William of Ockham

Th e methods of intellectual history have not yet been applied to studying the invention of technology for printing texts and images ca. 1375–ca. 1450. One of the several conceptual developments in this period refl ecting the possibility of mechanical replication is a view of the relationship of eternity to durational time based on Gregory of Nyssa’s philosophy of time and William of Ockham’s. Th e article considers how changes in these ideas helped enable the conceptual possibilities of the dissemination (...) of ideas. It describes a direct connection of human perceptual knowledge to divine knowledge that enhanced the authority of printed production to transfer and reproduce the true and the good. (shrink)

William of Ockham seems to have endorsed the view (i) that a whole is its parts, (ii) that some things are such that whether they together compose a whole is contingent, and (iii) that parts are ontologically prior to the whole they compose. Ockhamist Composition as Identity is the conjunction of these three claims. It seems doubly absurd since Leibniz’s Law arguments can be run against both the conjunction of (i) and (ii) and that of (i) and (iii). In this (...) article, I appeal to recent developments in counterpart theory to block these arguments and adequately interpret the Ockhamist version of the view that composition is identity. (shrink)

The focus of this paper is Ockham's stance on the question of divine concurrence---the question whether God is causally active in the causal happenings of the created world, and if so, what God's causal activity amounts to and what place that leaves for created causes. After discussing some preliminaries, I turn to presenting what I take to be Ockham's account. As I show, Ockham, at least in this issue, is rather conservative: he agrees with the majority of medieval thinkers (including (...) Aquinas, Giles of Rome, Duns Scotus, and others) that both God and created agents are causally active in the causal happenings of the world. Then I turn to some texts that may suggest otherwise; I argue that reading Ockham as either an occasionalist or a mere conservationist based on these texts originates from a misunderstanding of his main concern. I conclude with raising and briefly addressing some systematic worries regarding Ockham's account of concurrence. (shrink)

Il volume ripercorre lo sviluppo del pensiero del giovane Nicola Cusano dalla frequentazione del maestro albertista Eimerico da Campo presso l’Università di Colonia (1425) e dal confronto con le posizioni filosofiche dei domenicani dello Studium coloniense, fino agli anni della maturità a Roma (1450). Il saggio illustra il contesto storico-culturale della genesi del De docta ignorantia, testo che suggella la presa di distanza di Cusano dal proprio passato universitario ma anche, al contempo, la sua insoddisfazione nei confronti dell’umanesimo diffuso in (...) Italia negli anni del Concilio di Ferrara-Firenze; e lo segue nella sua ‘caccia della Sapienza’, nell’incontro con differenti tradizioni e contesti, fino alla formulazione dell’ideale del ‘Socrate cristiano’ nell’Idiota. Il volume, riccamente documentato anche sul piano della storia delle interpretazioni e degli studi su Cusano, contribuisce a far luce sulla formazione del suo pensiero e sulle questioni che ne hanno segnato la vita. (shrink)

In the article I undertake the question of the Ockham’s razor. I consider the basic version of this methodological postulate: entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem. I propose to interpret this postulate as a criterion of non-existence. In this context I analyse the matter of accidental entities as well as the ontological principle of economy.

As a Franciscan friar, student, teacher, philosopher, theologian, and political theorist, William of Ockham was and remains one of the most stimulating thinkers of the Middle Ages. The one consistent characteristic of his professional output—both as a student and later as an opponent of papal authoritarianism—was the provocative nature of his ideas. In required commentaries on standard theological texts as well as in his later, more independently inspired treatises, Ockham demonstrated a genuine talent for suggesting and sustaining a number of (...) original, unorthodox and, occasionally, even outrageous ideas. Accordingly, Ockham holds the distinction of being the most rejected but influential philosopher-theologian of the fourteenth century, an observation that applies to his views on causality in which, for example, Ockham held the principle of action at a distance in order to save the causal account of some phenomena. One of the more interesting distinctions that he made, however, occurs in his treatment of sacramental theology as part of his account of God's causal activity with respect to the sacraments. (shrink)

