In this paper, I focus on Paul of Venice’s plurality of forms and souls, i.e., his “two total souls” theory. I argue that this specific theory is a result of Paul’s reception of various positions originating from fourteenth-century Parisian philosophers like John of Jandun, the Anonymous Patar, Nicole Oresme, John Duns Scotus, and Walter Burley. By receiving these positions and by making use of merely parts of their doctrines, Paul creates a theory of the hylomorphic compound that fits well within (...) an Aristotelian framework of an Averroistic flavor. Although his position is not Averroistic in any strict sense, it mirrors quite well the growing interest in an Averroistic interpretation of Aristotle in Padua at his time. By looking at some of his successors, such as Gaetano da Thiene, Nicoletto Vernia, and Agostino Nifo, I show that Paul is on the borderline between a traditional, scholastic philosophical psychology or hylomorphism of Parisian origin and an Averroist reading of philosophical psychology or hylomorphism, which had its promoters in fifteenth-century Padua. (shrink)

This book sheds light on the 13th/14th-century debate about whether beatitude is a reflexive act. It reconstructs this discussion on the basis of the original sources. Furthermore it investigates into hermeneutical matters of medieval text interpretation.

Practices and techniques of imparting competency and knowledge are always essential for any mediation- or transfer process. Based on the distinctive master-disciple relationship, this volume examines individual ways of life, social contexts and institutional requirements as well as discursive practices and epistemological implications of this key relationship bequeathing culturally conveyed proficiencies and culturally encoded knowledge.

Thomas More’s Utopia is an iridescent and enigmatic work which evades a consistent interpretation. Throughout the entire dialogue, many contradictory positions are argued for, and More’s play with telling names makes it difficult to determine which person’s position we should embrace. In order to evade these problems, the paper suggests reading More’s work as a philosophical dialogue with the reader, in which More invites us to evaluate the different positions contained in the work against our own back- ground. In this (...) sense, More’s Utopia is a proper piece of philosophy. (shrink)