ResumoNo presente artigo procura-se oferecer uma análise e avaliação críticas da posição de João Duns Scotus (ca. 1265 – 1308) a respeito do problema dos universais. Para tanto, é levada a cabo primeiramente uma breve exposição dos argumentos e conceitos centrais dos quais ele se utiliza para defender seu realismo. Em seguida, algumas críticas à posição de Scotus, em especial o cerne da que devemos a Guilherme de Ockham (ca. 1287 – 1347), são apresentadas em detalhes e então respondidas.Palavras-chave: Scotus, (...) Ockham, escolástica, universais, realismo, nominalismo.AbstractThe current paper aims to offer an analysis and evaluation of John Duns Scotus’ (ca. 1265 – 1308) position regarding the problem of universals. In order to do so, a brief exposition of the central arguments and concepts he employs to defend his realism is first carried out. Some criticisms of Scotus’ position, especially the core of the one we owe to William of Ockham (ca. 1287 – 1347), are then presented in detail and answered. (shrink)

Neste artigo, o autor procura explicar os aspectos centrais dos argumentos de Ockham acerca da natureza dos universais, dando atenção à análise das propriedades semânticas de significação e suposição, como foram expostas porOckham na Primeira Parte da sua Summa logicas.Depois de apresentar a doutrina do conhecimento intuitivo e abstrativo, o autor discute as criticas de Ockham ao realismo e o seu modo especifico de conceber universais.

Scotus - unlike Thomas Aquinas - never commented on Aristotle's Politics nor did he write any significant political tracts like Ockham. Nevertheless, despite his primary philosophical reputation as a metaphysician, Scotus did have certain definitive ideas about both politics and the morality of the marketplace.

Oferecendo uma visão histórica do problema dos universais, focando-se nas contribuições do filósofo medieval John Duns Scoto e do fundador do Pragmatismo Americano, Charles Pierce, este artigo apresenta a concepção de Pierce sobre o problema. Tal visão é rastreada explicando a conexão entre Aristóteles, Duns Scoto e Pierce. As considerações de Pierce foram chamadas por ele mesmo de “Realismo Escolástico” e tal Realismo dos universais tem com objetivo fornecer considerações factíveis para o Realismo Científico contemporâneo. O problema dos universais, depois (...) de tal leitura, aparece como um tema permanente e vibrante que define os problemas filosóficos tradicionais e contemporâneos. (shrink)

Neste artigo, realiza-se uma análise do Nominalismo de Semelhança tal como formulado por Price. Inicialmente, apresento a posição de Price e suas críticas ao Realismo a respeito dos universais. Segundo ele, o Realismo não fornece uma correta explanação da semelhança inexata entre diferentes particulares. A fim de estabelecer a sua posição nominalista, ele se dedica a refutar duas objeções clássicas: o argumento do aspecto e o argumento do regresso. Posteriormente, analiso as principais críticas contra o Nominalismo de Price: (...) o caráter primitivo da relação de semelhança, o problema do estabelecimento de paradigmas e o problema do regresso. A teoria de Price não é capaz de responder a essas objeções adequadamente. (shrink)

Cuando G. K. Chesterton en su corto ensayo Aproximación al tomismo quiere resumir los descarríos o los logros de los sabios sobre la realidad, muestra las tres controversias generales del pensamiento: (1) la disolución de las cosas en las soluciones químicas del escepticismo, que es la controversia entre el flujo o la transición informe; (2) la difícil clasificación de las unidades ideales, que es la controversia entre realismo y nominalismo; y (3) el reconocimiento, también arduo, de la variedad cuando (...) a la vez se admite la unidad, que es el viejo acertijo metafísico de la unidad y lo múltiple. Este libro se concentra en la segunda controversia, sin el olvido de los otros dos problemas, en la persona de Guillermo de Ockham, el lógico sagaz que vivió entre los siglos XIII y XIV d.C. Las relaciones de la Literatura con la Filosofía o con la ciencia no se acaban en la especulación poética o estética de motivos filosóficos, mucho más que esto, se extienden a la práctica o ejercicio de los conceptos filosóficos. Erguido en este principio, he rescatado a la figura de Guillermo de Ockham, así como al debate por la realidad o no de las Ideas, en composiciones literarias de Carlos Fuentes, Jorge Luis Borges, Umberto Eco, el ya mencionado G. K. Chesterton, y más. (shrink)

New translations of the central mediaeval texts on the problem of universals are presented here in an affordable edition suitable for use in courses in mediaeval philosophy, history of mediaeval philosophy, and universals. Includes a concise Introduction, glossary of important terms, notes, and bibliography.

