David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 83:141-153 (2009)
This paper is a defense of John Duns Scotus’s theory of individuation against one of William of Ockham’s objections. In the Ordinatio II. D.3. P. 1, John Duns Scotus argues for the existence of haecceity, a positive, indivisible distinction which makes an individual an individual rather than a kind of thing. He argues for the existence of haecceity by arguing for a form which is a “real less than numerical unity” and is neither universal nor singular. In the Summa Logicae, William of Ockham objects to Scotus’s theory of haecceity by attacking his theory of universals, claiming that the same thing would be proper and common simultaneously. The basis of Ockham’s objections is that only a real distinction is possible: if things are distinct, then they can exist separately. Without universals, a principle of individuation is unnecessary. To defend Scotus’s principle of individuation, an account and defense of the formal distinction is necessary. Without the formal distinction, metaphysical categories, such as being and one, are incoherent or contradictory. The formal distinction gives rise to a new law of contradiction:two or more entities are formally distinct if and only if contradiction or non-being results from their separation and the properties of one being do not match theproperties of the other being(s)
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Richard Cross (2010). Recent Work on the Philosophy of Duns Scotus. Philosophy Compass 5 (8):667-675.
Pascal Massie (2004). Saving Contingency. Epoché: A Journal for the History of Philosophy 8 (2):333-350.
JT Paasch (2011). Are the Father and Son Different in Kind? Scotus and Ockham on Different Kinds of Things, Univocal and Equivocal Production, and Subordination in the Trinity. Vivarium 48 (3-4):302-326.
Ana Irimescu (2011). Études de Philosophie Antique et Médiévale. Dossier Thomas d'Aquin. Chôra 7:175-210.
Tobias Hoffmann (2010). Duns Scotus’s Action Theory in the Context of His Angelology. In Ludger Honnefelder (ed.), Johannes Duns Scotus 1308–2008: Die philosophischen Perspektiven seines Werkes / Investigations into his Philosophy. Proceedings of “The Quadruple Congress” on John Duns Scotus, part 3. Franciscan Institute Publications; Aschendorff
Tobias Hoffmann (1999). The Distinction Between Nature and Will in Duns Scotus. Archives D’Histoire Doctrinale Et Littéraire du Moyen Âge 66:189-224.
Richard Cross (1998). The Physics of Duns Scotus: The Scientific Context of a Theological Vision. Clarendon Press.
Stephen D. Dumont (2005). Duns Scotus's Parisian Question on the Formal Distinction. Vivarium 43 (1):7-62.
Eike-Henner W. Kluge (2008). Scotus on Accidental and Essential Causes. Franciscan Studies 66 (1):233 - 246.
Giorgio Pini (2005). Scotus's Realist Conception of the Categories: His Legacy to Late Medieval Debates. Vivarium 43 (1):63-110.
James B. Reichmann (2006). Scotus and Haecceitas, Aquinas and Esse. American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 80 (1):63-75.
Garrett Smith (2010). Bibliotheca Manuscripta Petri Thomae. Bulletin de Philosophie Medievale 52:161-200.
G. Randolph Mayes (1990). Ross and Scotus on the Existence of God: Two Proofs From Possibility. The Thomist 54 (1):97-114.
Added to index2011-12-01
Total downloads35 ( #118,833 of 1,911,554 )
Recent downloads (6 months)7 ( #97,666 of 1,911,554 )
How can I increase my downloads?