_ Source: _Page Count 31 This paper analyzes the theories of three representatives of Second Scholasticism, namely Francisco Suárez, SJ, John Poinsot, OP, and Francisco de Oviedo, SJ, on the issue of the intuitive and abstractive cognition of the external senses. Based on a comparison of their theories, linked to the historical starting point of the debate in the first decades of the fourteenth century, the paper argues that the doctrinal and argumentative matrix of these authors’ texts is significantly (...) ‘present’ in the Second Scholastics as well. 1) As far as naturally produced sensation is concerned, all these authors, including Poinsot, follow the Scotistic justification of the natural infallibility of the external senses; 2) regarding the possibility of supernaturally caused objectless perception, Poinsot’s position can be labelled, surprisingly, Scotistic; 3) Suárez’s theory, although partly similar to the doctrine of the late Ockham, is an idiosyncratic stance; 4) Oviedo’s conception, even more distant from that of Ockham, can be characterized as ‘Auriolian’ and ‘Chattonian’. (shrink)
This paper analyzes the theories of three representatives of Second Scholasticism, namely Francisco Suárez, sj, John Poinsot, op, and Francisco de Oviedo, sj, on the issue of the intuitive and abstractive cognition of the external senses. Based on a comparison of their theories, linked to the historical starting point of the debate in the first decades of the fourteenth century, the paper argues that the doctrinal and argumentative matrix of these authors’ texts is significantly ‘present’ in the Second Scholastics (...) as well. 1) As far as naturally produced sensation is concerned, all these authors, including Poinsot, follow the Scotistic justification of the natural infallibility of the external senses; 2) regarding the possibility of supernaturally caused objectless perception, Poinsot’s position can be labelled, surprisingly, Scotistic; 3) Suárez’s theory, although partly similar to the doctrine of the late Ockham, is an idiosyncratic stance; 4) Oviedo’s conception, even more distant from that of Ockham, can be characterized as ‘Auriolian’ and ‘Chattonian’. (shrink)
17th-century Iberian and Italian scholastics had a concept of a truthmaker [verificativum] similar to that found in contemporary metaphysical debates. I argue that the 17th-century notion of a truthmaker can be illuminated by a prevalent 17th-century theory of truth according to which the truth of a proposition is the mereological sum of that proposition and its intentional object. I explain this theory of truth and then spell out the account of truthmaking it entails.
This 1982 book is a history of the great age of scholastism from Abelard to the rejection of Aristotelianism in the Renaissance, combining the highest standards of medieval scholarship with a respect for the interests and insights of contemporary philosophers, particularly those working in the analytic tradition. The volume follows on chronologically from The Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early Medieval Philosophy, though it does not continue the histories of Greek and Islamic philosophy but concentrates on the Latin Christian (...) West. Unlike other histories of medieval philosophy that divide the subject matter by individual thinkers, it emphasises the parts of more historical and theological interest. This volume is organised by those topics in which recent philosophy has made the greatest progress. (shrink)
The macro-level business ethics in Scholasticism contrasts with modern Anglo-Saxon Capitalism, which is very influential worldwide. Scholasticism, developed between the thirteenth and the mid-seventeenth centuries, deals with key elements of free market morality, including private property, contracts, profits, prices, and free competition. For over 500 years Scholasticism tried to understand economic phenomena and business activities and reflected on them from an ethical perspective. Scholasticism offered the crucial lesson of the centrality of justice and the role of (...) practical wisdom in considering market morality. Justice is seen as both a virtue and a principle, and commutative justice with the common good of society as the reference for the Scholastics, is regarded as being especially important. (shrink)
In a 1669 letter to his mentor Thomasius, Leibniz writes that "hardly any of the Cartesians have added anything to the discoveries of their master" insofar as they "have published only paraphrases of their leader."1 The book that is the focus of my remarks here—Roger Ariew's Descartes and the First Cartesians —shows that Leibniz was most certainly incorrect. In particular, Ariew draws attention to the fact that there was a concerted effort to present a new sort of Cartesianism that conforms (...) to the structure of the early modern French scholastic curriculum. Though this effort was inspired by Descartes's own attempt to present his views in this manner, the later "Cartesian scholasticism"... (shrink)
Defensio Scholasticae BarocaeFranciscus Suarez (1548–1617) communiter fere ad hoc tempus “ultimus Medii Aevi philosophus”, qui praeclarae scholasticae traditioni finem posuerit, esse visus est. Huius tractationis thesis autem est, eum re vera cultum mirum disciplinarum et artium philosophicarum non sane terminavisse, sed magis incepisse. Cultum hunc, qui saeculo decimo septimo duodevicesimique principio florebat, “Scholasticam Barocam” optime appelandum esse arguitur. Deinde quaeritur, qua re de huius cultus investigatione hodierna philosophiae historia lingua Anglica scripta nihil curat, causae quaedam huius negligentiae indicantur, ad maiorem (...) animadversionem Scholasticae Barocae adhortatur.In Defense of Baroque ScholasticismUntil recently Francisco Suárez (1548–1617) has been regarded as the “last medieval philosopher,” representing the end of the philosophically respectful scholastic tradition going back to the Early Middle Ages. In fact, however, Suárez stood at the beginning, rather than at the end, of a distinguished scholastic culture, which should best be labeled “Baroque scholasticism,” and which flourished throughout the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. In this paper I offer some ideas on why the study of this philosophical culture has been so far neglected by the mainstream Anglo-American philosophical historiography and argue that more attention should be paid to it. (shrink)
