ACCORDING TO DUNS SCOTUS, what makes a material substance an individual is a positive entity which falls within the category of substance and contracts the specific nature to this or that. That entity, called haecceitas, together with the formal distinction, constitutes the core of Scotus' theory of individuation. But what is haecceitas? Haecceitas is not definable. Nor can we be acquainted with it. Then how could we understand it? Both negatively and positively, Scotus himself tried to give (...) an answer to this question. Before presenting his haecceitas theory, Scotus criticized six different types of rival theories available in his day: the position of the nominalists, the double negation theory, the theory of individuation by actual existence, the theory of individuation by quantity or other accidents, the theory of individuation by matter, and the theory attributed to Godfrey of Fontaines. In other words, he was explaining "what haecceitas is not" when he criticized these theories. More importantly, he tried to give us a positive characterization of haecceitas. Since he used "individual difference" as a synonym for "haecceitas," he resorted to an analogy between the specific difference and the individual difference in order to explain the notion of haecceitas. The problem is that twentieth-century ontologists may not be patient enough to study the triple analogy, which again presupposes Scotus' doctrines of the formal distinction and the ultimate difference. In order to draw their attention to Scotus' theory of individuation, one would need to discuss the following questions: How can we translate the term "haecceitas" into modern terminology? Is there any counterpart of haecceitas in contemporary ontology? For what reasons should we reintroduce haecceitas into the current discussion of individuation, if it has a good counterpart? Is there still anything significant left to add to our understanding of haecceitas? (shrink)

This paper seeks to provide a phenomenological articulation of the Scotist notion of haecceitas, interpreting Scotus’s principle of individuation at once as an ontological as well as a moral principle. Growing out of certain suggestions made by James Hart in his Who One Is, this interpretation is meant to provide the phenomenological ethics of both Edmund Husserl and Max Scheler with a useful theoretical tool in the Scotist notion of haecceitas interpreted as a horizon of value in order (...) more fully to develop the phenomenological idea of the ethical life as a task that specifically seeks to realize as its highest goal the vocation of the person to his or her ideal, true self. The main implication of Scotus’s thought, here, for phenomenology will be the ability to further delimit haecceitas as an objective moral principle that refutes the frequent charge of relativistic subjectivism in the phenomenological theory of ethics. (shrink)

The author seeks to reveal the contents Skotovoho term "haecceitas", pointing to its location in metaphysics Scholasticus and European influence on the development of individualized thinking. Concluding should be noted that the term Skotovskyy haecceitas legitimizes in western thinking right essential to the existence of a single state in the autonomous formalities in a state of positive-singular being relative to the summum ens, preserving the unity of the personal hierarchy of the universe. This doctrinal principle axiologicaly urivnovazhyv metaphysical (...) thinking of the natural intelligence of the individual to determine their yedynoznachnist things. Explain this view, Habermas, who notes that "... metaphysical thinking shapes suited to the individual. John Duns Scotus justifies it eventually to extend of essential also in the sphere of the individual. It gives a precise definition of Haecceitas, which also puts a stamp on individuation significant, because it is really essential opposed to individual equivalent generality". As a mode of essential forms haecceitas makes it the ultimate reality Meanwhile "individual form," which asserts the man status uniqueness. Comprehension of "individual forms" that there is a reasonable, figuratively originality here and now finds loving will of the Creator to creation, and the inspiring personality to volitional direction defined by God to perfect forms and types. This imposes a duty on the ambivalent personality. On the one hand the individual is responsible for the terrible harmony with summum ens, on the other hand gets within their reality, to be sreatorom natural and human things - finally implement the will of God in single-unique. Latest content is the foundation of modern thinking and definitive doctrinal legitimation of Western individualism. (shrink)

This dissertation consists of a philosophico-historical study of Duns Scotus' theory of individuation. In order to do justice to the history of philosophy, it grants a fair hearing to the problem of individuation as he conceived it, his criticisms of various theories available at his time, and his own intriguing theory of haecceitas. His doctrines of the formal distinction, the real unity of the common nature, and ultimate differences are studied in some detail because his explanation of haecceitas (...) by a triple analogy between the individual difference and the specific difference presupposed them. From a philosophical point of view, however, it is useful to study a contemporary counterpart of haecceitas in order to understand Scotus' conception better. Thus, this study attempts to show that the widespread interpretation of haecceitas as an individual essence or a coordinate quality is not supported by Scotus' major writings. Haecceitas, in fact, is somewhat similar to Bergmann's bare particular. So, a comparison of haecceitas and the bare particular is drawn in order to understand the similarities and differences between them and understand Scotus' theory better. (shrink)

