Suppositum between Logic and MetaphysicsSimon of Faversham and his Contemporaries(1270-1290)

Vivarium ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 51 (1-4) ◽  
pp. 205-229 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dafne Murè

Abstract This article is the result of research on the occurrences of the terms suppositio, supponere and their linguistic derivations in the literature on fallacies (comments on the Sophistical Refutations) of the second half of the thirteenth century. The authors analysed are Albert the Great, Giles of Rome, Simon of Faversham, the so-called Incerti Auctores (Anonymous C and SF), the Anonymous of Prague (P) and John Duns Scotus. The central elements that emerge are the role played by the notion of suppositum and by the linguistic context (adiuncta, determinatio) to determine the denotation of an expression, and the importance of the metaphysical problem of the unity and identity of suppositum in both the theory of predication and the theory of inference. Both subjects, obviously, are closely connected.

Author(s):  
Rega Wood

A thirteenth-century philosopher and theologian, Rufus was among the first Western medieval authors to study Aristotelian metaphysics, physics and epistemology; his lectures on Aristotle’s Physics are the earliest known surviving Western medieval commentary. In 1238, after writing treatises against Averroes and lecturing on Aristotle – at greatest length on the Metaphysics – he joined the Franciscan Order, left Paris and became a theologian. Rufus’ lectures on Peter Lombard’s Sentences were the first presented by an Oxford bachelor of theology. Greatly influenced by Robert Grosseteste, Rufus’ Oxford lectures were devoted in part to a refutation of Richard Fishacre, the Dominican master who first lectured on the Sentences at Oxford. Though much more sophisticated philosophically than Fishacre, Rufus defended the more exclusively biblical theology recommended by Grosseteste against Fishacre’s more modern scholasticism. Rufus’ Oxford lectures were employed as a source by Bonaventure, whose lectures on the Sentences were vastly influential. Returning to Paris shortly after Bonaventure lectured there, Rufus took Bonaventure’s lectures as a model for his own Parisian Sentences commentary. Rufus’ Paris lectures made him famous. According to his enemy Roger Bacon, when he returned to Oxford after 1256 as the Franciscan regent master, his influence increased steadily. It was at its height forty years later in the 1290s, when John Duns Scotus was a bachelor of theology. Early versions of many important positions developed by Duns Scotus can be found in Rufus’ works.


Vivarium ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 45 (2) ◽  
pp. 311-327 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. Jennifer Ashworth

AbstractI examine the treatment of metaphor by medieval logicians and how it stemmed from their reception of classical texts in logic, grammar, and rhetoric. I consider the relation of the word 'metaphor' to the notions of translatio and transumptio, and show that it is not always synonymous with these. I also show that in the context of commentaries on the Sophistical Refutations metaphor was subsumed under equivocation. In turn, it was linked with the notion of analogy not so much in the Greek sense of a similarity between two proportions or relations as in the new medieval sense of being said secundum prius et posterius. Whether or not analogy could be reduced to metaphor, or the reverse, depended on the controversial issue of the number of acts of imposition needed to produce an equivocal term. A spectrum of views is canvassed, including those found in the logic commentaries of John Duns Scotus.


Author(s):  
Steven P. Marrone

Perhaps the most influential theologian between Thomas Aquinas and Bonaventure in the third quarter of the thirteenth century and John Duns Scotus at the beginning of the fourteenth century, Henry of Ghent stands at a turning point in scholastic philosophy. He was a defender of traditional Neoplatonic positions and has often been seen as the epitome of thirteenth-century Augustinianism. Yet his convoluted metaphysics and a theory of knowledge weaving together Neoplatonic and Aristotelian strands inspired novel philosophical trends in the fourteenth century, particularly among Franciscan thinkers. His work thus constituted the point of departure for scholastic giants like Duns Scotus and William of Ockham, who not only used him as a foil against which to articulate their own system of thought but also absorbed much of his fundamental philosophical outlook and terminology. Characteristic of Henry’s metaphysics was an essentialism so pronounced that critics accused him of positing a realm of essences separate from worldly actuality. In his defence, Henry insisted that essences, though prior to actual existence, were separate only as grounded in the divine exemplars of things, but the Platonism of his approach struck his contemporaries as extraordinary nonetheless. Ironically, Henry’s understanding of essence as congruent with intellectual coherence provided an opening for a more logic-based analysis of modality, especially possibility, in succeeding thinkers such as Duns Scotus. The emphasis on essence re-emerged in Henry’s theory of knowledge, and at least in his early writings he offered a vision of knowing truth through divine illumination often taken as paradigmatic of medieval Augustinianism. Even his later attempts to cast epistemology in a more Aristotelian light retained the insistence that true knowledge somehow entails access to the exemplary essences in God’s mind. The same essentialism led Henry to formulate what he called an a priori proof for God’s existence, best approximation in the thirteenth century to Anselm’s ontological argument. Again, however, Henry’s Augustinianism provided an unintended springboard for innovation, leading to Duns Scotus’ theory of the univocity of being and metaphysical proof of God’s existence.


2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 209-233
Author(s):  
Vitaly L. Ivanov

The article is the first part of a study on the notion of the “intrinsic modus” of thing or reality in the metaphysics of the early Scotist tradition (first quarter of the 14th century). This part of the study analyses the circumstances of the first formulation of the notion of “modus intrinsecus” in the theological writings of John Duns Scotus and identifies two main (and one additional) contexts for Scotus’s explication of this concept, which will be important for the subsequent Scotistic tradition of meta[1]physics. The article then puts forward a hypothesis about a historical shift in the use of this concept based on an analysis of Scotus’s texts. Scotus initially introduces it solely for a theological explanation of the concept of “infinite being”, but later, in connection with his discussion of the reality of the concept of being, uses the concept of intrinsic mode as key to his own solution to the metaphysical problem of the “contraction” of the transcendental concept of being, which he thinks of as a particular “modification”. Finally, the article identifies the main structural elements in Scotus’s discussion of “intrinsic mode” and attempts to present the content of this concept by distinguishing between intrinsic mode and Scotus’s other related metaphysical concepts (quiddity, difference, property).


Author(s):  
John Llewelyn

The Early Mediaeval Scottish philosopher and theologian John Duns Scotus shook traditional doctrines of logical universality and logical particularity by arguing for a metaphysics of ‘formal distinction’. Why did the Nineteenth Century poet and self-styled philosopher Gerard Manley Hopkins find this revolutionary teaching so appealing? John Llewelyn answers this question by casting light on various neologisms introduced by Hopkins and reveals how Hopkins endorses Scotus’s claim that being and existence are grounded in doing and willing. Drawing on modern respon ses to Scotus made by Heidegger, Peirce, Arendt, Leibniz, Hume, Reid, Derrida and Deleuze, Llewelyn’s own response shows by way of bonus why it would be a pity to suppose that the rewards of reading Scotus and Hopkins are available only to those who share their theological presuppositions


Author(s):  
Thomas M. Izbicki ◽  
Russell L. Friedman ◽  
R. W. Dyson ◽  
Vilém Herold ◽  
Ota Pavlíček ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document