Reflections on the life and works of Scotus -- The early works of Scotus -- Duns Scotus at Oxford -- A Scotistic approach to the ultimate why-question -- God's knowledge : a study in Scotistic methodology -- William of Alnwick on Scotus and divine concurrence -- Scotus on the origin of possibility -- Scotus's lectures on the Immaculate Conception -- Scotus's ethics -- Scotus's eschatology : some reflections -- Scotism -- An Oxford dialogue on language and metaphysics -- Ockham and (...) the textbooks -- Ockham's conception of matter. (shrink)

O presente trabalho consiste em analisar sistematicamente o nominalismo de Roscelino de Compiègne e suas principais objeções ao problema dos universais que fora profundamente discutido ao decorrer de toda a trajetória da historia da filosofia, mas que ganhou um destaque sui generis na Idade Média. Buscaremos, a partir de uma apresentação mais ampla sobre o tema, destacar as concepções do supracitado filósofo frente às demais correntes vigentes em sua época, sublinhando e comentando também as prevalecentes críticas efetuadas por seus (...) principais opositores, a saber, Santo Anselmo e Pedro Abelardo.: This present article seeks, firstly, to systematically analyze the traditional solutions to the problem of the Universals that were formulated since the Antiquity to the first centuries of the Middle Ages, which would be known by the names "exaggerated realism", in its platonic side, and "moderated realism", in its Aristotelian side. Within this general view we'll focus on the work of Roscelino de Compiégne, a philosopher ahead of the contemporary currents of his time, by stressing and also commenting on the prevailing criticisms made by his main opponents, namely, St. Anselm and Peter Abelard. Keywords: Roscelino de Compiégne. Problem of the Universals. Nominalism. (shrink)

El nominalismo es normalmente asociado con una concepción voluntarista de la ley natural, sobre todo por la asociación de ambas doctrinas en la obra de Guillermo de Ockham. Sin embargo, no existe una conexión necesaria entre tales doctrinas, y para mostrar aquello, se expondrá la doctrina de Thomas Hobbes al respecto. En este autor, el nominalismo filosófico, más extremo que el de Ockham, se encuentra asociado a una concepción totalmente necesitarista de la ley natural, hasta el punto de (...) que puede decirse que en Hobbes existe, en materia moral, una inversión de la doctrina ockhamista. En ambos casos hay recurso a Dios, pero en el caso de Ockham, para suministrar el contenido de la ley natural y, en el caso de Hobbes, para garantizar el carácter obligatorio de ésta. (shrink)

El objetivo de este trabajo es, por una parte, ofrecer una nueva interpretación de la teoría estoica de los universales a la luz del debate entre nominalismo, conceptualismo y realismo, y, por otra, desentrañar un paralelismo entre el análisis propuesto por los estoicos de enunciados cuyo sujeto gramatical son términos genéricos, y el análisis propuesto por Russell de enunciados como "El actual rey de Francia es calvo". Al final del trabajo se estudian las bases metafísicas de la teoría estoica (...) de los universales y se señala una posible tensión en su interior. The aim of this paper is to offer a new interpretation of the Stoic theory of universals in the light of the debate between nominalism, conceptualism and realism, and to bring out a parallel between the analysis proposed by the Stoic Chrysippus of statements whose grammatical subject is a generic term, and the analysis developed by Russell of statements such as "The current King of France is bald". At the end of the paper, the metaphysical basis of the Stoic theory of universals is examined and a possible contradiction in it is brought out. (shrink)