Over the thirty years since his death Martin Heidegger hasemerged as one of the key philosophers of the 20th Century. Yet he claimed to be moved throughout the entirety of his work by a single question: the question of the meaning of being. According to Heidegger the ancient Greek thinkers experienced being with a sense of wonder that has been lost in modernity. There has never been a satisfactory answer to this question and philosophers are no longer even perplexed by (...) their inability to answer it. It was the question of being that Heidegger set out to confront in his unfinished master work Being and Time. The young Heidegger years before the publication of that work had been afforded an insight to an aspect of what would become his central concern from what at first might seem an unlikely source: the medieval philosopher and theologian John Duns Scotus.Scotus inspired Heidegger in so far as his thought was in proximity to “real life,” and while he would later move decisively away from the position he took in his ‘scotus Book,” in a move that has been referred to as the first “turn” in his thought from the ‘system of Catholicism” to liberal Protestantism, Scotus provided the young scholar with an insight into human individuality that would prove decisive in his mature work. Despite this move away from any kind of “onto-logic,” there is an element of Heidegger’s thought that is influenced by Scotus, one of the brightest stars of medieval philosophy. So, while my investigation is conducted with the fact of this turn in mind, my aim is to explore this element. (shrink)

This book explains how Duns Scotus's concept of 'Haecceitas'—thisness, or individuation—represents an insufficiently recognized yet central aspect of Aristotelianism, namely its denial of and flight from 'the play of difference' that was a core aspect of Plato's philosophy.

This study compares the teachings of Thomas Aquinas and John Duns Scotus on the issue of being and individuality. Its primary aim is to contrast Scotus’s individuating principle, haecceitas, with Aquinas’s actualizing principle, esse, attending both to their rather striking similarities as well as to their significant differences. The article’s conclusion is that, while Scotus’s crowning principle, haecceitas, is the unique entity internal to each thing, rendering the nature complete and singular as nature, Aquinas’s crowning principle, esse, actualizes (...) the nature without individualizing it. This is not to imply that Scotus overlooked the importance of a thing’s being, any more than Aquinas overlooked the importance of a being’s singularity. It does mean, however, that the primal integrating focus and the resulting philosophical synthesis of these two seminal thinkers of the Middle Ages did significantly differ. The conclusion of the paper might be stated thus: what most distinguishes their respective philosophies is that, while Scotus’s primary concern was with the existing individual, Aquinas’s was with the existing individual. (shrink)

Alonso Briceño, el primer filósofo chileno, sostuvo que, para todo x, el ser de x = la haecceitas de x y –además– que hay una distinción ‘formal’ entre el ser de x y la esencia de x. En general, hay una distinción ‘formal’ entre los ítems z y v si y solo si: (i) z  v, y (ii) z y v son mutuamente inseparables. Se sigue de estas tesis que el ‘ser’ debe tomarse como un componente ontológico específico (...) en los objetos particulares y que es idéntico con la haecceitas del objeto. Esto se denomina aquí “la intuición de Briceño”. En este trabajo se considera la relevancia que la intuición de Briceño podría tener para dos de las teorías más importantes acerca de la naturaleza de los objetos particulares: las teorías en las que los objetos particulares están constituidos por un sustrato y sus propiedades, y las teorías en las que los objetos particulares son cúmulos de tropos. Se argumenta que en ambos casos la intuición de Briceño, esto es, la idea de que hay un tropo específico de ser en el objeto particular, trae consigo ventajas sistemáticas importantes y, lo que es más, permite la unificación teórica de ambas perspectivas, normalmente consideradas como incompatibles entre sí. (shrink)

