While knowledge of mere possibilities is difficult to understand, knowledge of possibilities that are actual seems unproblematic (as far as we know the actual world). The principle that what is actual is possible has been near-universally accepted. After summarizing some sporadic dissent, I present a proposal for how the validity of the principle might be restricted. While the principle certainly holds for sufficiently inclusive objective and epistemic possibilities, it may not hold when the accessibility of possibilities is contextually restricted.

The study is aimed at clarifying Meister Eckhart's theory of relations, which involves all fields of his philosophy: gnoseological, theological, ontological. Its general features (concerning the ontological status of relations and relatives, the nature of the fundamentum relationis, and the origin ab altero proper to the relation) seem to denote a realist position, in opposition to the Nominalism. Yet, when he applies the theory to particular problems, it is evident that his position cannot be simply qualified as a realist one. (...) In Eckhart's view, the objectivity of knowledge is not guaranteed by the correspondence between the extra-mental entities and their images in the mind, but by the close relationship between the subject and the object of knowledge. This same dynamic relationship (a sort of inclusion) holds between the Father and the Son and between God and the creatures: the Son is the image of the Father, who is inside him, like the creature is the image of God, who is the inner ontological foundation of the creature. (shrink)

Among the various questions on different subjects attributed to Albert the Great, and presumably disputed in Paris around the middle of the 13th century, we find one – handed down mainly under the title De quiditate et esse – dedicated to the presentation of some fundamental notions of metaphysics. This particular question deserves attention insofar as it represents a significant moment in the geneaology of the distinction between the notions of res a ratitudine and res a reor reris. A (...) final remark concerns the possible connection between Albert the Great and Henry of Ghent with respect to the transcendental primacy of res and the attempt not to reduce the consideration of metaphysics to actual being alone. (shrink)

Les éditions des Meditationes parues du vivant de Descartes ont imprimé chaque Meditatio d’un seul tenant, sans mettre périodiquement le texte « à la ligne » pour sa lecture en paragraphes, c’est-à-dire en unités de sens prédivisées. Cet article montre, en prenant pour exemple la page la plus célèbre des Meditationes, à quel point la décision typographique de diviser le texte des Meditationes en alinéas a pu déterminer les lectures qui en ont été faites, et par conséquent les interprétations du (...) raisonnement cartésien, au point de l’avoir souvent faussé.Nelle edizioni delle Meditationes pubblicate Descartes vivente, il testo di ogni singola Meditatio è stato stampato tutto di seguito, senza andare periodicamente a capo per una lettura in paragrafi, ovvero in unità di senso pre-stabilite. Il presente articolo dimostra, prendendo ad esempio la pagina più celebre delle Meditationes, fino a che punto la decisione tipografica di suddividere il testo delle Meditationes in capoversi abbia potuto determinare le letture che ne sono state date e, conseguentemente, le interpretazioni che sono state date anche del ragionamento cartesiano, spesso « falsificandolo ». (shrink)

Ubi Varro de uilla rustica facienda agit, de culina haec monet: in primis culina uidenda ut sit admota, quod ibi hieme antelucanis temponbus aliquot res conficiuntur, cibus paratur ac capitur. Hunc locum legentes sponte nosmet ipsos rogamus, quid sibi uelit illud admota. ‘Prope cellam uilici,’ inquit Keilius , de qua paulo ante sermo est: uilici proximum ianuam cellam esse oportet eumque scire, qui introeat aut exeat noctu quidue ferat, praesertim si ostianus eat nemo. Sed si locum ita interpretamur, quomodo (...) intellegenda est sententia, quae sequitur, causalis: quod ibi hieme cet. ? Num uilicus in cella iacens uel sedens moderari debebat opera, quae mane in culina fiebant ? An idcirco culinam proximam cellae uilici esse oportebat, ut inter utramque paruum spatium interesset, si uilicus ab altera ad alteram commeare uellet ? Et hoc et illud uix credibile est Varronem significare uoluisse. (shrink)