Este trabajo presenta y analiza dos posturas acerca de las representaciones y clasificaciones científicas que Ian Hacking en ¿La construcción social de qué? denomina realismo o estructurismo inherente y nominalismo. La primera sostiene que las divisiones del conocimiento científico expresan o reflejan divisiones estructurales de la realidad a la que se refieren, en tanto que la segunda considera que toda división o estructura atribuida por la ciencia a la realidad se encuentra sólo en las representaciones mismas. Se sostiene que (...) tal criterio clasificatorio resulta pertinente y fructífero para las discusiones actuales acerca de la naturaleza del conocimiento científico, que pone de relieve diversas cuestiones profundas e intensamente debatidas a lo largo de la historia de la filosofía, y que el empleo del término “nominalismo” –a pesar de su polisemia y de ser poco utilizado actualmente en la filosofía de la cienciaes acertado por cuanto la discusión es en gran medida semántica, ya que se basa en dos concepciones contrapuestas acerca de la naturaleza del lenguaje humano. (shrink)

En este trabajo se revisan las tesis centrales del pensamiento de Ockham —representacionismo, voluntarismo, contingentismo— y la critica de L. Polo a las mismas. Se divide en tres partes: teoria del conocimiento, psicologia y ética, y metafísica.

This paper is a defense of John Duns Scotus’s theory of individuation against one of William of Ockham’s objections. In the Ordinatio II. D.3. P. 1, John Duns Scotus argues for the existence of haecceity, a positive, indivisible distinction which makes an individual an individual rather than a kind of thing. He argues for the existence of haecceity by arguing for a form which is a “real less than numerical unity” and is neither universal nor singular. In the Summa Logicae, (...) William of Ockham objects to Scotus’s theory of haecceity by attacking his theory of universals, claiming that the same thing would be proper and common simultaneously. The basis of Ockham’s objections is that only a real distinction is possible: if things are distinct, then they can exist separately. Without universals, a principle of individuation is unnecessary. To defend Scotus’s principle of individuation, an account and defense of the formal distinction is necessary. Without the formal distinction, metaphysical categories, such as being and one, are incoherent or contradictory. The formal distinction gives rise to a new law of contradiction:two or more entities are formally distinct if and only if contradiction or non-being results from their separation and the properties of one being do not match theproperties of the other being(s). (shrink)

This paper is a defense of John Duns Scotus’s theory of individuation against one of William of Ockham’s objections. In the Ordinatio II. D.3. P. 1, John Duns Scotus argues for the existence of haecceity, a positive, indivisible distinction which makes an individual an individual rather than a kind of thing. He argues for the existence of haecceity by arguing for a form which is a “real less than numerical unity” and is neither universal nor singular. In the Summa Logicae, (...) William of Ockham objects to Scotus’s theory of haecceity by attacking his theory of universals, claiming that the same thing would be proper and common simultaneously. The basis of Ockham’s objections is that only a real distinction is possible: if things are distinct, then they can exist separately. Without universals, a principle of individuation is unnecessary. To defend Scotus’s principle of individuation, an account and defense of the formal distinction is necessary. Without the formal distinction, metaphysical categories, such as being and one, are incoherent or contradictory. The formal distinction gives rise to a new law of contradiction:two or more entities are formally distinct if and only if contradiction or non-being results from their separation and the properties of one being do not match theproperties of the other being(s). (shrink)

Thomas Aquinas, John Duns Scotus, and William of Ockham disagree over how and whether virtues are specified by their objects. For Thomas, habits and acts are specified by their formal objects. For instance, the object of theft is something that belongs to someone else, and more particularly theft is distinct from robbery because theft is the open taking of another’s good, whereas robbery is open and violent. A habit such as a virtue or a vice shares or takes the act’s (...) object. For Scotus, although the same virtue or act cannot have objects which differ formally, different virtues and acts can have an object which is identical according to its formal ratio, in the way that the different theological virtues might even formally have God as their object. Ockham accepts Scotus’s view that charity and hope are two kinds of love, we will see how, unlike Scotus, he argues that these theological virtues differ on account of their immediate complex objects. The disagreement between these three figures raises important difficulties concerning what it even means to be a formal object. (shrink)

A partir do século XN, devido em grande parte à influência de Guilherme de Ockam e à divulgação de seu pensamento, o Nominalismo torna-se corrente dominante ao se tratar do problema dos universais. No presente trabalho examina-se como a questão é colocada na obra de Francisco Suárez.

This paper reviews te principal points of Okcham’s philosophy: representationism, voluntarism, contingentism, and also the critics that Polo makes to them. The three parts of the study are: theory of knowledge, ethics-psychology, and metaphysics.