El propósito de este trabajo es bosquejar los principios de una antropología del silencio en la obra de Edith Stein con base en las siguientes indagaciones preliminares. En la distinción XXIII de su Ordinatio I, Duns Escoto retoma la siguiente definición de persona dada por Ricardo de San Víctor en su De Trinitate: «La existencia incomunicable de la naturaleza intelectual». El estudio de Duns Escoto a este respecto señalará que una entidad singular (haecceitas) es condición de posibilidad de la (...) persona, pero no la persona misma porque esta es incomunicable ya que no la encontramos dentro del orden óntico. Es decir, la individualidad de la persona presenta una unicidad de orden cualitativo que no puede ser expresada por ciencia alguna. De esta opinión es Mariano Crespo quien, con todo, nos marca el camino para comprender en qué consiste dicha individualidad personal en Ser finito y ser eterno en tanto: «…yo, por medio de mi libre actividad, me decido por esta o aquella posibilidad de actuación, me conformo a mí mismo, me construyo como la persona individual que soy.». (shrink)

Der Topos von der Unerschöpflichkeit des Gegenstands wird mit der Phänomenologie assoziiert. Den ihm verwandten Topos von der Unaussprechlichkeit des Individuellen haben Goethe und die deutschen Romantiker in die Welt getragen. Der Diktion der analytischen Philosophie sind die Ausdrücke „unerschöpflich“ und „unaussprechlich“ fremd. Dieser Umstand sollte analytische Philosophen nicht davon abhalten, sich den sprachphilosophischen und ontologischen Problemen zuzuwenden, die sich hinter den besagten Formeln verbergen. Husserls Wort für Unerschöpflichkeit ist „Fülle“. Die „Fülle des Gegenstandes“ erläutert Husserl als den „Inbegriff der (...) ihn konstituierenden Bestimmtheiten“, seine „individualisierenden Bestimmtheiten“ eingeschlossen. Ich werde in diesem Aufsatz von deskriptiver Unerschöpflichkeit sprechen, die ich auf eine ontische Eigenart der konkreten Einzeldinge zurückführe. Den Begriff der deskriptiven Unerschöpflichkeit werde ich zunächst anhand des Problems entwickeln, die Eigenschaften eines Einzeldings zu zählen. Aristoteles, Leibniz und Kant beantworten die Frage, wie viele Eigenschaften ein Einzelding hat, gleichlautend: es sind potentiell unendlich viele (1.). Die ontologische Kategorie, für die dies gilt, ist die der konkreten, raumzeitlichen Einzeldinge (2.). Unter (3.) wird der Befund der deskriptiven Unerschöpflichkeit näher erläutert und ausdifferenziert. Unter (4.) wird ein sprachphilosophisch motivierter Einwand gegen die Unerschöpflichkeitsthese diskutiert und zurückgewiesen: der Einwand aus der endlichen Zahl der Prädikate. Dann werde ich die Begriffe Leerstelle, Auflösung und ontische Dichte einführen, um meinen Befund zu sichern und zu präzisieren (5.). Unter dem Stichwort „Unerschöpflich oder bloß faktisch unerschöpft?“ diskutiere ich die Frage, worin das prinzipielle Hindernis für das Unternehmen liegen soll, ein Einzelding erschöpfend zu beschreiben (6.). Anschließend kontrastiere ich die Unerschöpflichkeitsthese mit der pathetischen Formel von der „Unaussprechlichkeit des Individuellen“, um zu verdeutlichen, was mit ersterer nicht gemeint ist (7.). Diese Diskussion führt zu ontologischen Überlegungen über Individualität, Einzigkeit und haecceitas (8.). Schließlich bringe ich den Gedanken ins Spiel, daß wir in der natürlichen Sprache beliebig feine semantische Unterscheidungen treffen können, der auf den ersten Blick in einer gewissen Spannung zur These der deskriptiven Unerschöpflichkeit steht. Diese Spannung werde ich unter (9.) und (10.) zu mildern suchen und dabei meinen Begriff der ontischen Dichte zu Goodmans Begriff der semantischen Dichte in Beziehung setzen. (shrink)