VBI Varro de uilla rustica facienda agit, de culina haec monet: in primisculina uidenda ut sit admota, quod ibi hieme antelucanis temporibus aliquot res conficiuntur, cibus paratur ac capitur. Hunc locum legentes sponte nosmet ipsos rogamus, quid sibi uelit illud admota. ‘Prope cellam uilici,’ inquit Keilius , de qua paulo ante sermo est: uilici proximum ianuam cellam esse oportet eumque scire, qui introeat aut exeat noctu quidue ferat, praesertim si ostiarius est nemo. Sed si locum ita interpretamur, quomodo intellegenda (...) est sententia, quae sequitur, causalis: quod ibi hieme cet.? Num uilicus in cella iacens uel sedens moderari debebat opera, quae mane in culina fiebant ? An idcirco culinam proximam cellae uilici esse oportebat, ut inter utramque paruum spatium interesset, si uilicus ab altera ad alteram commeare uellet? Et hoc et illud uix credibile est Varronem significare uoluisse. Accedit, quod in uilla rustica culina non prope ianuam est, sed in parte interiore cohortis, quemadmodum docent fundamenta aperta uillae rusticae Pompeianae , et probatur uerbis Vitruuii , qui ita praecipit: ‘in corte culina quam calidissimo loco designetur.’ Quae cum ita se habeat, apud Varronem legendum esse puto: in primis culina uidenda ut sit admota, h.e.ad meridiem spectans . Nam si ita legimus, neque admota suo caret datiuo,1 et perspicuum fit, quid sententia causalis quod ibi hieme cet. sibi uelit. Diligenti enim domino ‘prouidendum’ est, ‘familia ubi uersetur, si fessi opere aut frigore aut calore, ubi commodissime possint se quiete reciperare’ . Talis dominus etiam curabit, ut ‘hieme antelucanis temporibus’ serui ‘aliquot res conficere et cibum parare et capere’ possint loco calidissimo uillae , sed situe hie locus longe an prope a cella uilici, nihil ad rem pertinet. (shrink)

Considerando que o cogito possa ser tomado, nas Meditações, como uma conclusão de uma demonstração, pode-se avançar a tese de que essa demonstração está consoante ao método analítico, que Descartes reconhece empreender nesse texto. Esse método teria entre as suas funções nas Meditações aquela de apresentar – sob a forma de uma rede de implicações ontológicas – o raciocínio que conduz à certeza da existência. Como cumpre no referido texto determinar a certeza da existência sem tomar como base nenhuma (...) certeza preestabelecida, o método analítico financiaria, segundo a nossa interpretação, uma reconstrução do argumento do cogito sob uma base indireta, mais precisamente através de uma reductio ad absurdum, cujo objetivo consiste em mostrar a contradição inelutável que surge na tentativa de um indivíduo de provar a sua não existência. (shrink)

L’Epistola ad V. C. de Henry More ( Epistola H. Mori ad V.C. quae Apologiam complectitur pro Cartesio, quaeque introductionis loco esse poterit ad universam philosophiam cartesianam ), publiée plusieurs fois du vivant de More, a toujours été lue, par les commentateurs, essentiellement comme une étape, tout à fait centrale, dans l’histoire des relations de More à Descartes. C’est une thèse interprétative que je partage, mais à laquelle je voudrais essayer d’ajouter une perspective de lecture. Je voudrais montrer que (...) l’Epistola, si elle est considérée dans toutes les étapes de son histoire éditoriale, peut être lue, davantage que comme une étape, quoique capitale, comme un condensé de l’histoire du changement d’attitude de More par rapport à Descartes. En effet, l’histoire des péripéties éditoriales qui la caractérisent reproduit à petite échelle l’histoire complexe du rapport de More à la philosophie cartésienne et, en même temps, permet de mieux l’éclairer. (shrink)

This volume is a tribute to Fr. John F. Wippel. Following the philosophical order that Aquinas might have adopted "had he chosen to write a Summa metaphysicae"—an order that Wippel himself lays out in his Metaphysical Thought of Thomas Aquinas—these essays unfold new research on some of the most intriguing topics in Aquinas’s metaphysics, from the most recent generation of scholars formed by Wippel’s pioneering work. -/- The contributors address the discovery of being qua being via separation (Gregory T. Doolan), (...) propter quid metaphysical demonstrations (Philip Neri Reese), the origins of the controversies about the real distinction between essence and esse (Mark Gossiaux), a defense of essence-realism as a key to the real distinction (David Twetten), the relationship of likeness and agency (Therese Scarpelli Cory), created form as act and potency (Stephen Brock), the variation of accidental forms (Gloria Frost), the possibility of angelic judgment (Francis Feingold), argumentation for the existence of God (Gaven Kerr), the propriety of " Qui Est" as a Divine Name (Brian Carl), ‘Beauty’ as a Divine Name (Michael Rubin), and God’s application of creaturely powers to action (Jason Mitchell). (shrink)

