This paper is an investigation into the introduction of the term ‘system’ and its conceptual background in the writings of Bartholomew Keckermann. This includes a brief summary of the literature and evidence identifying Keckermann as the first to make significant usage of the term in logic, philosophy, and theology. Then, after a survey of his life, work and milieu, this paper will look closer at three of Keckermann’s own ‘systems’; Systema logicae (1600), Praecognitorum Logicorum (1606), and Systema (...) SS. Theologiae (1602). Finally, I will touch on the influence Keckermann’s innovation had on subsequent ideas of method in modern philosophy, especially how his innovative use of this term gives the logician the directing role as a technical expert in mining the truth of theology, philosophy, and other sciences. This, of course, flies in the face of the medieval view of the Church and its elders controlling that role, characterizing the discovery and refinement of knowledge as being a process of electing and using worthy passive subjects as conduits of divine knowledge. Thus Keckermann’s systems can be considered an important step away from this, towards the early modern epistemology requiring an active thinking subject, best characterized in Descartes’ Meditations. (shrink)

In their debate on whether or not the young should be allowed to study history, Degory Wheare and Gerhardus Vossius quote Bartholomäus Keckermann and state that he wants to exclude the young from studying history, Wheare arguing for Keckermann’s purported position, Vossius opposing it. Their disagreement is part of a larger controversy on the relevance of history for moral instruction in general, contemplating the question whether or not history is best understood as ‘philosophy teaching by example.’ But the (...) interpretation of Keckermann’s position presupposed by both Wheare and Vossius is wrong. Keckermann’s Ramist predecessors argued against a central presupposition of Wheare’s views, i.e., the exclusion of the young from studying moral philosophy. Keckermann’s own position in this regard is not fully clear. But a closer analysis of his distinction between methods for writing and for reading history shows that Keckermann did want the young to study history. If Keckermann had believed that such exclusion were necessary, it could only have been related to reading historical texts, not to writing them: writing texts about historical figures or events does not require moral precepts, but only the application of certain logical tools. A view that implies that writing a historical text should be possible for students, whereas reading such a text would go beyond their capabilities, is absurd. Hence, we can assume that Keckermann expected the young to study both history and moral philosophy. (shrink)

Głównym celem książki jest rekonstrukcja teorii retorycznej, wyłożonej przez Bartłomieja Keckermanna (1572–1609), profesora filozofii w Gdańskim Gimnazjum Akademickim, w obszernym traktacie pod tytułem System retoryki (Systema rhetoricae, Hanau 1608). Opierając się na przejrzystej metodzie, u której podstaw leżała zasada podziału dychotomicznego, wywiedziona wprost z pism logicznych Arystotelesa (Organonu), Keckermann przeprowadził systematyzację sztuki przemawiania. Dzięki twórczemu wykorzystaniu koncepcji Stagiryty, Cycerona i Kwintyliana, a także współczesnych sobie teoretyków wymowy, głównie Rudolfa Agricoli, Erazma z Rotterdamu, Filipa Melanchtona i Piotra Ramusa, stworzył on (...) summę renesansowej wiedzy o retoryce. Retoryka ujmowana paradoksalnie (oksymoronicznie) jako antystrofa dialektyki, ukazująca się nam w figuratywnym przebraniu wiernej służebnicy albo nieodłącznej, choć często niepożądanej, towarzyszki logiki (filozofii), została skrojona na miarę ludzkich zdolności i słabości. Jako względnie autonomiczna forma racjonalności (a więc zgodnie z intencją Arystotelesa) i model dyskursywności zbudowany wokół amplifikacji i figuratywności (czyli zgodnie z koncepcją Keckermanna) stanowi apologię niemal powszechnej niekonkluzywności dyskursu, sprzeciwu wobec supremacji intelektu w dziedzinie praktyk sensotwórczych i zgody na brak ostatecznego wyjaśnienia. Mimo tego ma być ona lekarstwem uśmierzającym chroniczną niepewność poznania i środkiem przynoszącym wytchnienie podczas gorączkowego poszukiwania sensu. Dlatego w zależności od potrzeb chwili i celu perswazji retoryka staje się lekarką serc i dusz ludzkich, twórczynią zmysłowych i wielobarwnych obrazów rzeczywistości, a także rewelatorką prawd doskonale już znanych. Za każdym razem zjawia się przed nami pod postacią figury przekształcającej prostą mowę litery w wieloznaczną sekwencję znaków, symboli i obrazów. Przemawiając we własnym imieniu na gruncie teorii wymowy (nawet tej najbardziej metodycznej i usystematyzowanej), retoryka nie może mówić inaczej, jak tylko retorycznie, ożywiając zastygłe w dyskursie toposy i budząc uśpione w języku figury. (shrink)

