David Piché | : Problème majeur dans l’histoire de l’ontologie, la question de la cause de l’individuation se pose, notamment, à tout lecteur de l’Isagoge de Porphyre. En dépit de son importance historique, aucune étude n’a été consacrée spécifiquement au traitement que ce problème a reçu de la part de ceux qui furent à l’avant-garde de la réception du péripatétisme gréco-arabe dans l’Occident latin, à savoir les philosophes qui oeuvrèrent à la Faculté des arts de l’Université de Paris entre (...) 1230 et 1260. Cet article entend remédier à cette lacune en offrant la première traduction en langue moderne — elle-même réalisée principalement à partir des manuscrits des originaux latins — d’extraits pertinents de Commentaires isagogiques émanant de figures significatives de ce milieu. Ces textes traduits et annotés sont précédés d’une étude qui en dégage les thèses essentielles après avoir posé les termes du problème de l’individuation tel qu’il se pose dans le cadre épistémique que dessine l’opuscule de Porphyre. | : A major problem in the history of ontology, the question of the cause of individuation comes across any reader of Porphyry’s Isagoge. Despite its historical importance, no study has been devoted specifically to the treatment that this problem has received on the part of those who were at the forefront of the reception of the Graeco-Arabic Peripatetic Corpus in the Latin West, namely the philosophers who taught at the Parisian Faculty of arts between 1230 and 1260. This article intends to fill this gap by offering the first translation into French — translation made mainly from manuscripts of the original Latin texts — of relevant excerpts from Isagoge Commentaries written by significant masters belonging to that milieu. These translated and annotated texts are preceded by a study that expounds their essential theses after having spelled out the terms of the problem of individuation as it arises within the epistemic framework of Porphyry’s Isagoge. (shrink)

Fournissant une nouvelle edition ainsi que la premiere traduction francaise integrale du celebre decret parisien de 1277, cet ouvrage comprend egalement un commentaire qui entend montrer que, par-dela l'opposition entre orthodoxie et heterodoxie, la condamnation de l'eveque Tempier implique des enjeux epistemologique et ethique d'une grande importance pour l'histoire de la pensee en Occident. Providing a new edition and the first complete French translation of the famous 1277 Parisian decree, this book also includes a commentary which intends to show that, (...) beyond the opposition between orthodoxy and heterodoxy, the condamnation promulgated by the bishop Tempier involves epistemological and ethical issues of great importance for the history of Western thought. (shrink)