In Part I, I present two traditional arguments for the incompatibility of divine foreknowledge with human freedom; the first of these is clearly fallacious; but the second, the argument from the necessity of the past, is much stronger. In the second section I explain and partly endorse Ockham’s response to the second argument: that only propositions strictly about the past are accidentally necessary, and past propositions about God’s knowledge of the future are not strictly about the past. In the third (...) part I point out some startling implications of Ockham’s way out; and finally in part IV I offer an account of accidental necessity according to which propositions about the past are accidentally necessary if and only if they are strictly about the past. (shrink)

The present edition of Ockham's seven quodlibets marks the fifth volume of the Opera theologica to appear in the critical edition of his non-political works in progress at the Franciscan Institute of St. Bonaventure University, and lives up in every way to the high standards of scholarship that characterized the other seven volumes of his philosophical and theological works that have been published so far. The Quodlibets are among Ockham's most important and mature works. The 170 questions contained here cover (...) almost every major aspect of his thought, and the topics are treated in a clearer, more concise and accurate fashion than in his earlier works. As usual each individual volume of this edition is accompanied by extensive indices. The topical index of some thirty pages makes the present work a particularly valuable research instrument. (shrink)

Ockham is called a nominalist because he identifies universals with names. But there are different kinds of names and a variety of forms of nominalism. One sort says that universals are names whose meaning is ultimately to be explained in terms of the conventions of linguistic communities. Ockham appears never to have taken such a “nominalism of convention” very seriously. Citing the possible position that.

With the growing interest in Renaissance studies, it is gratifying to see a major scholarly work on a little known philosopher of the Averroistic trend of Aristotelianism that had its seat in his native city of Bologna. Matsen’s study, whose first draft was submitted as a doctoral dissertation at Columbia University, opens with a summary presentation of Alessandro Achillini’s life and works based on archival documents and other first-hand sources. The body of the work focuses on two major themes: the (...) theory of universals and the concept of transcendentals. All students of philosophy are aware of the importance attached to the problem of universals by medieval schoolmen and the consequences that their solution had on their systems of philosophy. It is likewise known that the meaning and value of such transcendental concepts as being, unity, truth, goodness, and the like played a substantial role in the shaping of medieval metaphysics built mainly along Platonic and Aristotelian lines. The fact that a Renaissance man like Achillini carried on the discussion of both topics to such a degree as to devote an entire Quaestio to the study of universals and the first part of his De distinctionibus to the analysis of the transcendentals, shows, among other things, the extent to which Renaissance thought is indebted to medieval philosophy. What is less known, however, is the impact that William of Ockham, whose influence was felt throughout the entire fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, has also had on Renaissance thinkers, and especially on Achillini. A comparison between Ockham’s position on the nature of both the universals and the transcendentals has led Matsen to conclude that there is a striking similarity of view between Ockham and Achillini on many important issues and that the latter was the principal cause of the revival of Ockhamism at Bologna around 1500. (shrink)

It is supposed to be common knowledge about the history of ideas that one of the few medieval philosophical contributions preserved in modern philosophical thought is the idea that mental phenomena are distinguished from physical phenomena by their intentionality, their directedness toward some object. As is usually the case with such commonplaces about the history of ideas, this claim is not quite true. Medieval philosophers routinely described ordinary physical phenomena, such as reflections in mirrors or sounds in the air, as (...) exhibiting intentionality, while they described what modern philosophers would take to be typically mental phenomena, such as sensation and imagination, as ordinary physical processes. Still, it is true that medieval philosophers would regard all acts of cognition as characterized by intentionality, on account of which all these acts are some sort of representations of their intended objects. This course is going to provide a broad survey of the conceptual relationships between intentionality, cognition and mental representation as conceived by some of the greatest medieval philosophers, including Aquinas, Scotus, Ockham and Buridan, and some of their lesser known contemporaries. The clarification of these conceptual connections sheds some light not only on the intriguing historical relationships between medieval and modern thought on these issues, but also on some fundamental questions in the philosophy of mind as it is conceived today. (shrink)

