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)

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)

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)

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)

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 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.

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.

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)

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)

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)

This volume offers a significant overview of authors, works and characteristics of philosophy in Latin America in the 16th - 18th centuries, i.e. essentially "colonial scholasticism": this is actually a remarkable chapter in the history of Baroque or Modern scholasticism. This volume is a collection of studies on Latin American scholasticism originally presented at the Fourth International Conference of Medieval Philosophy at the Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul (PUCRS), Porto Alegre, Brazil, November 12-14, 2012. These essays provide (...) a significant overview of authors, works and areas of interest associated to scholastic thought in the 16th-18th centuries, focusing particularly on Latin American or European-born authors whose philosophical and theological careers were significantly set in Latin American soil and, due to their education, reveal a profound acquaintance with European philosophical theories and problems. The reception and development of Medieval thought in Baroque scholasticism, the connections between European philosophy, mainly Iberian scholasticism, and philosophical-theological debates in the New World, and the revisiting by Latin American scholars of Medieval schools of thought and theoretical patterns taught in Europe, prompted by the encounter with several peoples living in the new continent and the search and justification for models of colonization, are some of the relevant issues discussed in here. The studies collected in this volume place colonial scholasticism in the history of ideas by letting authors and their writings speak for themselves. (shrink)

Le présent ouvrage offre un aperçu des connaissances actuelles dans le domaine de la parentalité et des problèmes de santé mentale.

David Hume's Enquiry concerning Human Understanding is the definitive statement of the greatest philosopher in the English language. His arguments in support of reasoning from experience, and against the "sophistry and illusion"of religiously inspired philosophical fantasies, caused controversy in the eighteenth century and are strikingly relevant today, when faith and science continue to clash. The Enquiry considers the origin and processes of human thought, reaching the stark conclusion that we can have no ultimate understanding of the physical world, or (...) indeed our own minds. In either sphere we must depend on instinctive learning from experience, recognizing our animal nature and the limits of reason. Hume's calm and open-minded skepticism thus aims to provide a new basis for science, liberating us from the "superstition" of false metaphysics and religion. His Enquiry remains one of the best introductions to the study of philosophy, and his edition places it in its historical and philosophical context. (shrink)

A leading political theorist’s groundbreaking defense of ideal conceptions of justice in political philosophy Throughout the history of political philosophy and politics, there has been continual debate about the roles of idealism versus realism. For contemporary political philosophy, this debate manifests in notions of ideal theory versus nonideal theory. Nonideal thinkers shift their focus from theorizing about full social justice, asking instead which feasible institutional and political changes would make a society more just. Ideal thinkers, on the other hand, question (...) whether full justice is a standard that any society is likely ever to satisfy. And, if social justice is unrealistic, are attempts to understand it without value or importance, and merely utopian? Utopophobia argues against thinking that justice must be realistic, or that understanding justice is only valuable if it can be realized. David Estlund does not offer a particular theory of justice, nor does he assert that justice is indeed unrealizable—only that it could be, and this possibility upsets common ways of proceeding in political thought. Estlund engages critically with important strands in traditional and contemporary political philosophy that assume a sound theory of justice has the overriding, defining task of contributing practical guidance toward greater social justice. Along the way, he counters several tempting perspectives, including the view that inquiry in political philosophy could have significant value only as a guide to practical political action, and that understanding true justice would necessarily have practical value, at least as an ideal arrangement to be approximated. Demonstrating that unrealistic standards of justice can be both sound and valuable to understand, Utopophobia stands as a trenchant defense of ideal theory in political philosophy. (shrink)

The zetetic turn in epistemology raises three questions about epistemic and zetetic norms. First, there is the relationship question: what is the relationship between epistemic and zetetic norms? Are some epistemic norms zetetic norms, or are epistemic and zetetic norms distinct? Second, there is the tension question: are traditional epistemic norms in tension with plausible zetetic norms? Third, there is the reaction question: how should theorists react to a tension between epistemic and zetetic norms? Drawing on an analogy to practical (...) philosophy, I develop a focal point view to resolve these motivating questions. On the focal point view, traditional epistemic norms and zetetic norms answer different types of normative questions. There is nevertheless a familiar type of evaluative tension between traditional epistemic norms and zetetic norms, but this tension is an unavoidable feature of the normative landscape and not a sign that traditional epistemic norms need revision. But if traditional epistemic norms are not zetetic norms, then in what sense is zetetic epistemology a project for epistemologists? I conclude by articulating a sense in which some nontraditional epistemic norms are zetetic norms, and in which zetetic epistemology is an important part of the study of theoretical rationality. (shrink)