We demonstrate that the quantum-mechanical description of composite physical systems of an arbitrary number of similar fermions in all their admissible states, mixed or pure, for all finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces, is not in conflict with Leibniz's Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles (PII). We discern the fermions by means of physically meaningful, permutation-invariant categorical relations, i.e. relations independent of the quantum-mechanical probabilities. If, indeed, probabilistic relations are permitted as well, we argue that similar bosons can also be discerned in all (...) their admissible states; but their categorical discernibility turns out to be a state-dependent matter. In all demonstrated cases of discernibility, the fermions and the bosons are discerned (i) with only minimal assumptions on the interpretation of quantum mechanics; (ii) without appealing to metaphysical notions, such as Scotusian haecceitas, Lockean substrata, Postian transcendental individuality or Adamsian primitive thisness; and (iii) without revising the general framework of classical elementary predicate logic and standard set theory, thus without revising standard mathematics. This confutes: (a) the currently dominant view that, provided (i) and (ii), the quantum-mechanical description of such composite physical systems always conflicts with PII; and (b) that if PII can be saved at all, the only way to do it is by adopting one or other of the thick metaphysical notions mentioned above. Among the most general and influential arguments for the currently dominant view are those due to Schrodinger, Margenau, Cortes, Dalla Chiara, Di Francia, Redhead, French, Teller, Butterfield, Giuntini, Mittelstaedt, Castellani, Krause and Huggett. We review them succinctly and critically as well as related arguments by van Fraassen and Massimi. (shrink)

We maximally extend the quantum‐mechanical results of Muller and Saunders ( 2008 ) establishing the ‘weak discernibility’ of an arbitrary number of similar fermions in finite‐dimensional Hilbert spaces. This confutes the currently dominant view that ( A ) the quantum‐mechanical description of similar particles conflicts with Leibniz’s Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles (PII); and that ( B ) the only way to save PII is by adopting some heavy metaphysical notion such as Scotusian haecceitas or Adamsian primitive thisness. (...) We take sides with Muller and Saunders ( 2008 ) against this currently dominant view, which has been expounded and defended by many. *Received July 2008; revised May 2009. †To contact the authors, please write to: F. A. Muller, Faculty of Philosophy, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Burg. Oudlaan 50, H5–16, 3062 PA Rotterdam, The Netherlands; e‐mail: [email protected] , and Institute for the History and Foundations of Science, Utrecht University, Budapestlaan 6, IGG–3.08, 3584 CD Utrecht, The Netherlands; e‐mail: [email protected] . M. P. Seevinck, Institute for the History and Foundations of Science, Utrecht University, Budapestlaan 6, IGG–3.08, 3584 CD Utrecht, The Netherlands; e‐mail: [email protected]. (shrink)

The Unity of Science is often thought to be reductionist, but this is because we fail to distinguish questions from answers. The questions asked by different sciences are different---the biologist is interested in different topics from the physicist, and seeks different explanations---but the answers are not peculiar to each particular science, and can range over the whole of scientific knowledge. The biologist is interested in organisms--- concept unknown to physics---but explains physiological processes in terms of chemistry, not a mysterious vital (...) force. The replacement of Laplacian determinism by quantum mechanics further erodes the tendency towards reductionism. The answers given in different explanations are not subsumed under one complete theory; and quantum mechanics does not have a concept of haecceitas, "this-i-ness" which would make its entities the fundamental constituents of everything. (shrink)

Franciscan biocentrism is the view that Francis of Assisi is a biocentrist who holds that all living things have intrinsic value. Recently, biocentric theorists Sterba and Taylor have modified biocentrism to accommodate holistic entities. I consider thinkers from the broader Franciscan intellectual tradition (Bonaventure and Scotus) to see whether Franciscan biocentrism can be similarly modified. I discuss notions from these medieval philosophers such as the Cosmic Christ and the concept of haecceitas. I also explore whether Franciscan biocentrism can provide (...) a satisfactory response to the problem of evil, since Franciscan biocentrism faces an issue that secular biocentrism does not: making sense of extinction. (shrink)