149 JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY 34: ~ JANUARY 1996 theology and intellectual history. One should value the information it provides and the methodological lessons it has to teach but not rely too heavily on its presentation of philosophical issues and arguments. BONNIE KENT Columbia University Jorge J. E. Gracia, editor. Individuation in Scholasticism: The Later Middle Ages and the Counter-Reformation, r r5o-x65o. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1994. Pp. xiv + 619. Paper, $22.95. This impressive (...) volume focussing upon the problem of individuation in scholastic phi- losophy from the beginning of the thirteenth century up to the middle of the seven- teenth presents eighteen essays on individual medieval and Counter-Reformation think- ers written by some of the finest scholars in those periods. Four introductory chapters set forth the problem of individuation for the periods in question, explore the legacy of the early... (shrink)
This review-article examines Daniel Novotny’s new book on entia rationis in Baroque-Age scholasticism. Novotný’s presentation of Francisco Suárez’, Pedro Hurtado’s, Bartolomeo Mastri’s and Bonaventura Belluto’s as well as Juan Caramuel’s theories of beings of reason is discussed. Beyond Novotný’s results, it is pointed out 1) that Suárez’ theory of the causation of beings of reason is anticipated by his explanation of the relationship between formal and objective concepts, and 2) that the traditional division of distinctions of reason lies in (...) the background of some scholastic authors’ differentiation between entia rationis ratiocinatae and entia rationis ratiocinantis; this latter motif is echoed in German Enlightenment metaphysics. (shrink)
This paper from the dilemma of the modern super-g to re-read and judge the angle of the Chinese New Scholasticism. Western modern legislation based on human subjectivity, emphasizing human reason, and who constructed the appearance of culture. In which, with the appearance of the main building through rational, manipulation of power, domination of others and otherness, creating a solid all embarrassed, defects clusters. Neo-Confucian emphasis on human subjectivity and for the reconstruction of Chinese philosophy and laid a priori basis (...) for China's modernization, but ignoring the dimension of otherness, especially those who ignore the people he's the ultimate open. Contemporary Neo-Confucian philosophy as a subject, "benevolence" as the self-love and not to speak of ethics and practice, not easy to overcome the dilemma of modernity. By comparison, Catholic scholars of contemporary China, especially Chinese New Scholastic Philosophy, in the process of integration of Chinese culture, emphasizes the human spirit to live straight, but still trying to maintain the relationship of ultimate otherness. Although they used the interpretation of the Christian faith, not necessarily the history of Chinese philosophy, the image, but their efforts to point out that Chinese culture and Chinese philosophy about human nature has not of intrinsic dimension beyond, and to promote and practice of true humility has , Love and Love of ethics, is indeed precious. Philosophy they create, from the ontology, cosmology, human nature, ethics, training Jilun point of view, the plight of modern super-g. Due to space limitations, this article cite Yu Bin , Lo Kuang , Li Zhen three to illustrate their ideas into practice and how can the life of the plight of the modern super-g. This paper re-reads and re-assesses the development of 'Chinese Neo-Scholasticism in terms of its potential to overcome the malaise of modernity, which has been caused by the self-enclosure of human subjectivity, the culture of representations, impoverishment of human reason, and the tendency towards domination by the will to power that characterize Modernity. Different from it, Modern New Confucianism keeps itself to the self-enclosed human subjectivity, without the love for many others, with their strong discourse and weak praxis, and therefore still belongs to modernity and is unable to overcome its malaise. In comparison, Chinese Neo-Scholasticism, in its attempt of synthesis with Chinese philosophy, is open to God, to all things in the universe, to other people, and to love them in their life praxis, it does not allow the self-enclosure of human nature. Even it what they interpret is not necessarily the historical image of Chinese philosophy, their effort in keeping irreducible human nature's openness to God arid many others is very significant today. The philosophical system they build, containing diverse dimensions such as ontology, cosmology, theory of human nature, ethics, theory of self-cultivation, philosophy of culture and philosophy of education ... etc., and their actualization of 'their ideas in their life praxis, indeed offer a way of life and thinking that is capable of 'overcoming the malaise of modernity. This paper will take Cardinal Yu Bin, Archbishop Lo Kuang and Mgr. Gabriel Li, and their theories and life praxis as examples of analysis. (shrink)
We provide a taxonomy of the two most important debates in the philosophy of the cognitive and neural sciences. The first debate is over methodological individualism: is the object of the cognitive and neural sciences the brain, the whole animal, or the animal--environment system? The second is over explanatory style: should explanation in cognitive and neural science be reductionist-mechanistic, inter-level mechanistic, or dynamical? After setting out the debates, we discuss the ways in which they are interconnected. Finally, we make some (...) recommendations that we hope will help philosophers interested in the cognitive and neural sciences to avoid dead ends. (shrink)
In this groundbreaking book, Daniel D. Novotny explores one of the most controversial topics of Suarez's philosophy: "beings of reason." Beings of reason are impossible intentional objects, such as blindness and square-circle.