Édition du troisième sophisma « Omnis homo de necessitate est animal » du ms. Paris, BnF Lat. 16135. Le texte anonyme, contenu aux f. 99rb-103vb, appartient à la seconde collection de sophismata transmis dans ce codex légué à l’Université de Paris par Étienne de Genève socius du Collège de Sorbonne, après avoir été maître ès arts à Paris dans les années 1270. Il offre un panorama des principales positions soutenues au xiiie siècle par les Antiqui et les (...) Moderni sur la sémantique des termes vides, la distinction entre l’esse essentiae et l’esse existentiae, l’être effectif et l’être logique, le temps et la modalité. (shrink)

Dans le cadre de ce numéro thématique de Clio, nous avons recueilli les propos de Laure Ledoux, artiste et photographe. Née en 1986, elle vit et travaille à Paris. Après avoir étudié à l’école supérieure d’art et céramique de Tarbes, elle est diplômée de l’École européenne supérieure de l’image de Poitiers en 2008 et de l’École nationale supérieure de la photographie d’Arles en 2012. Ses travaux ont été présentés lors d’expositions dans des galeries, musées et centres d’art, mais aussi (...) édité... (shrink)

Pour Francis Jacques, Professeur émérite à l'Université Paris III-Sorbonne Nouvelle, l'âge de la modernité exténuée que nous vivons est celui des grands théorèmes de possibilité transcendantale. Il est peu de dire que l'homme ne possède pas la vérité : c'est désormais sur l'injonction radicale d'oser interroger qu'il convient d'instruire la question "Qu'est-ce que penser?". La philosophie commence au moment où la pensée se rend capable de mettre à jour la dimension de l'originaire, comme redoublement de l'origine. En quoi (...) elle se veut pensée de la constitution. La pensée religieuse commence l'acquiescement à ce qui pourrait achever l'interrogation radicale sur Dieu cherché, aimé comme l'infini d'un coeur. Elle se clôt avec la méditation du don. (shrink)

Je crois que le secret de la littérature est là, et qu’un livre n’est beau qu’habilement paré de l’indifférence des ruines. Il y a un mystère dans les phrases que chacun retient pour soi, ces phrases qui hantent ou soulèvent ; ces phrases auxquelles on revient ou qui plutôt reviennent, elles, comme reviennent les rêves et les chansons. Qu’elles ne soient pas communes à tous, sauf exceptions, à moins que l’institution ou quelque hasard les aient homologuées, qu’elles restent singulières et (...) bien cachées, devrait convaincre, mais de quoi ? Mon propos, Madeline Chalon, ou ce que je tenterai d’en faire, répondra d’autant mieux à votre invitation, qu’il prendra la forme d’une lettre, d’une réponse, d’un envoi. C’est à la fois naïf et prétentieux, mais depuis le début je ne peux me séparer de ce pari qui est bien plus qu’un désir, et moins qu’une facilité. Si j’en profite pour reprendre un motif – l’incitation – qui m’aura fait pas mal cavaler, c’est aussi pour l’éclaircir, une dernière fois, (...). (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Constituer le Réel. Noétique et Métaphysique chez Dietrich de Freiberg by Véronique DecaixBrian Francis ConollyVéronique Decaix. Constituer le Réel. Noétique et Métaphysique chez Dietrich de Freiberg. Paris: Librairie Philosophique J. Vrin, 2021. Pp. 336. Paperback, $48.00.Dietrich of Freiberg's theory of the constitutive power of the intellect, as presented in his De origine rerum praedicamentalium, has proved unusually resistant to contextualization within the philosophical and theological discussions (...) at the University of Paris in the last two decades of the thirteenth century. There is little indication in the quodlibet literature that any of his contemporaries were aware of his unusual doctrine, let alone interested in responding to it, and Dietrich himself provides few hints as to which quaestiones of contemporary interest he is responding to. One therefore welcomes this study by Véronique Decaix in which it is argued that "il est irréfutable que les concepts centraux du De origine ont été forgés dans une discussion permanente avec Henri de Gand" (223). Drawing upon and developing the work of Pasquale Porro, Jan Aersten, and others, Decaix establishes Dietrich's indebtedness to Henry of Ghent, all while providing a comprehensive and remarkably clear, detailed, and precise presentation of Dietrich's theory of the constitutive power of the intellect. [End Page 706]Particularly noteworthy is the manner in which Decaix clarifies that there are several distinct ways in which the intellect, on Dietrich's theory, exercises its constitutive power. Thus, for instance, "categorial constitution," whereby certain relations and the six posterior relative categories are constituted, is distinguished from "quidditative constitution," wherein a real natural thing is constituted in its quidditative being, which is at the same time the mode or manner in which the intellect constitutes its own proper object. Decaix clarifies that such modes of constitution differ not only with respect to what is constituted, but by the kind of causality exercised by the intellect. Categorial constitution is a kind of formal causality—because it concerns only accidents, and because intellect grasps these accidents "sur une modalité déduite d'un élément extrinsèque" (284)—whereas quidditative constitution is efficient—it is "plus fondamentale, car elle est plus essentielle et plus intérieure" and "s'exerce sur la forme substantielle et cause l'étant en tant qu'étant" (286). In either case, whether the mode of constitution is categorial or quidditative, Decaix makes clear that constitution is not creation, and does not pertain to the reality or absolute entity of the thing affected by the intellect's constitutive power. Rather, constitution in the relevant sense here entails introducing and imposing upon the real natural thing a new mode of being: with respect to categorial constitution, that mode of being is ad aliud (to be in relation to another); with respect to quidditative constitution, the constituted mode of being is quidditative being.Decaix argues that Dietrich consciously develops his theory of categorial relation within the framework provided by Henry of Ghent. She cites as evidence, among other factors, that Dietrich concludes his analysis of categorial relation with what Decaix calls the "exacte contre-pied" (154) to question 3 of Henry's Quodlibet IX: "Utrum circumscripta re sui fundamenti relatio possit signari per nomen primae impositionis?" Dietrich in effect responds: "Si autem ab huiusmodi entibus removeamus actum rationis, tunc secundum nullum modum sunt entia quantum ad id, quod significatur per nomen, sed relinquitur sola realitas et entitas fundamenti" (160).Question 3 of Henry's Quodlibet IX is still more important for Decaix's argument. For she sees herein more than a germ of Dietrich's doctrine of the constitutive power of the intellect. As Decaix explains, in addition to the real foundation (quantity or quality) provided by nature, and the pure ratio of relation, provided by the intellect, Henry introduces the modus characterizatus a re, whereby the peculiar nature of the foundation (e.g. the length or the color) particularizes the general notion of the pure relation (157–58). Thus, the real, particular relation, for example, "is shorter than" or "is similar to," arises only from both nature and the intellect as joint contributing causes. In this... (shrink)