A comienzos de la década de los 80, el filósofo Gilles Deleuze aplicó la teoría de la imagen de Bergson expuesta en Materia y Memoria (1896) a la imagen cinematográfica con la intención de desarrollar nuevas herramientas conceptuales que, a través de un análisis de la historia del cine, permitieran poder delinear mejor tanto la relación cognoscitiva más allá de los presupuestos de sujeto-objeto, como una teoría de la comunicación pre-verbal no estructuralizada fonéticamente que superara definitivamente la concepción lacaniana del (...) lenguaje. Si bien dichos análisis pueden ser vistos también como el establecimiento de unos principios alternativos a las teorías del montaje tanto de Vertov como de Eizenshtéin, el interés primario de nuestro paper se centrará en la redefinición de las categorías espacio-temporales que conlleva esta nueva teoría del cine esgrimida por Deleuze. Concretamente analizaremos cómo la nueva tecnología cinematográfica, especialmente en su desarrollo europeo de la segunda postguerra (Godard, Fellini, Syberberg, Tarkovski) supone una comprensión temporal por completo ajena a cualquier comprensión de causalidad lineal, teleológica o no, de corte cronológico. En su lugar, el cine en tanto que medio de comunicación propio del mundo metropolitano contemporáneo emplea unas categorías temporales más cercanas a conceptos como “acontecimiento” o “haecceitas”, que en algunos puntos lo acercan a la concepción del tiempo desarrollada por Walter Benjamin, pero que por otro lo relacionan directamente con formas aiónicas del mismo ya estudiadas por Deleuze en la década de los 60, y aplicadas al estudio del dadaísmo en la de los 70. (shrink)

The chief aim of this essay is to draw attention to how in Derrida’s last seminars the hyphenation “life-death” serves as a key to understanding the force of the hyphenation in the expression “animal-human” and how the work of sharing which it stands for there differs from the exclusively separative work for which we might employ the oblique stroke or slash, as in “animal/human” and “life/death.” If we wonder whether and how the hyphen and the oblique stroke share each other’s (...) company, it might occur to us that a name for this relation of sharing could be John Duns Scotus’s distinctio formalis understood in the light of his haecceitas respelled as ecce-itas by Gerald Manley Hopkins. (shrink)

Individuality has posed difficult problems throughout the history of philosophy. Not only is there the metaphysical difficulty of determining the principle of individuation, but, since our concepts and linguistic structure are based on universals, there is a gap in our knowledge of individuals and in our ability to express knowledge of individuals. God, who in Classical Theism is an individual, poses especially difficult problems. This dissertation proposes one way which may partially close the gap: metaphor. ;I argue that the principle (...) of individuation is what Duns Scotus called haecceitas, which uniquely delimits this particular individual. It is not opposed to form or to universality, but is the ultimate reality of form. I follow Scotus further in holding that the individual qua individual is intrinsically intelligible; our difficulty in understanding individuals is due to the weakness of our intellect, since our thought is through universal concepts. ;Next I defend the interaction theory of metaphor, which holds that the terms of a metaphor interact to form a new meaning which cannot be entirely reduced to the meanings of the terms. I argue further that metaphor can not only give us richer linguistic access to entities, but also give us cognitive insight which cannot be gained in any other way. ;I then defend a form of non-propositional knowing and argue that metaphor is a particularly appropriate way to express this knowledge. I argue that Scotus' theory of individuality, which holds that the individual is intrinsically intelligible, leaves open the possibility of some form of metaphoric cognition of the individual. I present a case study: the poetry of Gerard Manley Hopkins. Hopkins attempted to use metaphor and other devices in his poetry to illuminate individual beings. ;Finally I discuss God, the ultimate instance of the correlation of universality and individuality. God, being the ultimate individual, presents epistemological and linguistic problems similar in some ways to those which accrue to finite individuality. I defend the thesis that metaphorical and modelling language can help us gain insight into God. (shrink)

In his 1916 _Habilitationsschrift Heidegger enriched Husserl's notion of categorial intuition with Scotus's theory of intellection. The individual is entirely intelligible, even if its intelligibility is never fully defined. The historically singularized thing (essence modified by _haecceitas) speaks a primal word to us, and this original verbum makes possible the inner word of understanding, the _verbum interius. Heidegger argues that if the thing is actually intelligible in its singularity, history cannot be disregarded as ineffable: it becomes a domain of fore-theoretical (...) experience, which exhibits its own proper understandability, one that eludes the objectifications of judgment. (shrink)

The paper presents Suárez’s view on the individuation of beings, which he developed in his Disputatio V, De unitate individuali eiusque principio. The aim, apart from simply presenting Doctor Eximius’s thought, is also to compare his views with his scholastic predecessors. When considering the question of individuation, Suárez remained under a considerable influence of the medieval tradition, which, however, he transformed in his writings according to his own convictions. He used the language of Duns Scotus when speaking of individuation and (...) determining it in terms of indivisibility, but rejected the idea of individuation by matter, classically attributed to the Thomistic School. Postulating the individuation principle, identified with the entity, and not with the act of existence nor the being of haecceitas, Suárez departed from non-classical interpretations of the thought of Thomas Aquinas as well as from the Scotistic solutions, and postulated a view that to some extent resembled that of Ockham and Bonaventure, although Suárez does not explicitly refer to the latter. (shrink)

