Pedro Abelardo apresenta na sua obra uma teoria da virtude de natureza, à primeira vista, aristotélica. Ao que parece, essa concepção também contém diferentes elementos estoicos, que não se opõem necessariamente à visão do Estagirita. Todavia, o essencial da interpretação da Escola do Pórtico acerca da virtude difere da explicação dada por Aristóteles. No presente estudo, pretendemos examinar, primeiro, a índole da virtude como habitus na obra de lógica de Abelardo. Nesse caso, não há dúvida de que predomina a influência (...) aristotélica. Em seguida, indicamos outras particularidades da virtude encontradas, desta vez, em tratados éticos e teológicos do nosso protagonista, as quais se revelam antes de caráter estoico. Em suma, projetamos identificar as diferentes fontes antigas e os principais intermediários latinos usados por Abelardo para elaborar a sua própria teoria da virtude. Trata-se de deixar clara a influência filosófica dominante em Abelardo sobre essa questão da virtude, já que este lógico não pode harmonizar teses substancialmente inconciliáveis. Peter Abelard in his work presents a theory of virtue, which is, at first sight, of Aristotelian nature. It seems that this view also contains different Stoic elements, but they are not necessarily opposed to Stagirite's vision. However, the essentials of the Stoa School about virtue differ from the explanation given by Aristotle. In this paper, we intend to examine, first, the nature of virtue as habitus in Abelard's work on logic. In this case, there is no doubt that Aristotle's influence on this topic predominates. Next, we specify other features related to virtue found, this time, in ethical and theological treatises of our protagonist that appear to be basically Stoic. In short, we want to identify the different ancient sources and the main Latin mediators used by Abelard to elaborate his own theory of virtue. In other words, we would like to shed light on the predominant philosophical authority on Abelard's theory of virtue since this logician cannot harmonize theses that are fundamentally irreconcilable. (shrink)

Na sua obra, Pedro Abelardo (1079-1142) destaca duas noções metafísicas que fundamentam sua teoria lógica: o status e o dictum propositionis , ao causar, respectivamente, a imposição ( impositio ) dos termos universais e o valor de verdade das proposições. Trata-se de expressões que se referem a naturezas ontológicas peculiares, na medida em que não são consideradas coisas ( res ), mesmo que constituem causas. Todavia, também não são nada. Abelardo as chama de ‘quase coisas’ ( quasi res ). No (...) presente artigo, explicamos, primeiro, essas duas noções essenciais da lógica abelardiana, antes de tentar, em seguida, encontrar a fonte dessa metafísica particular. Em oposição a comentadores importantes da lógica de Abelardo, que estimam que haja uma forte influência platônica sobre essa concepção específica, defendemos antes, com apoio de textos significativos e de acordo com o nominalismo abelardiano, que a maior ascendência sobre a metafísica do nosso autor é a do estoicismo, sobretudo, antigo. (shrink)

O VIIº Colóquio de História da Filosofia Medieval , realizado em novembro de 2009 em Brasília, foi dedicado ao tema: “Argumentação e interpretação na Filosofia Medieval”. Na ocasião, sete medievalistas brasileiros e estrangeiros encontraram-se para apresentar seu trabalho e discutir o assunto. O encontro foi possível graças à ajuda financeira do Departamento de Filosofia da Universidade de Brasília e da CAPES. Aproveitamos o espaço para agradecê-los. Apresentamos, no presente número temático, seis artigos ligados direta ou indiretamente a essa questão.

Peter Abelard’s (1079-1142) conception of moral sin contains a fundamental element from Stoicism, which is the notion of “consent” (consensus). After the presentation of the essentials of that Abelardian theory, we return to the source of that same idea in ancient and imperial Stoicism. According to their main representatives, “consent” or “assent” (sugkata/qesij) has a determining function not only in ethics, but also in the process of knowledge as well. We emphasize in passing the resemblance between some important components of (...) Stoic epistemology and the theory expounded by Aristotle in the Posterior Analytics on the origin of knowledge. Augustine represents without any doubt one of the main intermediaries through whom this notion of consent is transmitted up to the time of Abelard in the 12th century. Even if he was influenced by the Bishop of Hippo on moral questions in general, Abelard seems to distance himself from Augustine by considering that consent is more a rational matter than a volitional one. (shrink)

The intelectual virtue of discernment occupies a privileged position in Aristotle’s ethics, since it intervenes in judging and choosing the best option regarding our voluntary actions. As for the Stoics, the virtues are cognitions and can be reduced to only one. The person who possesses that unique virtue is called a ‘sage’ and is able to choose, for himself, the right action to reach happiness. Thus, we propose to discover if the Stoic sage can be compared to the prudent man (...) in Aristotle by examining some key ethical issues of theses philosophical schools. We conclude that the similar theses exceed the different ones, despite encountering a quite distinct vocabulary which deceives at first sight. (shrink)

Peter Abelard and William of Ockham represent the two main figures of the nominalism of the Middle Ages. Both share the fundamental thesis of that doctrine, according to which only individual entities exist. The repercussions of nominalism are quite evident in relation to the question of universals, which constitutes a subject that, until now, won the attention of the majority of contemporary studies on the two most important logicians of their time. Nevertheless the nominalism of each of these two protagonists (...) apparently diverges in a significant manner, especially in respect to the role exercised by the mind in the semantic process. Ockham seems to distance himself definitely from his predecessors, including Abelard, when he transfers grammar and semantic functions of conventional language to the level of mental language. In the present article, the chief intention is to expound the theory of sign and signification of each of the authors under consideration. The ultimate objective is to compare their respective semantic positions and indicate the principal points of agreement and disagreement, keeping in mind the hypothesis according to which these two medieval nominalists should have more theoretical elements in common than not. (shrink)

The central question raised in the present article concerns the ontological nature of the intentional act, previous to the proper moral action, in Aristotle’s and Abelard’s thinking. More precisely, we examine two subjects indirectly interconnected. First, we treat the secular problem of the exact nature of will (boulêsis) in Aristotle, which certainly refers to a rational act (logikos), the source of which is, however, the appetite (orexis). The second point is related to the notion of consent (consensus) in Abelard, which (...) also raises the question of its voluntary or rational ontological character. Both topics are connected in so far as the Abelardian consent is similar to the Aristotelian idea of choice (proairesis), and particularly to that of the Stoic assent (sunkatathesis), and not, as some commentators believe, to the Augustinian notion of will as a free and spontaneous act. This identification of the Abelardian consent with the Augustine’s will comes from a confusion, which is more terminological and perspectival than interpretative. (shrink)

Abelard closely follows the Augustinian view with regard to the notion of intention. However, he distances himself from him concerning the contribution of acts in the evaluation of moral responsibility. Independent thinker, the philosopher of the twelfth century, then, uses an ancient Stoic thesis according to which all actions are indifferent, except those related to virtue and vice. He also takes back another idea of the Stoa concerning, this time, the concept of will as habitus. In this paper, we first (...) expound Abelard’s position on these issues before presenting the main sources to which he has access directly. (shrink)