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 81:217-230 (2007)
The aim of this paper is to explain Scotus’s transformation of the Aristotelian view on the difference between rational and irrational potencies. In Metaphysics 9, 2 Aristotle establishes the distinction between rational and nonrational powers and explains their difference in terms of their being ad opposita and ad unum, respectively. In his interpretation Scotus concludes that the most basic division between active principles is the difference between nature and will, rather than the difference between univocal and equivocal agents. Thus, the Aristotelian distinction between rational and non-rational powers has now become a distinction between nature and will. And the criterion for such a difference no longer lies in the contrast between ad unum and ad opposita, but rather is based on the twofold way the potencies can elicit their acts. Therefore, according to Scotus, the key difference between nature and will is the distinction between autonomy and heteronomy
|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
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 (2010). Recent Work on the Philosophy of Duns Scotus. Philosophy Compass 5 (8):667-675.
Stephan Käufer (2005). The Nothing and the Ontological Difference in Heidegger's What is Metaphysics? Inquiry 48 (6):482 – 506.
Alan Bass (2006). Interpretation and Difference: The Strangeness of Care. Stanford University Press.
Michael D. Robinson (2009). Truth in Metaphysics. American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 83 (4):467-490.
Fiona Leigh (2012). Modes of Being at Sophist 255c-E. Phronesis 57 (1):1-28.
Richard Cross (1998). The Physics of Duns Scotus: The Scientific Context of a Theological Vision. Clarendon Press.
Giorgio Pini (2005). Scotus's Realist Conception of the Categories: His Legacy to Late Medieval Debates. Vivarium 43 (1):63-110.
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.
Allan B. Wolter (2003). The Unshredded Scotus. American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 77 (3):315-356.
Sukjae Lee (1998). Scotus on the Will: The Rational Power and the Dual Affections. Vivarium 36 (1):40-54.
Eike-Henner W. Kluge (2008). Scotus on Accidental and Essential Causes. Franciscan Studies 66 (1):233 - 246.
Cruz Gonzalez-Ayesta (2012). Duns Scotus on the Natural Will. Vivarium 50 (1):33-52.
Stephen D. Dumont (2005). Duns Scotus's Parisian Question on the Formal Distinction. Vivarium 43 (1):7-62.
Stephen D. Dumont (1992). Transcendental Being: Scotus and Scotists. Topoi 11 (2):135-148.
Added to index2011-12-01
Total downloads17 ( #208,963 of 1,792,018 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #463,591 of 1,792,018 )
How can I increase my downloads?