O presente artigo pretende esboçar um paralelo entre duas obras da filosofia política: o opúsculo inacabado “Do reino ou do governo dos príncipes ao Rei de Chipre” de São Tomás de Aquino, e o conhecido “O Príncipe” de Nicolau Maquiavel. O cotejo dos textos permite aproximações diretas entre dois momentos filosóficos distantes através da temática similar, pelo tratamento filosófico da tradição clássica, e pela sutileza do argumento que relaciona o bem comum com o privado, nas relações políticas. A análise divide-se (...) em duas partes temáticas: a definição de governante, e, as características de seu ofício. Em Tomás, articula-se a influência da política aristotélica com o modo como a finalidade privada do governante se estabelece numa hierarquia dos fins, justificadora do governo e direcionada ao bem comum. Em Maquiavel se observa uma recepção diferente do pensamento antigo, ligado à retórica romana, e uma hierarquia própria dos fins, que se direciona, de modo semelhante ao tomasiano, para o bem comum, mas com um tratamento diferente quanto a como esse bem público se relaciona com o bem privado, tanto do governante, quanto do povo que lhe é sujeito. Desta comparação conclui-se por uma necessidade de estabelecer a complexidade da filosofia política na passagem da idade média para o renascimento que afaste a ideia de uma ruptura total, e permita entender como a idade moderna partilha, em continuidade, elementos medievais e os desenvolve muito mais do que os abandona. (shrink)

In The Untamed God (2003), Jay Wesley Richards defends what he calls “theological essentialism,” which affirms God’s essential perfections but also recognizes contingent properties in God. This idea places Richards’s view in the vicinity of Charles Hartshorne’s dipolar theism. However, Richards argues that Hartshorne’s modal theory suffers from the defects that it abandons the principle ab esse ad posse, makes nonsense of our counter-factual discourse, and can only be expressed by C. I. Lewis’s S4, although for certain purposes Hartshorne (...) needs the stronger S5. Richards, however, fails to realize that Hartshorne’s theory involves two concepts of necessity—necessity as what is common to every possible world-state and necessity as it pertains to the unalterability of the past. While questions remain about Hartshorne’s theory, Richards’s arguments against it are unsuccessful. Most importantly, Richards uncritically accepts the concept of possible worlds as a basis for his critique, but Hartshorne’s arguments cast doubt on the coherence of this idea. Possible worlds provide anything but a firm foundation on which to make sense of either theological essentialism or Hartshorne’s panentheistic dipolar theism. (shrink)

How do things come to stand for something other than themselves? An understanding of the ontology of relations allows for a compelling account of the action of signs. The Primacy of Semiosis is concerned with the ontology of relations and semiosis, the action of signs. Drawing upon the work of Gilles Deleuze, John Deely, and John Poinsot, Paul Bains focuses on the claim that relations are 'external' to their terms, and seeks to give an ontological account of this purported externality (...) of relations. Bains develops the proposition, first made in 1632 by John Poinsot (John of St. Thomas), that, ontologically, signs are relations whose whole being is in esse ad ('being-toward'). Furthermore, relations are found to be univocal in their being as relations. This univocity of being is antecedent to the division between 'ens rationis' and 'ens reale'. The ontology of relations Bains presents is thus neither mind-dependent nor mind-independent insofar as the rationale of the relation is concerned. The book includes chapters on Deleuze and Deely on relations, Jacob von Uexkull and Heidegger on Umwelten (self-worlds), Maturana and Varela on Autopoiesis. It provides a form of vicarious causality, by way of the scholastic doctrine of the 'species', that complements the emerging school of 'object oriented ontology'. The Primacy of Semiosis provides a semiotic that subverts the opposition between realism and idealism; one in which what have been called 'nature' and 'culture' interpenetrate in an expanding collective of human and non-human. Bains' work promises to be a touchstone for semiotic discussion for years to come. (shrink)

Grundlagenfragen wissenschaftlicher Theorien zählen zu den "nicht leicht" beantwortbaren Problemen, bietet doch bereits ihre Formulierung ein Feld des Disputes, und gelangen erst recht die Lösungsvorschläge nur selten in den Rang generell akzeptierter Annahmen. Natürlich gibt es verschiedene Gründe und Gründe verschiedenen Gewichtes, warum Philosophen und Physiker gemeinsam versuchen, bestimmte Fragen zu behandeln. Und es ist nur zu bekannt, daß einige solcher Fragen eher von Physikern und einige eher von Philosophen gestellt werden, ohne daß man sich auf diesem Gebiet über klare (...) Grenzen des wissenschaftlichen Kosmos einig wäre. Aber sicherlich werden einige Probleme von beiden "Seiten" aufgeworfen und dies nicht zuletzt und bisweilen in der Hoffnung, sie auch vereint am ehesten einer Lösung näher bringen zu können. Ob solche Hoffnung rational berechtigt ist, mag hier nicht untersucht werden. Obiichermaßen wird die Meinung akzeptiert, daß theoretische Probleme selbst auf metatheoretischer Ebene analysiert werden. Aber seit gewisse Elemente der kanoni schen Auffassung empirisch-wissenschaftlicher Theorien in zunehmendem Maße be zweifelt werden und entsprechend dem Prinzip 'ab esse ad posse valet iIIatio' auch be zweifelt werden 'können', fragt es sich, ob eine Charakterisierung des Verhältnisses von Theorie und Metatheorie angemessen ist, die den Objektbereich durch das Zweisprachen modell empirisch-theoretischer Begriffe abbildbar annimmt. Durch dieses Modell - ganz unabhängig von seinen verschiedenen Ausformungen und Deutungen - sollte ja der seman tische Bezug des Geltungsanspruches erfahrungswissenschaftlicher Theorien gesichert und transparent gemacht werden, der für die erklärten Hauptziele der Theorienbildun- nämlich Voraussage und Erklärung von Ereignissen - bedeutsam ist. (shrink)