The problem I tackle in this article is: Do we have in Scotus a modal logic or a counterpart theory? We need to take a rather roundabout path to handle this problem. This is because, whether it be in Lewis's original formulation or in others' applications, the crucial concept of 'counterpart' has never been clearly explicated. In section two, I shall therefore examine the recent controversy concerning Leibniz's views on modalities which centers around the counterpart relation. By fully exploiting the (...) lessons learned from such an examination, I shall then launch a trilemma against a Leibnizian in section three. Section four shall make the claim that unlike Leibniz's case, Scotus's position is not endangered by the trilemma. One important premise will be adopted from my thesis presented elsewhere regarding the different between Scotus's haecceitas and Leibniz's individual essence. Another will be secured from a brief report on Scotus's views on similarity, which might be utterly original to modern eyes jaundiced by contemporary set theories. (shrink)

Este artículo trata de examinar las raíces medievales del pensamiento de Gilles Deleuze, uno de los padres de la posmodernidad en filosofía; concretamente sus débitos con Juan Duns Escoto. Nos centramos en siete categorías filosóficas: univocidad del ser, distinción formal, potencia, haecceitas, materia, coexistencia de formas, modo intrínseco e intensidad.

The paper is devoted to the question of the principle of individuation in Bl. John Duns Scotus. This question is found in his commentary to Aristotle’s Metaphysics, namely the Quaestiones super libros Metaphysicorum Aristotelis VII, qu. 13. The first part of the paper discusses problems connected with the chronology and structure of the text, whereas the second one is presented as Scotus’s teaching on individuation. S. Dumont and T. Noone argue today on the traditional thesis about the origin of this (...) question and the remaining philosophical writings from the juvenile stage of Scotus’s philosophical work. They claim that some questions from the In Metaph., including also qu. 13 from the book, were written later or in the same time as the commentaries to Peter Lombard’s Sentences. The authors support their views by indicating the following: 1) the text the In Metaph. is better organised, 2) the vocabulary used with reference to the principle of individuation, especially the term haecceitas, is employed twice in the text In Metaph., 3) the quotations from the later works of Scotus and the works of authors who wrote somewhat later than that date of the In Metaph. hitherto presumed, 4) some stylistic terms indicate that the author of the text was a mature person. The traditional thesis is defended by I. Modrić on behalf of the Scotistic Commission. Having made a detailed analysis, Modrić rejected all the arguments from the introduction to the critical edition of the In Metaph. The author of this paper agrees with Modrić’s view. Therefore as long as we do not have a thesis to the contrary we shall hold the traditional opinion about the earlier origin of the In Metaph. in comparison to Peter Lombard’s commentaries on the Sentences. Scotus opens his lecture on individuation with a discussion of various standpoints on this issue. He divides them into positive and negative theories of individuation. This ordering ensures a clear exposition of various views without unnecessary repetitions and vagueness. Eventually, Doctor Subtilis rejects all hitherto views and provides his own solution. The principle of individuation is for him an individuating entity, the ultimate reality of the individual being. In combination with common nature it determines the most individual of possible characterisation of the individuum. This positive individuating entity is called an individual form (forma individualis) in the In Metaph., a degree of entity (gradus entis) and haecceitas. The latter became a technical term to define the Scotist principle of individuation. (shrink)

Starting from an anecdote reported by Ernst Mach in the Analysis of Sensations, the author shows how the distinction between intentionality de re and intentionality de se can contribute to solving the individuation problem, at least for those individuals who are capable of self-referentiality. Intentionality is expressed linguistically in the form of the oratio obliqua, in the context of which the subordinate can be false even when the whole is true. The analysis of the conditions of falsity of the subordinate (...) tells us that this can be false either because the predicate does not fit to the subject or by a failure of reference, conceived according to the descriptive theory of reference. The intentionality de se is peculiar precisely by the fact that in this case the reference cannot fail and uniquely individuates the haecceitas of the intentional subject. (shrink)