Loci personarum, ‘topics for persons’ were used in Latin rhetoric for the description of persons, their external circumstances, physical attributes, or qualities of character. They stood in the way of fusing rhetoric and dialectic, the goal of sixteenth-century ‘humanistic’ logic: the project of a unified theory of invention depends on the exclusion of loci personarum from the domain of dialectic proper. But still they cannot easily be replaced in the class room. Bartholomaeus Keckermann resolved these difficulties: he proposed to (...) abandon the notion that loci personarum could play a role in finding new arguments concerning persons. So they pose no risks for a unified theory of invention, because they can only be used for the exposition of information that we already have. Since loci personarum are concerned with individuals, the knowledge about individuals that is available to us is inescapably circumstantial and contingent, defying the claim of generality or necessity of dialectic made by Keckermann’s sixteenth-century predecessors. However, our thinking about persons is primarily interested in those aspects that we do not share with other members of our species. For Keckermann, persons are therefore logically different from most individuals belonging to other species. (shrink)

1. Something strange commenced to happen in the field of logic from the beginning of the seventeenth century. Oral disputation, rather than falling into oblivion as a relic of medieval darkness wit...

Theorien von Gerechtigkeit als einer ethischen Tugend spielen eine große Rolle in der protestantischen Ethik vor dem Dreißigjährigen Krieg. Eines der hervorstechenden Merkmale dieser Theorien ist ihr eklektischer Charakter: Sie verbinden Elemente aus verschiedenen Traditionen der antiken Tugendethik, vor allem der platonischen, aristotelischen und stoischen. Die Gerechtigkeitstheorien von protestantischen Philosophen wie Rudolph Goclenius, Clemens Timpler und Bartholomäus Keckermann illustrieren gut dokumentierte Merkmale des frühneuzeitlichen Eklektizismus wie die Rolle der Reinterpretation von ausgewählten Lehrstücken und die konziliatorische Strategie, scheinbare Widersprüche zwischen (...) verschiedenen Traditionen aufzulösen. Darüber hinaus illustrieren sie aber auch ein weniger gut dokumentiertes Merkmal des frühneuzeitlichen Eklektizismus, nämlich seine Funktion als philosophische Problemlösungsstrategie. Dieser Artikel versucht zu zeigen, wie Goclenius, Timpler und Keckermann einerseits Elemente aus den platonischen (und stoischen) Traditionen nutzen, um diagnostizierte Probleme in der aristotelischen Tradition zu beheben und andererseits Elemente aus der aristotelischen Tradition verwenden, um Probleme in der platonischen Tradition zu lösen. (shrink)

This paper considers philosophical approaches that are relevant to the intertwinement of logic, metaphysics, and psychology proposed by the Aquinas commentator Tommaso de Vio Cardinal Cajetan, the humanist Petrus Ramus, the pure Aristotelian Cornelius Martini, the Semi-Ramist Bartholomaeus Keckermann, and the lexicographer Rudolf Goclenius. Mostly, however, it is about Ramus and his followers, the Ramists, because of the role they played in exacerbating a discussion on the constitution of objectivity during the Renaissance that was to have an impact on (...) Cartesian andpost-Cartesian theories of subjectivity. Finally, keeping in mind that Kant was familiar with the secunda Petri, i.e., with the second part of Ramus's logic, namely the theory of judgment, some common ground is recognizable between Ramus and Kant as well. (shrink)