Gli A. esaminano le risposte che l'anonimo magister artium fornisce alle domande iniziali poste da Porfirio nell'Isagoge, relativamente, in special modo, alla questione degli universali. Ne risulta uno studio dottrinale che fa luce sui punti seguenti: l'anonimo pone un universale in rebus, sottoscrivendo la coeva posizione realista; l'universale reale non è affatto confinato in uno spazio-tempo determinato; all'interno del Compendium è posto in luce il concetto di virtus, a cui si lega una peculiarità nel pensare l'universale in re, cioè da (...) una parte viene pensato come ontologicamente immanente, dall'altra come separato per il rapporto con le molteplici realtà corporee; la dottrina dell'universale sembra portare un'impronta avicenniana , in quanto per il magister l'universale può essere considerato per naturam o per essentiam; altra distinzione cruciale è quella instaurata fra esse essentiae e esse actuale o esse existentiae. Sulla base del ms. Barcelona, ACA, Ripoll 109 gli A. presentano l'edizione dei punti relativi agli universali , accompagnati da note esplicative sui luoghi isagogici e sulle fonti del testo. Gli A. forniscono i dettagli relativi alla loro edizione alle pp. 293-6. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Pour une histoire de la ‘double vérité’David PichéLuca Bianchi. Pour une histoire de la ‘double vérité’. Conférences Pierre Abélard. Paris: Vrin, 2008. Pp. 192. Paper, €18.00.Since the publication of the work of the Belgian medievalist Fernand Van Steenberghen, a solid consensus seems to have emerged in the community of historians of medieval philosophy: no scholar in the Middle Ages defended the so-called “doctrine of the double truth” (...) that the Bishop of Paris, Stephen Tempier, had denounced in the prologue of his 1277 Condemnation. Moreover, how could a professional philosopher or theologian seriously contend that two contradictory statements are simultaneously true, one due to natural reason, and the other through the authority of faith? Therefore, the matter seemed settled and the file definitely closed: the double truth is nothing more than a “legend.” Yet the Italian medievalist Luca Bianchi’s in-depth critical analysis of the pseudo-historical evidence has now changed this. Without wanting to propose an entirely new interpretation of the historical ins and outs of this famous doctrine, Bianchi carries out a re-examination of the subject through a meticulous study of certain key texts that he has read in the light of a three-fold question: What impact did passages from Tempier’s decree on the “double truth” have on the medieval scholars themselves? Does the expression itself, ‘duplex veritas’, appear in some medieval documents? What were medieval thinkers’ attitudes in the face of philosophical arguments leading to conclusions contradicting the teachings of the Catholic faith?Due to space constraints, I will limit my discussion to Bianchi’s most crucial results. The answer to the first question (ch. 1) leads us in a surprising fashion to the famous Disputatio of Luther (1539). In this text, the father of the Reformation opposes the principle according to which what is true in theology must also be true in philosophy—a thesis whose paternity he attributes to Parisian theologians. Wanting to ensure the pre-eminence of faith-based teachings over all forms of human rationalization, Luther came to subscribe to a certain form of the double truth, since he claimed that what is absolutely true according to faith can be false and impossible from the perspective of philosophy. This explains his radical opposition to the “Parisian” principle that Bianchi calls “the principle of the oneness of truth.” We learn that some theologians in fifteenth- century Paris, notably Jean Gerson and Guillaume Baudin, were actually inspired by Tempier’s decree to defend some form of this principle.To respond to the second question (ch. 2), Bianchi first researched the electronic database Library of Latin Texts (CLCLT-6), and came up with “disappointing results”: no author uses the expression ‘duplex veritas’ in the relevant sense. Nevertheless, as imposing as it is, this database is not exhaustive, and Bianchi, well aware of this, extended his research by consulting other documents on paper, allowing him ultimately to reach a positive conclusion: the expression ‘duplex veritas’ appears in the course of a debate that took place around [End Page 99] 1470 on the subject of the truth-value of statements about future contingents. This debate involved a master of arts from Louvain, Pierre de Rivo, who considered it essential to distinguish between the truth of philosophers and the “popular” truth upheld by the churchmen, and a Parisian theologian whom we have already encountered, Guillaume Baudin, who invoked the “principle of the oneness of truth” to denounce the “double truth” that his adversary was promoting.From Bianchi’s multifaceted response to the third question (chs. 3–4), I can only present the groundswell. From the statutes promulgated by the Parisian Arts Faculty in 1272 up to the condemnation of Galileo in 1633, including the constitution Apostolici regiminis issued by the Fifth Lateran Council (1513), a significant evolution may be observed in the requirements academic and religious authorities imposed on professors of philosophy (as well as on scientists) in the western Christian world. Indeed, we may observe that these requirements correspond, first, to the obligation to counter, as far as possible, arguments that contradict faith, and then transform into the duty to commit to a strong... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Pour une histoire de la ‘double vérité’David PichéLuca Bianchi. Pour une histoire de la ‘double vérité’. Conférences Pierre Abélard. Paris: Vrin, 2008. Pp. 192. Paper, €18.00.Since the publication of the work of the Belgian medievalist Fernand Van Steenberghen, a solid consensus seems to have emerged in the community of historians of medieval philosophy: no scholar in the Middle Ages defended the so-called “doctrine of the double truth” (...) that the Bishop of Paris, Stephen Tempier, had denounced in the prologue of his 1277 Condemnation. Moreover, how could a professional philosopher or theologian seriously contend that two contradictory statements are simultaneously true, one due to natural reason, and the other through the authority of faith? Therefore, the matter seemed settled and the file definitely closed: the double truth is nothing more than a “legend.” Yet the Italian medievalist Luca Bianchi’s in-depth critical analysis of the pseudo-historical evidence has now changed this. Without wanting to propose an entirely new interpretation of the historical ins and outs of this famous doctrine, Bianchi carries out a re-examination of the subject through a meticulous study of certain key texts that he has read in the light of a three-fold question: What impact did passages from Tempier’s decree on the “double truth” have on the medieval scholars themselves? Does the expression itself, ‘duplex veritas’, appear in some medieval documents? What were medieval thinkers’ attitudes in the face of philosophical arguments leading to conclusions contradicting the teachings of the Catholic faith?Due to space constraints, I will limit my discussion to Bianchi’s most crucial results. The answer to the first question (ch. 1) leads us in a surprising fashion to the famous Disputatio of Luther (1539). In this text, the father of the Reformation opposes the principle according to which what is true in theology must also be true in philosophy—a thesis whose paternity he attributes to Parisian theologians. Wanting to ensure the pre-eminence of faith-based teachings over all forms of human rationalization, Luther came to subscribe to a certain form of the double truth, since he claimed that what is absolutely true according to faith can be false and impossible from the perspective of philosophy. This explains his radical opposition to the “Parisian” principle that Bianchi calls “the principle of the oneness of truth.” We learn that some theologians in fifteenth- century Paris, notably Jean Gerson and Guillaume Baudin, were actually inspired by Tempier’s decree to defend some form of this principle.To respond to the second question (ch. 2), Bianchi first researched the electronic database Library of Latin Texts (CLCLT-6), and came up with “disappointing results”: no author uses the expression ‘duplex veritas’ in the relevant sense. Nevertheless, as imposing as it is, this database is not exhaustive, and Bianchi, well aware of this, extended his research by consulting other documents on paper, allowing him ultimately to reach a positive conclusion: the expression ‘duplex veritas’ appears in the course of a debate that took place around [End Page 99] 1470 on the subject of the truth-value of statements about future contingents. This debate involved a master of arts from Louvain, Pierre de Rivo, who considered it essential to distinguish between the truth of philosophers and the “popular” truth upheld by the churchmen, and a Parisian theologian whom we have already encountered, Guillaume Baudin, who invoked the “principle of the oneness of truth” to denounce the “double truth” that his adversary was promoting.From Bianchi’s multifaceted response to the third question (chs. 3–4), I can only present the groundswell. From the statutes promulgated by the Parisian Arts Faculty in 1272 up to the condemnation of Galileo in 1633, including the constitution Apostolici regiminis issued by the Fifth Lateran Council (1513), a significant evolution may be observed in the requirements academic and religious authorities imposed on professors of philosophy (as well as on scientists) in the western Christian world. Indeed, we may observe that these requirements correspond, first, to the obligation to counter, as far as possible, arguments that contradict faith, and then transform into the duty to commit to a strong... (shrink)