In this article, based on the most important William of Ockham’s O. Min. writings, we analyze his ideias concerning the origins of the imperial and secular power. Founded in the Paul’s doctrine omnis potestas a Deo, but enlarged, per homines, and also on the ideas of his Franciscan brothers which lived before, which articulated the concepts of proprietas and domininum, in order to explain the human origins of the both, on the one hand, Ockham refuses not only the hierocratic theory, (...) but also Marsilius of Padua thought about this subject, and, on the other hand, he offers his contribution for this subject, according with which, nor the Empire neither the Estates are completely subordinated to the Church, nor the Church is subordinated for the secular power, because, referring its origins, both, Church and Estates are different origins, the first has a divine proceeding, the others, are immediately a human provenance and, because, in its specific spheres of action the spiritual power and the secular power do not depend one of the other and vice versa.Neste artigo, fundamentado nos principais escritos de Guilherme de Ockham, O. Min., analisamos sua concepção a respeito das origens dos poderes imperial e secular. Ancorado no versículo paulino omnis potestas a Deo, mas ampliado, sed per homines e, igualmente, nas ideias dos confrades que o antecederam, os quais relacionaram entre si os conceitos proprietas e dominium, com vista a explicar as origens humanas dos mesmos, de um lado, ele rebate tanto a teoria hierocrata quanto a de Marsílio de Pádua, relativas ao tema em exame e, de outro, oferece sua contribuição ao mesmo, mediante a qual, nem o Império nem os Estados estão completamente subordinados à Igreja, nem esta está submissa ao poder terreno, porque, quanto às origens de ambos, a Igreja tem uma procedência divina e os Estados e o Império têm imediatamente uma origem humana e, ainda, porque nas esferas respectivas de atuação, os poderes espiritual e secular independem um do outro. (shrink)

Neste artigo, pretendemos resumir aquela que, acreditamos, ser, nas últimas três ou quatro décadas, a corrente dominante na interpretação da doutrina de Ockham acerca da causalidade. Buscaremos desenvolver três estratégias para criticar essa interpretação, cada uma delas pertencendo a um diferente nível: ontologia e linguagem, em um primeiro momento, física, no segundo, e epistemológica no terceiro. O resultado de nossa exploração é uma visão menos otimista acerca da doutrina causal de Ockham.

This monumental work by a perceptive medieval scholar is undoubtedly the most comprehensive work in any modern language of the overall system of Ockham. Its three parts deal respectively with the cognitive order, the theological order, and the created order. Leff credits the more than 30 years of research by such Ockham scholars as Hochstetter, Vignaux, Moody, Baudry, Boehner, etc., with correcting his own earlier misconception—shared by so many historians of philosophy and theology—of Ockham as the one who destroyed scholasticism (...) and upset the fine balance of faith and reason by his ruthless logic, religious insensitivity, and skepticism. Such misconceptions stem from viewing Ockham either through the eyes of his predecessors, such as Aquinas or Scotus, or in the light of "the Ockhamism" of those who claimed to be his followers. In the present book, the author eschews this type of "historical approach." As he puts it, "I have sought to see his thought as a whole, in its own terms, not in pedigrees or... subsequent effects." Although much of Ockham’s writing still await critical editing, Leff sees a remarkable unity in all his works. "They are shaped by the same principles which recur throughout Ockham’s writings.... Whatever the modifications still to come as his works are properly edited, it is inconceivable that they will alter the configuration of Ockham’s thought. It is founded upon the discrepancy between the conceptual and the ontological expressed in the contrast between the individual nature of all being and the universal nature of our concepts. Instead of assuming or attempting to establish a direct rapport between them, Ockham was the first thinker systematically to explore their difference whilst accepting their interdependence." It is precisely because of this interdependence that Ockham was a "conceptualistic realist," to use Boehner’s description. Ockham was "safeguarding concepts from the status of merely mental constructs." He did not deny them epistemological validity as the nominalists did. On the other hand the varying degrees of "realism"—other than conceptualistic—"allowed no means of distinguishing logically between the mental and the real.... The distinction between concepts and what they represented then vanishes, and with it the power of differentiating true from false propositions." Ockham was genuinely concerned with meaning and evidence, the two key words that Leff believes best characterize his outlook. Leff’s professed aim is to show that "Ockham was not a logician devaluing theology or metaphysics; he was no less a philosopher and theologian than his predecessors. He accepted the same framework of knowledge and belief. The difference was that he was concerned with their meaning and evidence to the exclusion of treating their concepts as metaphysical bricks from which to build systems." Howsoever much Leff may have succeeded in achieving this goal or how many of his interpretations of specific topics may need some modification, the fact that he has followed Ockham’s thinking and argument step by step—often in what seems to be little more than an English paraphrase of the Latin text—makes his own detailed analysis a useful instrument for anyone seriously interested in Ockham’s thought.—A.B.W. (shrink)