The author proves that the concept of system developed by Bartholomäus Keckermann has a normative character. At the same time, the author emphasizes close connection of didactical, methodical, gnoseological and ontological aspects of his concept of system. According to the author, the unity of these aspects is guaranteed by ontological prerequisites, in particular by the view of the nature as the most harmonious whole, which defines the order of any system. The author recognizes innovative character of Keckermann’s treatment (...) of system as a generic con-cept for designation of the nature of philosophy. According to Keckermann, the essence of phi-losophy is formed by the normative instructions, not by acquired ability. The concept of philosophy as a system of instructions is an alternative to the scholastic requirement to begin research with a definition of the concept of philosophy, its nature and its subject. Since philosophy is a conglomerate of disciplines, not something simple, it is impossible to define its concept. In order to avoid syncretism, Keckerman demands to bring each of these disciplines into system, and then coordinate them. Though instructions define a form and essence of any discipline, and also form the corresponding abilities, the author of this article rejects purely formal treatment of Keckerman’ concept of system. Keckermann understood the form not as a purely intelligible something, but as a system of norms, as something that can be written down, transferred to others and apprehended by them. Besides, instructions of one science could be used as a material for the other sciences. The author sees a main goal of Keckermann as a for-mation of such system of philosophy, which would take into account all normative principles made by his great predecessors. The author also proves that Keckermann, unlike eclectics, em-phasized a primacy of form over content and used a priori method, whereas eclectic started mainly from experience, were guided by the concept of an open system and used a posteriori method. (shrink)

Published in 1999. The articles in this collection focus on instruction - and writings arising from that instruction - in philosophy and the arts during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries with emphasis on Central Europe. The introduction brings together and expands upon many of the topics discussed - and conclusions reached - in the remaining seven articles. Four of these articles are devoted to examining the significance of two ancient authors (Aristotle and Cicero) and of two more recent ones (Petrus (...) Ramus and Bartholomew Keckermann). The article on Keckermann is based in part on previously unpublished biographical and bibliographical source materials. Two concepts - encyclopedia and philosophy - as utilized in the 16th and 17th centuries constitute the subject matter of separate articles. And one article focuses primarily on curriculum plans written during the 16th and early 17th centuries. These eight articles are based on a wide array of printed and manuscript source materials which are cited together with library/archive locations and call numbers and which are made more easily accessible through three indices at the conclusion of this volume. (shrink)

