscripts transmit a text that is strongly corrupted and contaminated could indicate that the tradition started much earlier, during the 12th century. De generatione stelllarum, which can possibly be dated before 1225, contains several citations from the translatio vetus of De sensu. It could be the earliest evidence of the use of the translation of De sensu. The anonymous De potentiis anime et obiectis, written by a theologian between 1228 and 1232, is the earliest work that can be dated with certainty and contains a quotation from De sensu. From the 1240s onwards, De sensu was widely commented on and used in treatises on the soul and in encyclopaedic works. Adam of Buckfield’s commentary on De sensu seems to have been very influential and deserves further study. (shrink)

About fourteen manuscripts of the translatio vetus of Aristotle’s De sensu contain a corpus of marginal and interlinear scholarly glosses on this work. These notes most probably originated in the Oxford schools around the middle of the 13th century. This contribution contains an edition and discussion of the « Oxford gloss » on De sensu 1, for which recensio 1 of Adam of Buckfield’s commentary on De sensu is the main source.