An overview of debates in ethical theory within Christian Scholasticism in the decades after Thomas Aquinas.

Ockham has a very particular definition of modality: every term that is predicable of a whole sentence is a modal term. His definition reaches well beyond “necessary,” “possible,” “contingent” and “impossible,” including predicates such as “known” and “believed,” but also “written” and “spoken.” He provides a general framework for inferences including every term covered by his definition of modality. However, there is a proper modal syllogistic in Ockham only for the Aristotelian modalities, that combines two distinct semantic apparatus, constituted by (...) Ockhamist modal predicates, on the one hand, and by modal and modally modified copulae, on the other. For the development of a syllogistic for the Aristotelian modalities, both are needed. There is no similar apparatus for other modalities in Ockham. (shrink)

_ Source: _Volume 56, Issue 3-4, pp 201 - 221 This paper summarizes medieval definitions and divisions of consequences and explains the import of the medieval development of the theory of consequence for logic today. It then introduces the various contributions to this special issue of _Vivarium_ on consequences in medieval logic.

In this paper, I proceed from the assumption that Ockham’s account of self-awareness can be correctly described as a kind of higher-order approach, because just like modern higher-order theorists, Ockham accounts for a mental act being conscious in terms of a higher-order act that takes the act as its object. I aim to defend Ockham’s approach against the objection that it fails to provide an explanation of how self-awareness comes about because any such explanation would be circular. Part of the (...) critique, in light of recent findings in Ockham scholarship, is that the ontological identity of the subject does not suffice to explain – in a non-circular way – the psychological identity and unity of the subject of awareness. Here, I argue that Ockham can respond to this objection by highlighting the power of will. Roughly speaking, the idea is that he can account for the limits of the psychological subject in terms of what the subject can want or will with respect to her own acts and these acts alone. It is along these lines that Ockham can account for the asymmetry between first-person and third-person perspective in a non-circular way, with reference to the exotic case of angelic mind-reading and the comparatively less exotic case of human memory. (shrink)

Although Descartes’s ideas regarding consciousness and memory have been studied extensively, few attempts have been made to address their systemic relations. In order to redress this deficiency, I argue in favor of three interrelated theses. The first is that intellectual memory has a crucial role to play in Descartes’s concept of consciousness, especially when it comes to explaining higher forms of consciousness. Second, the connection between memory and consciousness has been obscured by the fact that intellectual memory, taken as a (...) subject in its own right, was relatively neglected in Descartes’s philosophy: By and large, his views on the matter remained within the limits of late scholastic Scotism. Third, what makes the question of intellectual memory so fascinating in Descartes is not some ground-breaking insight into its nature; rather, it is his gradual recognition of the role that intellectual memory plays in the constitution of higher forms of consciousness. With these arguments, and relying on Descartes’s 1648 correspondence with Antoine Arnauld, where he progressed beyond the substance-based approach to the self, I try to show that he deserves to be credited with a more prominent status in the history of the self and personhood than has previously been the case. (shrink)

ABSTRACTIn the recent secondary literature on Ockham’s philosophy of mind, it has been debated whether Ockham proposed an externalist or an internalist view of the intentional contents of intuitive...