Luc Brisson’s translation and challenging interpretation of the Parmenides stands out as one of the most influential contributions to contemporary exegesis of Plato’s arguably most controversial dialogue. While acknowledging its many virtues, the essay rejects Brisson’s understanding of the text’s focus and purpose. Brisson’s methodological assumptions are especially discussed and proven to be highly questionable on account of a rather straightforward transfer of the doxographical concerns which Plato is supposed to share with contemporary historians of Parmenides’ philosophy.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:The Absolute and Ordained Power of God and King in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries: Philosophy, Science, Politics, and LawFrancis OakleyThe quintessentially scholastic distinction between God’s power understood as absolute and ordained (potentia dei absoluta et ordinata) has been described “as a ‘yes and no’ answer to the question whether God is able to do or arrange things other than he did in creating the orders of nature and (...) grace.” 1 The importance of that distinction the historical scholarship of the past forty years has served increasingly to indicate. 2 The idea that it expressed had emerged already in the twelfth century, and in the standard form familiar to us from later years we now know it to have surfaced among the theologians of Paris in the opening years of the thirteenth. We also know that long before the end of the thirteenth century it had come to be understood in the two distinct ways that were to persist on through the late medieval and early modern centuries and to be acknowledged in the neo-scholastic manuals of the late nineteenth century.According to the first of these understandings, embedded in the classical formulations given to the distinction by Albertus Magnus, Thomas Aquinas, William of Ockham, and many other later thinkers, the term potentia absoluta was used simply to denote God’s power in itself, taken in abstracto and without reference to the orders of nature and grace he has actually willed de potentia ordinata to establish. There was no question, that is, of the absolute power’s [End Page 669] being understood as a presently-active power by means of which God intervenes in the world to act apart from or set aside the order established by the ordained power. It refers instead to God’s ability to do many things he does not choose to do. Or put in the temporal terms that William Courtenay favors, it refers to “the total possibilities initially open to God, some of which were realized by creating the established order,” the “unrealized possibilities” being “now only hypothetically possible.” 3Side by side with this “classical” usage, however, there had emerged already in the thirteenth century what has been called a “juristic” or “opera-tionalized” understanding of the potentia dei absoluta as a presently-active power of potential interposition in the established order. Thus Duns Scotus, who gave a most influential expression to this alternative understanding, drawing an analogy not only with kings but with any free agent within whose power the law falls, distinguished between the ordained power by which God acts de jure in accordance with the rightful law he has established and the absolute power whereby de facto he can act apart from or against the law. In such a formulation the absolute power clearly exceeds the ordained. Rather than referring simply to the realm of logical possibility prior to God’s ordination of things, that absolute power is now construed as a presently-active and extraordinary power capable of acting apart from the order established de potentia ordinata and prevailing in the ordinary course of things. This “juristic” understanding of the distinction was clearly affiliated closely with the cognate distinction that medieval canonists invoked as early as the thirteenth century in an attempt to elucidate what the pope, in the absoluteness of his plenitudo potestatis, or absolute power, could do that was not open for him to do when acting in accordance with his merely ordained or “ordinary” power.Philosophy and ScienceIn an earlier and complementary article, I traced the career of the power distinction, as well as the persistence of the two distinct ways of understanding it, across the fifteenth century and on into the thinking of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century theologians, Lutheran and Reformed as well as Catholic. 4 It remains now to go on to demonstrate that the currency of the distinction in these later centuries was no more confined to strictly theological circles or settings than it had been during the Middle Ages. The Coimbran commentators and Suárez certainly deployed it for more generally philosophical purposes, 5 [End Page 670] and in the seventeenth century they were by no means... (shrink)

Cet article reprend sur de nouveaux frais la question de la carrière académique de Francis Caracciolo, et de son importance dans le milieu de Durand de Saint-Pourçain et de ses contemporains. Il confirme que Caracciolo était bien la personne visée par la désignation « cancellarius » dans les textes théologiques parisiens de la seconde décennie du xiv e siècle, y compris les Notabilia Cancellarii ; la thèse de Harclay s’en trouve réfutée. L’article rejette également l’attribution à Caracciolo de deux (...) Quodlibeta dans le ms. Vat. lat. 932 tout en envisageant la possibilité que Radulphus de Hotot en soit l’auteur. (shrink)