After a presentation of the main onto-theological theses contained in the Liber de causis, the author explains how they were received and interpreted by Thomas Aquinas and Siger of Brabant in their respective commentaries on the short treatise “de primis causis rerum.” Starting from a mistranslation of the word “yliathim,” Thomas “injects” into the De causis his own doctrine of the distinction between being and essence. As for Siger, while he is often regarded as an adversary of Thomas Aquinas, his (...) ideas about the ontological difference between the Prime Cause and the created beings are on the very lines of the Thomasian lecture of the Liber de causis. (shrink)

The following paper shows that prior to Ockham’s doctrine on the intuition of non-existents, two Parisian theologians had already developed, in opposition to Duns Scotus, their own theories on the possibility of having intuitive cognition of non-existent or absent things. The article uses the editions of the two theologians’ Quodlibeta prepared by the author.

Cet article offre la toute première édition critique du Quodlibet IV, q. 11, d’Hervé de Nédellec (Hervaeus Natalis ; c. 1250/60-1323), laquelle est précédée d’une étude du contenu doctrinal de cette question quodlibétique qui traite essentiellement de trois choses : une définition de la connaissance intuitive ; une explication de ce que signifie la présence d’une chose ; une analyse des modalités selon lesquelles la connaissance – et en particulier l’intuitive – dépend de la présence de la chose connue.

La narration de l’histoire du problème des universaux souffre d’une importante lacune : on ne sait rien du traitement que ce problème a reçu de la part de ceux qui faisaient profession de philosopher à l’Université de Paris entre 1230 et 1260. C’est à ce deficit de savoir que le présent ouvrage s’attaque. Il se déploie en trois dimensions. En premier lieu, nous offrons une édition critique et une traduction française sectorielles d’un commentaire latin sur l’Isogoge de Porphyre ayant pour (...) auteur un dénommé Robertus Anglicus qui, comme nous le montrons, fut magister artium à Paris aux alentours de 1250. En deuxième lieu, nous sondons l’architectonique de ce texte et des écrits parallèles que rédigèrent des philosophes contemporains, nommément Jean le Page, Nicolas de Paris et Robert Kilwardby. Finalement, par l’entremise d’une étude comparative qui met à profit des œuvres inédites de ces artiens, nous explicitons, interprétons et évaluons les schèmes de lecture, les séquences argumentatives et les composantes doctrinales qui forment la “moelle” philosophique du commentaire isagogique de Robertus Anglicus. (shrink)