BOOK REVIEWS 143 level of ignorance. I was, for example, surprised to learn that haecceitas is a compara- tively rare term in Scotus rather than signate matter. In his Introduction and Epilogue Gracia nicely counterbalances the tendency to- ward fragmentation stemming from the disparate accounts of individuality in the various thinkers represented in the volume. He does this, first, by highlighting for the reader the basic issues surrounding the problem of individuality, such as the concep- tion of individuality, the (...) extension of the term 'individual', the ontological status of individuality, the principle of individuation, the discernibility of individuals, and lin- guistic reference to individuals. Secondly, he sums up the achievement of the thinkers of this period with regard to individuation. His speculation on why the question of individuality and individuation received the emphasis it did in scholastic thought, namely, because Christianity placed an emphasis upon the individual in a way that Greek thought never did, strikes me as quite plausible. I would suggest by way of addition that Scholasticism was also forced to develop a philosophical account of indi- viduality, precisely because some of the Aristotelian doctrines that entered the Chris- tian West, especially in the thought of Avicenna and Averroes, were quite opposed to forms of individuality: for example, the.. (shrink)

El presente trabajo es parte de una investigación de magíster en la cual se examina el problema de los universales en el período medieval, específicamente en los autores Avicena, Enrique de Gante y Duns Scotus. En él se analiza la comprensión escotista de los universales, así como también su relación con el conocimiento, Dios y el principio de individuación. Scotus dedica el conocimiento abstractivo a los universales, o sea, el conocimiento abstractivo es el tipo de conocimiento que permite a los (...) seres humanos conocer a los universales. Estos, por su parte, son totalmente contingentes, siendo creados o destruidos por Dios con base solamente en la voluntad divina. Además, un universal adquiere una existencia material cuando es concretado por la haecceitas, cuando “está presente” en un individuo existente en acto. Para tal análisis se utilizan partes de textos como Quodlibet q. 13, Ordinatio II, d. 3, Lectura I, d. 39, Reportatio I-A, d. 38. (shrink)

Este trabajo presenta y discute varias formas de especificar el espacio ontológicomodal, asumiendo que los mundos posibles son universales estructuralesmáximos y asumiendo también que no hay forma de representar medianteuniversales estructurales los hechos sobre identidad y diferencia deobjetos entre diferentes mundos posibles. Dos grandes opciones teoréticasdeterminan la configuración que podría tener el espacio modal: (a) la introducciónde haecceitates de individuos actuales como componentes de losuniversales estructurales máximos, y (b) la introducción de contrapartidas.En el caso (a), los hechos sobre identidad de (...) objetos meramente posibles endiferentes mundos queda indeterminada. Se argumenta que no es razonablesuplementar esta configuración del espacio modal con contrapartidas. En elcaso de que las haecceitates no sean introducidas, todos los hechos sobreidentidad y diferencia de objetos entre diferentes mundos posibles quedanindeterminados, por lo que aquí el suplemento de contrapartidas es bienvenido.Cada una de estas opciones tiene sus propios costos teóricos en relacióncon, por ejemplo, las relaciones de accesibilidad entre mundos posiblesy otras tesis modales cruciales. (shrink)

BOOK REVIEWS 143 level of ignorance. I was, for example, surprised to learn that haecceitas is a compara- tively rare term in Scotus rather than signate matter. In his Introduction and Epilogue Gracia nicely counterbalances the tendency to- ward fragmentation stemming from the disparate accounts of individuality in the various thinkers represented in the volume. He does this, first, by highlighting for the reader the basic issues surrounding the problem of individuality, such as the concep- tion of individuality, the (...) extension of the term 'individual', the ontological status of individuality, the principle of individuation, the discernibility of individuals, and lin- guistic reference to individuals. Secondly, he sums up the achievement of the thinkers of this period with regard to individuation. His speculation on why the question of individuality and individuation received the emphasis it did in scholastic thought, namely, because Christianity placed an emphasis upon the individual in a way that Greek thought never did, strikes me as quite plausible. I would suggest by way of addition that Scholasticism was also forced to develop a philosophical account of indi- viduality, precisely because some of the Aristotelian doctrines that entered the Chris- tian West, especially in the thought of Avicenna and Averroes, were quite opposed to forms of individuality: for example, the... (shrink)