This essay was born out of two astonishments: an admiration and a perplexity. On the one hand, this essay was born out of our admiration for the text of the question De aeternitate mundi, written by St. Thomas Aquinas in the full maturity of his thought (1271). It is a philosophically exemplary text, in terms of construction and discernment, in which the author argues that there is no contradiction between the theology of creation and the possibility of an eternal world, (...) in accordance with Aristotelian physics. On the other hand, we were also motivated by our perplexity with the difficulty that even today the Christian faith in creation experiences in dealing with the Darwinian theory of evolution. It occurred to us, then, to elaborate a question of evolution, entirely analogous, in construction and in discernment, to the question of the eternity of the world, as it had been thought of by St. Thomas Aquinas. Thus, we also argue here that there is no contradiction between the theology of creation and the possibility of a world in evolution, according to Darwin’s biological theory. And we do this by following the structure of the Thomasian question step by step. (shrink)

João Duns Escoto pode contar-se entre os continuadores de Anselmo, uma vez que acolheu favoravelmente o argumento do Proslogion, ainda que na sua singular interpretação. Mas, aquém e para além deste aspecto pontual de continuidade, há aspectos de afinidade estrutural de pensamento a estreitar os laços de razão entre os dois filósofos. Estes aspectos de mais profunda proximidade não têm que ser explicados exclusivamente por uma influência directa do legado de Anselmo no pensamento de Duns Escoto, mas acusam, a nosso (...) ver, algo como uma família de pensamento ou de espírito, ou uma orientação filosófica de fundo, capaz de atravessar os séculos e de incluir as singularidades dos diversos pensadores que nela vão tomando parte. Entre esses laços de razão, há uma afinidade fundamental ao nível da partilha de um mesmo princípio metafísico, que estrutura o pensamento quer do Doutor Magnífico quer do Doutor Subtil. Trata-se do princípio da irreflexividade das relações essenciais do ente, que Duns Escoto enuncia, como prima conclusio, no início da sua análise comparativa das ordens essenciais do ente, no Tractatus de Primo Principio. Duns Escoto assume de Agostinho a inspiração deste princípio, mas é na metafísica de Anselmo que aquele revela a força de um princípio estruturante, antes mesmo de expandir o seu alcance na metafísica escotista. O nosso propósito, neste estudo, é analisar alguns aspectos do percurso daquele princípio metafísico através do pensamento de Agostinho, do de Anselmo e do de Duns Escoto, permitindo agregar os três pensadores numa mesma família de espírito ou orientação filosófica de fundo. (shrink)

Among those who pay homage to Parmenides as a source of unquenchable inspiration for Western thought, we now revisit the Poem Of Nature as the birthplace of the principle of causality through the elimination of non-being at the origin of being. Indeed in Parmenides’ Poem, a negative conviction can be found—the refusal that the non-being is at the origin of the being—which leads most philosophers to the affirmative conviction that something is at the origin of the being. The two convictions (...) are two rational beliefs which have stimulated ancient Greek philosophy, and have continuously represented a structuring axis in the history of Western thought. With Aristotle, that affirmative conviction was converted into a principle of causality, that is, into a principle which requires a causal explanation for the intelligibility of reality. In Latin Middle Ages, we find a singular figure who promotes the synthesis of the two fundamental beliefs, the negative conviction, explicit in Parmenides, and the affirmative conviction, explicit in Aristotle: It is Saint Anselm. In an initial chapter of his first work, the Monologion, Anselm declares that “nothing is by nothing”, and that consequently “all that is, is not but by something”. All of Anselm’s metaphysics is an analysis and a development of this affirmative rational belief. Therefore, we claim Parmenides’ paternity of Saint Anselm’s metaphysics, of whom one may say he was the medieval Parmenides. (shrink)

Karl Barth est un auteur saillant dans la tradition de la preuve anselmienne du Proslogion au XXème siècle. Il interprète cette preuve à l’intérieur d’un programme théologique qui prétend à la totale séparation par rapport à la philosophie, en déployant une raison propre à foi. La preuve anselmienne, devenue une pièce de théologie séparée, doit se trouver à l'abri de toutes le réfutations philosophiques. Toutefois, l'interprétation strictement théologique de la preuve selon Barth ne se trouve pas, elle même, à l'abri (...) de conditions philosophiques. Rendre à l'évidence ces conditions au profit d'une lecture ontologiquement intégrée de la preuve anselmienne a été le but de cette étude. (shrink)

This lesson treats of Anselm’s argument in the form of a scholastic quaestio. The question of the anselmian argument is then divided in three articles, which are three main issues discussed within the argument’s tradition until our-days. The first article asks if Anselm’s argument is a direct deduction of existence as a perfection of divine essence. Against a common place about that argument, this lesson’s justified answer is: no. The second article asks if Anselm’s argument is an a priori argument. (...) Against a big stream of interpretation, this lesson’s justified answer is: no. Finally, the third article asks if the anselmian argument offers the possibility of constructing a double argument in favor of divine dualism. Certainly against any Anselm’s expectation, this lesson admits very seriously that possibility. (shrink)