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
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Vivarium 48 (3-4):302-326 (2011)
In this paper, I examine how Scotus and Ockham try to solve the following problem. If different kinds of constituents contribute some difference in kind to the things they constitute, then the divine Father and Son should be different in kind because they are constituted by at least some constituents that are different in kind (namely, fatherhood and sonship). However, if the Father and Son are different in kind, the Son's production will be equivocal, and equivocal products are typically less perfect than their producers. Therefore, the Son must be subordinate to the Father. In response, Scotus argues that different kinds of constituents do not necessarily result in different kinds of things, but Ockham rejects this, arguing instead that although the Father and Son are different in kind, they are still equal in perfection because of their identity with the divine essence
|Keywords||Univocal Production Natural Kinds Duns Scotus Ockham Equivocal Production Constitution|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
JT Paasch (2012). Divine Production in Late Medieval Trinitarian Theology: Henry of Ghent, Duns Scotus, and William Ockham. OUP Oxford.
Jt Paasch (2010). Arius and Athanasius on the Production of God's Son. Faith and Philosophy 27 (4):382-404.
William Hasker (2009). A Leftovian Trinity? Faith and Philosophy 26 (2):154-166.
Michael Rea (2003). Relative Identity and the Doctrine of the Trinity. Philosophia Christi 5 (2):431 - 445.
Matthew Levering (2011). Medieval Trinitarian Thought From Aquinas to Ockham (Review). Journal of the History of Philosophy 49 (3):374-375.
Timothy W. Bartel (1988). The Plight of the Relative Trinitarian. Religious Studies 24 (2):129 - 155.
Einar Duenger Bohn (2011). The Logic of the Trinity. Sophia 50 (3):363-374.
H. E. Baber (2008). Trinity, Filioque and Semantic Ascent. Sophia 47 (2):149 - 160.
Giuseppe Bartolozzi (2010). Origene e il dibattito sulla divinità del Logos nella prima metà del secolo III. Augustinianum 50 (1):61-82.
Daniel Shannon (2009). Justifying Atonement: An Anselmian Response to Modern Critics. Saint Anselm Journal 6 (2):1 - 19.
Richard Cross (2012). Duns Scotus and Analogy. The Modern Schoolman 89 (3-4):147-154.
John R. Fortin (2006). The Naming of Father and Son in Saint Anselm's Monologion 38–42. International Philosophical Quarterly 46 (2):161-170.
Colin Connors (2009). Scotus and Ockham. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 83:141-153.
François-David Sebbah (2006). Levinas: Father/Son/Mother/Daughter. Studia Phaenomenologica 6:261-273.
Yong Li (2011). Evolution, Care and Partiality. Asian Philosophy 21 (3):241 - 249.
Added to index2010-11-13
Total downloads19 ( #74,804 of 1,088,396 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #69,601 of 1,088,396 )
How can I increase my downloads?