La crítica que Francis Bacon dirigió a la concepción aristotélica del movimiento no tuvo como punto de partida las obras originales de Aristóteles sino la vasta literatura de texto que durante los siglos XVI y XVII ofrecía una interpretación novedosa y ecléctica del pensamiento aristotélico. En este trabajo analizo la crítica de Bacon concentrándome en los textos aristotélicos más corrientes de su medio intelectual (Magirus, Keckermann, Conimbricenses, Toledo, Zabarella). El artículo está dividido en tres secciones: la crítica epistemológica, la (...) crítica del movimiento natural y el movimiento violento y la crítica del movimiento de ascenso y de descenso. En la conclusión señalo en qué medida la teoría baconiana del movimiento rechazó los conceptos aristotélicos y, al mismo tiempo, adoptó nociones aristotélicas claves al construir su propia clasificación de los movimientos. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:80 HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY AVERROES' Quaesitum ON ASSERTORIC (ABSOLUTE) PROPOSITIONS UNTIL 1962 ONLY ONE logical work of Averroes existed in print in the original Arabic? At this late date, D. M. Dunlop published the Arabic text of the short tract by Averroes on the modality of propositions with which we shall be concerned here.' The text published by Professor Dunlop forms part of a collection of treatises by Averroes (...) which has long been known to exist in the immensely valuable collection of Arabic manuscripts of the Escorial Library, near Madrid.' The collection is simply entitled Mas~'il (Questions),' faithfully reflected in the rubric of Quaesita under which several of these treatises are given in Latin versions in the sixteenth-century editions of.4ristotelis Opera cure.4verrois Commentariis. The particular treatise published by Prof. Dunlop deals with the problem of the relationship of assertoric propositions to the modalities of possibility and necessity. This treatise has been accessible for over four centuries in two printed Latin versions, made in Renaissance times from medieval Hebrew translations. The earlier of the Latin versions was made by a Jewish scholar, Ella del Medigo, for the Renaissance luminary Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, and was printed in the very rare Aldine incunabulum edition of the Quaesita Averrois in librum priorum (analytiorum Aristotelis) (Venice, 1497). A second Latin translation was made by Abraham de Balmes (d. 1523): and printed in several editions of the Juntine Latin Aristotle (Venice, from 1590): From these versions the main substance, at any rate, of Averroes' xMaurice Bouyges, ed., Averroes: Talkh~ Kitdb al-Maqouldt ("Middle Commentary on Aristotle 's Categoriae") Beyrouth, 1932 (-- Vol. IV of Bibliotheca Arabica-Scholasticorum, S6rie Arabe). sD. M. Dunlop, "Averroes (Ibn Rushd) on the Modality of Propositions," Islamic Studies (Journal of the Gentral Institute of Islamic Research, Karachi), Vol. I (1962), 23-34. sMichael Casiri, Bibliotheca Arabico-Hispana Escurialensis (2 vols., Madrid; 1760, 1770), No. 629; Hartwig Derenbourg, Les Manuscrits Arabcs de l'Escurial (3 vols., Paris; 1884, 1903, 1928), No. 632. ' Prof. Dunlop states that "another copy" of the Masa'il (presumably made from the Escorial MS?) exists in the Biblioteca Nacional in Madrid (No. 102 in the catalog of Robles). For information about this translator, see Bayle's Dictionary, art. "BALMIS, Abraham de," where note (B) describes some complaints about his translations from Hebrew to Latin. (I owe this reference to Prof. Richard Popkin.) Note (I) of Bayle's article on "AVERROES" gives some data concerning the Renaissance translations of Averroes, citing inter alia the opinion expressed by Keckermann in his PraecognitisLogicis (II, 2, nb. 32): "How much all Philosophy is indebted to Averroes, can then only be known, when God shall raise up a Genius, who will free our Latin Translations of him from the unintelligible Barbarisms everywhere to be met with, and render him in That Language, in a style, at least tolerable, and intelligible, for the Use of Students in Philosophy." eAristotelis Opera cure Averrois Commentariis, Vol. I. The edition of 1562 is now readily accessible in a photoreprinting made in Frankfurt am Main in 1962, and contains the "Averrois varii generis quaesita in libros logicae Aristotelis, Abramo de Balmes interprete," pp. 75 verso--- NOTES AND DISCUSSIONS 81 Quaesitum has been determinable.' The present, reasonably literal translation of the Arabic text should facilitate the work of anyone wishing to form his own judgment about the character of the Latin versions of Averroes' logical treatises, or at any rate the not insignificant number of them that came from the pen of Abraham de Balmes. The Latin version in the present instance is, on the whole, literal to the point of obscurity. It is punctuated by occasional strange, and sometimes ludicrous renderings--as, for example, at 27:6, where "not used in the art of rhetoric" becomes "non uterent agricolae"l Occasionally the Latin incorporates a marginal explanation within the text (e.g., at 29:10), and sometimes it omits phrases of the Arabic text. In general, it is significantly more difficult to derive from the Latin than from the Arabic an exact idea just what it is that Averroes had in mind. Unquestionably the most interesting aspect of Averroes' treatise is the light it sheds... (shrink)

This paper analyses different retrospective links between the scientia generalis by Leibniz and the three key traditions of the Renaissance and Early Modern Europe – the philosophical, the rhetorical and the encyclopaedic one. The issue demonstrates the insufficient charachter of the two influential interpretations of the idea of scientia generalis by Leibniz – as a project of elaborating a a method of mathematical calculations for non-mathematical subjects (L. Couturat, J. Mittelstraß, V. Peckhaus etc.) and as a project of an encyclopaedic (...) synthesis combining ideas of the Lull’s Ars magna and humanistic rhetoric by M. Nizolius with the philosophical-theological encyclopaedism of J. Alsted and B. Keckermann (P. Rossi, W. Schmidt-Biggemann, T. Leinkauf etc.). The author presents the thesis that the formation of Leibniz’s idea of scientia generalis as well as some other concepts of the universal science in 17th century philosophy are the result of rethinking and expanding of the concept of the “first philosophy” delivered by Aristotle in his “Metaphysics”. (shrink)

