Dallas G. Denery - Croire et savoir: Les principes de la connaissance selon Nicolas d'Autrecourt - Journal of the History of Philosophy 44:1 Journal of the History of Philosophy 44.1 119-120 Christophe Grellard. Croire et savoir: Les principes de la connaissance selon Nicolas d'Autrécourt. Paris: J. Vrin, 2005. Pp. 313. Paper, €38,00. Nicholas of Autrecourt has often seemed to be one of those philosophers doomed to be best known for everything but their own ideas. Famously, if inaccurately, dubbed "the (...) Medieval Hume" by one of his first modern critics, the threat or fear of skepticism has in one way or another shaped most subsequent studies of Nicholas's work. While understandable, this really is unfortunate. Nicholas himself clearly states that his philosophical goal was to avoid the skeptical consequences that he believed were latent in the writings of his scholastic peers. In this excellent new work, the first monograph-length study devoted to Nicholas's thought in nearly 60 years, Christophe Grellard goes a... (shrink)
http://www.cla.umn.edu/jhopkins/ Taken together, twenty-four of these works constitute Nicholas of Cusa’s complete philosophical and theological treatises. They must be supplemented by studying his richly conceptual sermons, along with his ecclesiological and exegetical writings such as De Concordantia Catholica and Coniectura de Ultimis Diebus. His mathematical writings are also of interest, even though they are not of lasting importance, as Gottfried Leibniz rightly recognized.
Section 1 of this essay distinguishes between four interpretations of Socratic intellectualism, which are, very roughly: a version in which on any given occasion desire, and then action, is determined by what we think will turn out best for us, that being what we all, always, really desire; a version in which on any given occasion action is determined by what we think will best satisfy our permanent desire for what is really best for us; a version formed by the (...) assimilation of to, labelled the ‘standard’ version’ by Thomas C. Brickhouse and Nicholas D. Smith, and treated by them as a single alternative to their own interpretation; and Brickhouse and Smith’s own version. Section 2 considers, in particular, Brickhouse and Smith’s handling of the ‘appetites and passions’, which is the most distinctive feature of interpretation. Section 3 discusses Brickhouse and Smith’s defence of ‘Socratic studies’ in its historical context, and assesses the contribution made by their distinctive interpretation of ‘the philosophy of Socrates’. One question raised in this section, and one that is clearly fundamental to the existence of ‘Socratic studies’, is how different Brickhouse and Smith’s Socrates turns out to be from Plato himself, i.e., the Plato of the post-‘Socratic’ dialogues; to which the answer offered is that on Brickhouse and Smith’s interpretation Socratic moral psychology becomes rather less distinguishable from its ‘Platonic’ counterpart—as that is currently understood—than it is on the interpretation they oppose. (shrink)
Previously, the author tried to show that some arguments in one of the two versions of Nicholas of Autrecourt’s Quaestio de intensione visionis are taken almost verbatim from the anonymous Tractatus de sex inconvenientibus. This paper concentrates on the arguments themselves in order to consider two main issues: the ‘translatability’ of limit decision problems, manifest in Autrecourt’s juxtaposition of questions de maximo et minimo, de primo et ultimo instanti, and the intension and remission of forms; the importance of Parisian (...) discussions of limit decision problems prior to the adoption of the new analytical languages developed at Oxford. Thus, the paper is divided in two sections, the first concerning some arguments of Autrecourt’s question, the second focusing on the link between one of Autrecourt’s arguments and the medieval tradition of commentaries on Aristotle’s De caelo, in which it is possible to find some antecedents of the analytical approach that later Parisian scholars would apply to these problems. (shrink)
An examination of the contemporary Italian movement associated with M. P. Sciacca, and the serious application of dialectical and phenomenological methods to unveil the structure of "intentionality" or "spirit." An appraisal of Sciacca together with a sample critique of Dante follows a competent summary of the prevailing positions.--D. B. B.