O presente texto aborda a recepçãocrítica do pensamento aristotélico no Ocidentelatino medieval através da polêmica acerca dasuposta diferença entre intelecto ativo e intelectopassivo defendida por J. Duns Scotus e negadapor G. de Ockham. Inicialmente, evocamos aproblemática do intelecto no tivro HI do DeAnima de Aristóteles e sua recepção na IdadeMédia para, em seguida, explicitar os efeitos detal problemática na discussão entre dois grandespensadores.

It is a common view that Ockham’s critique of Scotus’s position on the issue of contingency is “devastating,” for it seems obvious that a possibility that does notactualize is simply no possibility. This rejection however does not commit Ockham to necessitarism, for the consideration of the temporal discontinuity of volitions should suffice to save contingency. But does it? Is it the case that diachronic volitions (which Scotus also acknowledges) are sufficient?This essay argues that (1) the debate between Ockham and Scotus (...) is not to be reduced to a logical disagreement (Scotus’s and Ockham’s modal logics are actually substantially similar) but is properly ontological inasmuch as it concerns the reduction and eventual identification of being with actuality and of actuality with reality in the sense of manifest; (2) the retrograding movement of truth from the present (Ockham’s 3rd suppositio) entails a temporal gap between present and future; and (3) Ockham’s solution depends on a conception of the will that cannot simply be identified with, and accounted for in terms of successive volitions. (shrink)

This paper is a comparative analysis of the Logica Campsale Anglici, valde utilis et realis contra Ocham , from an anonymous author known as pseudo Richard of Campsall, and Ockham’s Summa logicae , in answer to which the former was written. We summarize both authors’s fundamental positions on five key issues: 1) the synonymy between abstract and concrete terms, 2) the reference of primary and secondary intentions, 3) the nature of the relations of predication between terms in propositions, 4) the (...) status of the “passions of the soul” and 5) the prime signification of spoken words. Our aim is to sketch the polemic between Nominalism and Realism in the second decade of the XIVth century. (shrink)

It is a common view that Ockham’s critique of Scotus’s position on the issue of contingency is “devastating,” for it seems obvious that a possibility that does notactualize is simply no possibility. This rejection however does not commit Ockham to necessitarism, for the consideration of the temporal discontinuity of volitions should suffice to save contingency. But does it? Is it the case that diachronic volitions are sufficient?This essay argues that the debate between Ockham and Scotus is not to be reduced (...) to a logical disagreement but is properly ontological inasmuch as it concerns the reduction and eventual identification of being with actuality and of actuality with reality in the sense of manifest; the retrograding movement of truth from the present entails a temporal gap between present and future; and Ockham’s solution depends on a conception of the will that cannot simply be identified with, and accounted for in terms of successive volitions. (shrink)

En este trabajo se defiende que la filiación intelectual de Kierkegaard es moderna y tiene su raíz en la filosofía de Ockham. En cuanto a su encuadramiento, su existencialismo está a medio camino entre el nominalismo-idealismo y el realismo.

Scotus contended that the humanity of Socrates has less than a numerical unity. But what does that claim come to? And how does Scotus’s position relate to familiar debates concerning the existence of universals and/or tropes? This paper provides a detailed sketch of Scotus’s view, arguing that it is not intrinsic to Socrates’s nature that it has numerical unity. The paper goes on to explain why Ockham’s attack on the coherence of Scotus’s argument does not succeed. What initially looks like (...) a successful master argument against Scotus’s view is ultimately a failure on account of its neglect of the role of intrinsic determination. (shrink)

Although Thomas, Scotus, and Ockham are all broadly Aristotelian, their different Aristotelian accounts reflect underlying disagreements in these three areas. These trends may represent a shift from an earlier to a later medieval intellectual culture, but they also reflect views that continued to exist in different schools. Thomists continued to exist alongside Scotists through the end of the eighteenth century, and Ockham’s views had a more varied but continued influence through the modern period. The different views of Thomas, Scotus, and (...) Ockham are not only in themselves plausible attempts at understanding human action, but they formed the background to late medieval and early modern descriptions of human action. (shrink)