Cet article examine la définition, par Ramus, des normes de chaque science et l’influence de la critique de ce modèle ramiste dans l’émergence, au tournant du XVIIe siècle, d’une vision de la philosophie comme système de toutes les sciences. En étudiant la manière dont Bartholomäus Keckermann décrit les conditions qui permettent d’envisager la philosophie comme système des systèmes, on remarque la nette diffraction de l’héritage aristotélicien (principalement les Analytica posteriora) dans les thèses ramistes d’une part, dans l’approche systématique de (...) Keckermann par rapport aux disciplines philosophiques d’autre part. Cette différence a eu un fort impact sur les fonctions attribuées à la logique (Ramus) et à la métaphysique (Keckermann) dans l’architecture des savoirs. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:80 HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY AVERROES' Quaesitum ON ASSERTORIC (ABSOLUTE) PROPOSITIONS UNTIL 1962 ONLY ONE logical work of Averroes existed in print in the original Arabic? At this late date, D. M. Dunlop published the Arabic text of the short tract by Averroes on the modality of propositions with which we shall be concerned here.' The text published by Professor Dunlop forms part of a collection of treatises by Averroes (...) which has long been known to exist in the immensely valuable collection of Arabic manuscripts of the Escorial Library, near Madrid.' The collection is simply entitled Mas~'il (Questions),' faithfully reflected in the rubric of Quaesita under which several of these treatises are given in Latin versions in the sixteenth-century editions of.4ristotelis Opera cure.4verrois Commentariis. The particular treatise published by Prof. Dunlop deals with the problem of the relationship of assertoric propositions to the modalities of possibility and necessity. This treatise has been accessible for over four centuries in two printed Latin versions, made in Renaissance times from medieval Hebrew translations. The earlier of the Latin versions was made by a Jewish scholar, Ella del Medigo, for the Renaissance luminary Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, and was printed in the very rare Aldine incunabulum edition of the Quaesita Averrois in librum priorum (analytiorum Aristotelis) (Venice, 1497). A second Latin translation was made by Abraham de Balmes (d. 1523): and printed in several editions of the Juntine Latin Aristotle (Venice, from 1590): From these versions the main substance, at any rate, of Averroes' xMaurice Bouyges, ed., Averroes: Talkh~ Kitdb al-Maqouldt ("Middle Commentary on Aristotle 's Categoriae") Beyrouth, 1932 (-- Vol. IV of Bibliotheca Arabica-Scholasticorum, S6rie Arabe). sD. M. Dunlop, "Averroes (Ibn Rushd) on the Modality of Propositions," Islamic Studies (Journal of the Gentral Institute of Islamic Research, Karachi), Vol. I (1962), 23-34. sMichael Casiri, Bibliotheca Arabico-Hispana Escurialensis (2 vols., Madrid; 1760, 1770), No. 629; Hartwig Derenbourg, Les Manuscrits Arabcs de l'Escurial (3 vols., Paris; 1884, 1903, 1928), No. 632. ' Prof. Dunlop states that "another copy" of the Masa'il (presumably made from the Escorial MS?) exists in the Biblioteca Nacional in Madrid (No. 102 in the catalog of Robles). For information about this translator, see Bayle's Dictionary, art. "BALMIS, Abraham de," where note (B) describes some complaints about his translations from Hebrew to Latin. (I owe this reference to Prof. Richard Popkin.) Note (I) of Bayle's article on "AVERROES" gives some data concerning the Renaissance translations of Averroes, citing inter alia the opinion expressed by Keckermann in his PraecognitisLogicis (II, 2, nb. 32): "How much all Philosophy is indebted to Averroes, can then only be known, when God shall raise up a Genius, who will free our Latin Translations of him from the unintelligible Barbarisms everywhere to be met with, and render him in That Language, in a style, at least tolerable, and intelligible, for the Use of Students in Philosophy." eAristotelis Opera cure Averrois Commentariis, Vol. I. The edition of 1562 is now readily accessible in a photoreprinting made in Frankfurt am Main in 1962, and contains the "Averrois varii generis quaesita in libros logicae Aristotelis, Abramo de Balmes interprete," pp. 75 verso--- NOTES AND DISCUSSIONS 81 Quaesitum has been determinable.' The present, reasonably literal translation of the Arabic text should facilitate the work of anyone wishing to form his own judgment about the character of the Latin versions of Averroes' logical treatises, or at any rate the not insignificant number of them that came from the pen of Abraham de Balmes. The Latin version in the present instance is, on the whole, literal to the point of obscurity. It is punctuated by occasional strange, and sometimes ludicrous renderings--as, for example, at 27:6, where "not used in the art of rhetoric" becomes "non uterent agricolae"l Occasionally the Latin incorporates a marginal explanation within the text (e.g., at 29:10), and sometimes it omits phrases of the Arabic text. In general, it is significantly more difficult to derive from the Latin than from the Arabic an exact idea just what it is that Averroes had in mind. Unquestionably the most interesting aspect of Averroes' treatise is the light it sheds... (shrink)