Notre connaissance de l'histoire du probleme des universaux, tel qu'il fut initialement formule par Porphyre, souffre d'une importante lacune: nous ne savons strictement rien concernant le traitement que ce probleme a recu de la part de ceux qui faisaient profession de philosopher a l'Universite de Paris entre 1230 et 1260. Notre these s'attaque a ce deficit de savoir en suivant une demarche heuristique qui se deploie en trois phases: premierement, nous editons, selon les regles de l'ecdotique, une partie substantielle du (...) commentaire du Pseudo-Robertus Anglicus sur l'Isagoge de Porphyre et nous en offrons une traduction francaise; deuxiemement, nous sondons l'architectonique de ce texte et des ecrits paralleles rediges par des contemporains---nommement Jean le Page, Nicolas de Paris et Robert Kilwardby; troisiemement et finalement, par l'entremise d'une etude comparative qui met a profit ces documents inedits qui composent notre corpus, nous procedons a une etude historico-philosophique du commentaire isagogique du Pseudo-Robertus Anglicus. (shrink)

ABSTRACT : The scientific character of theology was hotly debated among theologians of the 13th and 14th century. In what follows I expound the singular views of Hervaeus Natalis, a thinker who lived in the first quarter of the 14th century. According to him, the solution to this problem lies in the notion of abstraction. I offer a historical and philosophical analysis of his position based on the first French translation of a significative portion of one of his Quodlibets. I (...) made the translation from my own edition of its Latin text. (shrink)

Cet article est destiné à montrer qu’antérieurement au développement par Ockham d’une doctrine de l’intuition du non-existant, deux théologiens parisiens avaient déjà construit, chacun à sa manière, une théorie de la connaissance intuitive qui établissait, contre Duns Scot, la possibilité de l’intuition d’une chose non-existante ou absente : Gérard de Bologne et Hervé de Nédellec. L’étude philosophique de ce thème chez ces deux penseurs s’appuie sur l’édition critique de leurs Quodlibeta qu’a réalisée l’auteur de l’article.

Cet article fournit la toute première édition critique de la deuxième des quatre Questiones ordinarie qui ont été débattues par le maître carme Gérard de Bologne : est-ce que l’ habitus de foi se trouve dans l’intellect spéculatif, l’intellect pratique ou la partie affective de l’âme? Notre édition est précédée d’une étude qui analyse la doctrine de Gérard en la situant dans son contexte historique grâce à l’identification de ses interlocuteurs. En affirmant que la théologie détient un double statut épistémologique, (...) spéculatif et pratique, Gérard soutient une position qui n’est pas sans rappeler celle que Godefroid de Fontaines avait défendue avant lui. (shrink)

In the commentary on the Isagoge ascribed to John Pagus, one of the major figures in the mid-thirteenth century Parisian Faculty of Arts, we encounter a statement according to which uniuersale per continentiam et ambitum is the sort of universal that is relevant in the context of the Porphyrian question about the ontological status of genera and species. The aim of this article is to decode this enigmatic phrase. We proceed in two steps, first examining some thirteenth-century texts in which (...) this phrase is found, and second providing a careful analysis and original interpretation of decisive passages in Pagus’ commentary. By means of this hermeneutical analysis, we develop a more precise understanding of the nature and significance of the realist teaching about universals, which was promoted by the vast majority of mid-thirteenth-century Latin thinkers. (shrink)

RÉSUMÉ Cet article offre la première édition du début des Communia logic e, une substantielle compilation didascalique issue de la Faculté des arts de l’Université de Paris au milieu du xiiie siècle et contenue dans un manuscrit légué par maître Pierre de Limoges à l’ancienne bibliothèque de la Sorbonne. Après une présentation générale et avant des précisions sur la Ratio edendi, l’étude doctrinale qui précède cette édition montre comment l’auteur-compilateur des Communia logic e répond — en le reformulant — au (...) célèbre questionnaire porphyrien relatif aux universaux. ABSTRACT This article offers the first edition of the beginning of the Communia logic e, a substantial didascalical compilation emanating from the Arts faculty of the University of Paris during the first half of the thirteenth century and preserved in a manuscript bequeathed by master Peter of Limoges to the old library of the Sorbonne. After a general presentation and before some clarifications on the Ratio edendi, the doctrinal study which precedes this edition shows how the author-compiler of the Communia logic e answers — while reformulating it — to the well known porphyrian set of questions about the universals. (shrink)