Why would God make us ask for some good He might supply, and why would it be right for God to withhold that good unless and until we asked for it? We explain why present defences of petitionary prayer are insufficient, but argue that a world in which God makes us ask for some goods and then supplies them in response to our petitions adds value to the world that would not be available in worlds in which God simply supplied (...) such goods without our asking for them. This added value, we argue, is what we call ‘partnership with God’. (shrink)
When Ecce Homo was finally published in 1908, a New York Times reviewer declared that its “the most interesting portions... are those in which Nietzsche..., without delving into the depths of philosophy, shows himself primarily as a master of charming satirical prose”. The review largely consists of quotations in which Nietzsche satirizes, which is to say, mocks, Germans. The author apparently missed Nietzsche’s sarcastic report of another reviewer who characterized Thus Spoke Zarathustra “as an advanced exercise in style, and expressed (...) the wish that later on I might provide some content as well”. Over a century later, Nicholas D. More argues that Ecce... (shrink)
J. M. M. H. Thijssen - Nicolas d'Autrécourt et la Faculté des Arts de Paris - Journal of the History of Philosophy 46:1 Journal of the History of Philosophy 46.1 172-173 Muse Search Journals This Journal Contents Reviewed by Johannes M. M. H. Thijssen Radboud University Nijmegen Stefano Caroti and Christophe Grellard, editors. Nicolas d'Autrécourt et la Faculté des Arts de Paris . Quaderni di Paideia, 4. Cesena: Stilgraf Editrice, 2006. Pp. 329. e32.00. This book is a coherent set of (...) papers resulting from a conference organized by its editors, Stefano Caroti and Christophe Grellard. In the opening paper, William Courtenay rightly observes that the 1330s are an understudied period in the intellectual history of the University of Paris, especially with respect to its.. (shrink)
This volume not only provides the first critical edition with an English translation of the famous correspondence of Nicholas of Autrecourt (c. 1300-1369), but also an assessment of his views and the views of those to whom the letters were ...
This volume not only provides the first critical edition with an English translation of the famous correspondence of Nicholas of Autrecourt , but also an assessment of his views and the views of those to whom the letters were addressed.
Negli studi sul pensiero medievale la questione delle filosofie francescane si presenta come controversa a proposito della definizione di una essenza del pensiero francescano – in relazione alla figura di Francesco d’Assisi –, di temi di riflessione specifici e del rapporto con le tradizioni filosofiche precedenti. Si tratta di un francescanesimo controverso pure all’interno di una stessa tradizione storiografica, come quella Neoscolastica, in cui studiosi come Gilson, Vignaux e Boehner ne hanno sottolineato il carattere prevalentemente agostiniano o aristotelico. Partendo dalla (...) consapevolezza della problematicità della questione, il saggio si sofferma sui possibili caratteri comuni delle teorie della conoscenza in alcuni pensatori francescani tra XIII e XIV secolo, come Pietro Giovanni Olivi e Pietro Aureolo, a partire dai concetti di conversio, intentio e reflexio e dal loro rapporto con la tradizione agostiniana. Si delineano così teorie della conoscenza che privilegiano l’attività e l’immediatezza del conoscere, sia per la conoscenza diretta sia per quella riflessa. Infine, tali caratteri si possono cogliere pure in un autore non francescano ma secolare come Nicola di Autrecourt, la cui teoria della conoscenza ha fatto parlare di un internalismo vicino a quello delle correnti francescane del XIV secolo. In conclusione, se da una parte non si può ipostatizzare l’idea di caratteri comuni del pensiero francescano, dall’altra si può forse parlare di un comune universo discorsivo in cui la figura di Francesco d’Assisi mostra la propria portata filosofica nella storia. In the History of Medieval Philosophy’s studies, the question of Franciscan philosophies has been the subject of controversy concerning the definition of an essence of Franciscan thought, about the relationship with Francesco d’Assisi, of specific topics of reflection and relationship with the previous philosophical traditions. It is a controversial Franciscanism even within the same historiographical tradition, such as the Neo-Scholastic one, in which scholars such as Gilson, Vignaux and Boehner have emphasised its predominantly Augustinian or Aristotelian character. Starting from the awareness of the problematic nature of the issue, the essay focuses on the possible common peculiarities of the theories of knowledge in some Franciscan thinkers between the 13th and 14th centuries, such as Pietro Giovanni Olivi and Pietro Aureolo, starting from the concepts of conversio, intentio, reflexio and their relationship with the Augustinian tradition. Thus the theories of knowledge are delineated which privilege the activity and the immediacy of knowing, both for direct and reflected knowledge. Finally, these features can also be grasped in a non-Franciscan but secular author like Nicola di Autrecourt, whose theory of knowledge has made mention of a type of internalism close to that of the 14th century Franciscan movement. Therefore, in conclusion, while on the one hand the idea of common particularities of Franciscan thought can not be hypostatised, on the other hand we can perhaps speak of a common discursive universe in which the figure of Francesco d’Assisi shows his philosophical significance in history. (shrink)
The aim of this paper is to examine the medieval posterity of the Aristotelian and Pyrrhonian treatments of the infinite regress argument. We show that there are some possible Pyrrhonian elements in Autrecourt's epistemology when he argues that the truth of our principles is merely hypothetical. By contrast, Buridan's criticisms of Autrecourt rely heavily on Aristotelian material. Both exemplify a use of scepticism.
According to the standard account of Nicholas' views,his scepticism is constrained by his commitment to the law of non-contradiction as a basis for certain truth. Such an account fails to distinguish the views found in the "Leters to Bernard" and the "Exigit Ordo" the latter clear rejects the law of non-contradiction and propounds a full fledged scepticism.