Abstract

This paper examines Ockham's development of the formal distinction, especially in contrast to Scotus's presentation of the formal distinction. The claim is that the major differences between the two presentations can be accounted for largely from the different uses to which Scotus and Ockhan employ the distinction. Whereas Scotus develops the distinction in an attempt to make comprehensible what appears to be incomprehensible (e.g. the Trinity), Ockham uses the distinction to establish the fundamental incomprehensibility of the same issues (e.g. the Trinity)