This is a critical examination of a recent book by David Piche, which contains a new edition of the sweeping and influential condemnation by Bishop Stephen Tempier of 219 (or now, 220) propositions on March 7,1277 at the University of Paris. In addition to the Latin text, Piche's book includes a French translation of the text of the condemnation, an introduction to the Latin text and translation, and his historico-doctrinal interpretation of the condemnation and the events leading (...) up to it. This condemnation has deservedly received considerable attention from scholars during the past twenty-five years or so, and Piche's new edition of the text is a valuable contribution to this ongoing research. His historico-doctrinal commentary on the condemnation incorporates and builds upon much of this more recent material. Without agreeing with his interpretation on every point, my overall evaluation of his book is quite positive. (shrink)

Oxford Studies in Medieval Philosophy annually collects the best current work in the field of medieval philosophy. The various volumes print original essays, reviews, critical discussions, and editions of texts. The aim is to contribute to an understanding of the full range of themes and problems in all aspects of the field, from late antiquity into the Renaissance, and extending over the Jewish, Islamic, and Christian traditions. Volume 10 ranges widely over this terrain, including Christina Van Dyke on humility among (...) women authors, Daniel Davies and Alexander Lamprakis on al-Fārābī in Hebrew translation, Reginald Chua on Aquinas and the Trinity, Can Löwe on the soul’s relation to its powers, John Morrison on the indiscernibility of identicals, and Boaz Schuman on Buridan’s logic. In addition, the volume features critical reviews of recent books by David Piché and Tobias Hoffmann, authored by Nicholas Faucher and Sonja Schierbaum. (shrink)

Here the philosopher and physicist David Z Albert argues, among other things, that the difference between past and future can be understood as a mechanical phenomenon of nature and that quantum mechanics makes it impossible to present the entirety of what can be said about the world as a narrative of “befores” and “afters.”.

Once upon a time, the twentieth-century investigations of the behaviors of sub-atomic particles were thought to have established that there can be no such thing as an objective, observer-independent, scientifically realist, empirically adequate picture of the physical world.

Presentists, who believe that only present objects exist, face a problem concerning truths about the past. Presentists should (but cannot) locate truth-makers for truths about the past. What can presentists say in response? We identify two rival factions ‘upstanding’ and ‘nefarious’ presentists. Upstanding presentists aim to meet the challenge, positing presently existing truth-makers for truths about the past; nefarious presentists aim to shirk their responsibilities, using the language of truth-maker theory but without paying any ontological price. We argue that presentists (...) should be nefarious presentists. (shrink)

Democracy is not naturally plausible. Why turn such important matters over to masses of people who have no expertise? Many theories of democracy answer by appealing to the intrinsic value of democratic procedure, leaving aside whether it makes good decisions. In Democratic Authority, David Estlund offers a groundbreaking alternative based on the idea that democratic authority and legitimacy must depend partly on democracy's tendency to make good decisions.Just as with verdicts in jury trials, Estlund argues, the authority and legitimacy (...) of a political decision does not depend on the particular decision being good or correct. But the "epistemic value" of the procedure--the degree to which it can generally be accepted as tending toward a good decision--is nevertheless crucial. Yet if good decisions were all that mattered, one might wonder why those who know best shouldn't simply rule.Estlund's theory--which he calls "epistemic proceduralism"--avoids epistocracy, or the rule of those who know. He argues that while some few people probably do know best, this can be used in political justification only if their expertise is acceptable from all reasonable points of view. If we seek the best epistemic arrangement in this respect, it will be recognizably democratic--with laws and policies actually authorized by the people subject to them. (shrink)

David Bohm was one of the foremost scientific thinkers and philosophers of our time. Although deeply influenced by Einstein, he was also, more unusually for a scientist, inspired by mysticism. Indeed, in the 1970s and 1980s he made contact with both J. Krishnamurti and the Dalai Lama whose teachings helped shape his work. In both science and philosophy, Bohm's main concern was with understanding the nature of reality in general and of consciousness in particular. In this classic work he (...) develops a theory of quantum physics which treats the totality of existence as an unbroken whole. Writing clearly and without technical jargon, he makes complex ideas accessible to anyone interested in the nature of reality. (shrink)

It is argued that certain recent advances in the construction of a theory of the collapses of Quantum Mechanical wave functions suggest the possibility of new and improved foundations for statistical mechanics, foundations in which epistemic considerations play no role.

This book uncovers the lost history of Christianity's encounters with Pythagorean ideas before the Renaissance. David Albertson skillfully examines ancient and medieval theologians, particularly Thierry of Chartres and Nicholas of Cusa, who successfully reconceived the Trinity and the Incarnation within the framework of Greek number theory. David Albertson challenges modern assumptions about the complex relationship between religion and science.