The disagreement between John Duns Scotus and William of Ockham on whether the exterior act has intrinsic moral worth is a turning point for a new understanding of the relationship between the interior and the exterior act. Is someone who successfully commits murder as guilty as someone who fails in her attempt? Does the martyr merit more than someone who merely wills to undergo martyrdom but is denied the opportunity? In these cases, the completion of the act is the exterior (...) act, and the interior act is that part of the act which leads up to and includes the agent’s choice or command. Scotus synthesizes and develops an earlier tradition in which the exterior act has its own moral goodness or malice which is independent from that of the interior act. Ockham criticizes Scotus and this tradition, thus apparently becoming one of the first thinkers since Abelard to deny that the exterior act has any intrinsic moral value. Ockham redefines the exterior act as a purely natural act without intrinsic moral value and consequently traces the goodness or malice of an act entirely to an intrinsically moral act of the will. (shrink)

Any account of intentional action has to deal with the problem of how such actions are individuated. Medieval accounts, however, crucially differ from contemporary ones in at least three respects: for medieval authors, individuation is not a matter of description, as it is according to contemporary, ‘Anscombian’ views; rather, it is a metaphysical matter. Medieval authors discuss intentional action on the basis of faculty psychology, whereas contemporary accounts are not committed to this kind of psychology. Connected to the use of (...) faculty psychology is the distinction between interior and exterior acts. Roughly, interior acts are mental as opposed to physical acts, whereas exterior acts are acts of physical powers, such as of moving one’s body. Of course, contemporary accounts are not committed to this distinction between two ontologically different kinds of acts. Rather, they might be committed to views consistent with physicalist approaches to the mind. The main interpretative task in this paper is to clarify how Scotus and Ockham explain moral intentional action in terms of the role and involvement of these kinds of acts respectively. I argue that Scotus’s account is close to contemporary, ‘Anscombian’ accounts, whereas Ockham’s account is incompatible with them. (shrink)

In this paper, I examine how Scotus and Ockham try to solve the following problem. If different kinds of constituents contribute some difference in kind to the things they constitute, then the divine Father and Son should be different in kind because they are constituted by at least some constituents that are different in kind (namely, fatherhood and sonship). However, if the Father and Son are different in kind, the Son's production will be equivocal, and equivocal products are typically less (...) perfect than their producers. Therefore, the Son must be subordinate to the Father. In response, Scotus argues that different kinds of constituents do not necessarily result in different kinds of things, but Ockham rejects this, arguing instead that although the Father and Son are different in kind, they are still equal in perfection because of their identity with the divine essence. (shrink)

Duns Scotus's famous proposition was first attacked in a short polemical treatise attributed to Thomas of Sutton. By the time of Ockham, the proposition was known as the propositio famosa, so called by Walter Chatton, Ockham's colleague at Oxford and London, who defended it against Ockham's lengthy critique. At Paris, during the same period, it was called the propositio vulgata and was used approvingly by Francis of Meyronnes, Peter of Navarre and Durandus St. Pourçain. This “famous proposition” was so controverted (...) because on it depended the acceptance, with Duns Scotus, or the rejection, with Ockham, of theology as a strict, propter quid science. As its detractors and defenders must have realized, it also struck at the heart of the divergent philosophical outlooks of Duns Scotus and Ockham. For all of this, Duns Scotus's famous proposition and its history have all but escaped notice. (shrink)

John Duns Scotus deals with a question which is still of importance for modern ethical debate, namely what is the difference between a good deed which is intended but may be hindered by the circumstances and a good deed which is both intended and consummated? Scotus discusses this issue in connection with the question of whether moral goodness or badness can be assigned to the external act, which depends on physical capability. In his investigation, he determines that the imputability of (...) acts, i.e. the fact that the actor had free power of disposition over them, is a criterion for being able to morally qualify them as good or bad. His conclusion that one can clearly attribute the external act with its own moral good or evil is primarily based on his definition of the moral good as the totality of circumstances necessary according to right reason for a good act. William of Ockham expressly rejects Doctor Subtilis' conclusion and relativizes his criterion of moral goodness to the point of meaninglessness. Ockham attributes the moral good or evil of an act almost exclusively to the actor's intention. He explains the moral significance attributable to the actual consummation of an intentional action in terms of the acts of will occurring during and after consummation, which can be morally judged in their own right. He does admit, however, that a judgment made by mortals is based on criteria different from those relevant in the eyes of God. Today, the particularly interesting aspect of this debate seems to be that a moral conception similar to Kant's is confronted with a position that can still be called Aristotelian, albeit with some Augustinian influence. Yet the perceivable theoretical proximity between these two authors could indicate a possible connection between two of the most important ethical concepts in the history of occidental philosophy. Die auch für moderne Ethikkonzepte nicht unwichtige Frage, worin der moralische Unterschied zwischen einer nur gewollten, aber durch die Umstände verhinderten und einer ausgeführten guten Tat liegt, wird von Johannes Duns Scotus im Zusammenhang mit der Frage bearbeitet, ob dem äußeren, auf körperliche Vermögen angewiesenen Akt eine eigene moralische Güte oder Schlechtigkeit zukommt. Bei seiner Untersuchung ermittelt er als Kriterium für die moralische Qualifizierbarkeit in die eine oder andere Richtung die Zurechenbarkeit von Handlungen, d.h. den Umstand, daß sie in der freien Verfügungsgewalt des Handelnden stehen. Das Resultat seiner Überlegungen, daß nämlich der äußeren Handlung sehr wohl eine eigene moralische Güte oder Schlechtigkeit zugesprochen werden kann, basiert wesentlich auf seiner Definition der moralischen Güte als Gesamtheit der gemäß der rechten Vernunft für eine gute Handlung erforderlichen Umstände. Wilhelm von Ockham weist das Resultat des Doctor Subtilis ausdrücklich zurück und relativiert dessen Kriterium moralischer Güte bis zur weitgehenden Bedeutungslosigkeit. Er führt die moralische Güte oder Schlechtigkeit eines Aktes ausschließlich auf die Intentionen des Handelnden zurück und erklärt die eigene moralische Bedeutung, die der Ausführung einer willentlichen Handlung zukommt, durch die während und nach der Ausführung stattfindenden Willensakte, die ihrerseits moralischer Beurteilung unterliegen. Allerdings gesteht er zu, daß die Beurteilung durch die irdische Gerichtsbarkeit z.T. anderen Gesichtspunkten folgt als die vor den Augen Gottes. Heute scheint an dieser Debatte vor allem der Umstand interessant, daß eine der kantischen nicht unähnliche Moralkonzeption mit einer trotz aller augustinischen Einfüsse noch aristotelischen Position konfrontiert wird. Die dennoch feststellbare theoretische Nähe beider Autoren könnte Hinweise für eine mögliche Verknüpfung dieser beiden wohl wichtisten Ethikkonzepte der abendländischen Philosophiegeschichte geben. (shrink)

Da mittelalterliche Denker Gottes Wissen der Welt vorwiegend als ein praktisches, auf Fürsorge gründendes Wissen begriffen, können die freien künftigen menschlichen Taten nicht als prinzipiell unwißbar ausgeschlossen werden. Gottes praktisches Wissen des kontingenten Zukünftigen gründet für Duns Scotus auf seinem faktisch unwandelbaren Willensentschluß und ist daher nur insofern kontingent, als es kontrafaktisch anders hätte sein können. Ockham verwirft solche irrealen Alternativen gleichzeitig zum Faktischen, da die Eigenart willentlicher Verursachung auch ohne solche hohen "ontologischen Kosten" erklärbar sei: Anders als eine Naturursache (...) könne die freie Ursache ohne gewandelte Bedingungen im nächsten Augenblick anderes wirken. Innerhalb allein der wirklichen Welt ergeben echte Gegenwartsaussagen angesichts der Irreversibilität des Geschehenen hinfort notwendige Vergangenheitsaussagen. Aussagen über göttliches Vorauswissen seien hingegen nur oberflächengrammatisch Gegenwartsaussagen, sachlich jedoch kontingent, da ihre Geltung von einem kontingenten Zukünftigen abhänge, wenngleich unwandelbar, weil jede Zukunftsaussage, falls wahr, unveränderlich wahr sei . Bei Unwandelbarkeit aber läßt sich Kontingenz kaum anders als mit der Skotischen Konzeption gleichzeitiger irrealer Möglichkeiten erklären: Gott hätte das faktisch stets Gewußte niemals zu wissen brauchen. (shrink)

How can the Body and Blood of Christ, without ever leaving heaven, come to be really present on eucharistic altars where the bread and wine still seem to be? Marilyn McCord Adams examines how this question and its answer engaged thirteenth and fourteenth century philosophical theologians.