The purpose of this article is to compare the Thomist and the Scotist theory of relations. The main feature of the Thomist theory is an effort to minimize the ontological import of the specific essential ratio of relation as such, called esse ad, and to reduce the ontological import of its other aspect, the esse in or inherence understood as a common feature of all accidents, to the esse in of its foundation. The Scotists, on the other (...) hand, have no tendency to deflate the esse ad of a relation. Moreover, according to Malafossa of Barge’s theory (adopted by B. Mastri and B. Belluto), a relation involves two different instances of esse in. The one, called esse in velut in subiecto, is that generic inherence common to all accidents (which, therefore, does not occur in the substantial relations of divine persons). The other, esse in velut in fundamento, belongs specifically to relation as such and reflects the fact that very relation, even a substantial one, is not only a relation towards something, but necessarily also a relation of something towards something else. In spite of the fact, therefore, that the Thomist and Scotist doctrines are usually grouped together as mere subvariants of anti-reductive realism, they must be regarded as substantially different. (shrink)

Construing miracles as “violations,” I argue that a law of nature must specify some kind of possibility. But we must have here a sense of possibility for which the ancient rule of logic---ab esse ad posse valet consequentia---does not hold. We already have one example associated with the concept of statute law, a law which specifies what is legally possible but which is not destroyed by a violation. If laws of nature are construed as specifying some analogous sense of (...) what is naturally possible, then they need not be invalidated by a (rare) violation, and Humean miracles remain a genuine possibility. (shrink)

Construing miracles as \textquotedblleft{}violations,\textquotedblright I argue that a law of nature must specify some kind of possibility. But we must have here a sense of possibility for which the ancient rule of logic---ab esse ad posse valet consequentia---does not hold. We already have one example associated with the concept of statute law, a law which specifies what is legally possible but which is not destroyed by a violation. If laws of nature are construed as specifying some analogous sense of (...) what is naturally possible, then they need not be invalidated by a (rare) violation, and Humean miracles remain a genuine possibility. (shrink)

L'articolo mette in evidenza le convergenze e differenze tra religione, pensiero moderno e postmoderno. Tutti i tre appartengono alle culture e le loro storie sociali, però questa convergenza non garantisce l'indentificazione delle loro prospettive. La religione si consente di fare affermazioni di relazione non razionabile, al di là delle condizioni sociali e culturali. Il pensiero, lo stesso se postmoderno, è invece d'ordine ideologico e autoreferenziale, inseparabile di concetti organizzati in una cultura particolare. La postmodernità, che intende liberarsi della prepotenza della (...) razionalità moderna, potrebbe fornire un orizzonte di pensiero la cui appertura sembra stabilire un'alleanza con la religione. Ma alla fine si mostra insufficiente. Il postmoderno rimane ancora in una concezione sull'individuo nell'ambito dell'emozione di un esse in, un piano radicalmente distinto dell'esperienza religiosa autentica che ha la sua origine nell'interiorità personale, nell'affettività di un esse ad. Palavras-chave: Religione, ragione, pensiero postmoderno, modernità, cultura Resumo O artigo coloca em evidência as convergências e diferenças entre religião, pensamento moderno e pós-moderno. Todos eles pertencem às culturas e suas histórias sociais, porém tal convergência não garante a identificação de suas perspectivas. A religião se consente em fazer afirmações de relação não racional, para além das condições sociais e culturais. O pensamento, mesmo o pós-moderno, é, por sua vez, de ordem ideológica e autoreferencial, inseparável de conceitos organizados numa cultura particular. A pós-modernidade, que tem a intenção de se libertar da prepotência da racionalidade moderna, poderia oferecer um horizonte de pensamento cuja abertura parece estabelecer uma aliança com a religião. Mas, afinal de contas, se mostra insuficiente. O pós-moderno permanece ainda em uma concepção sobre o indivíduo no âmbito da emoção de um esse in, em um plano radicalmente distinto da experiência religiosa autêntica, que tem sua origem na interioridade pessoal, na afetividade de um esse ad. Palavras-chave: Religião, razão, pensamento pós-moderno, modernidade, culturaThe present article highlights the similarities and differences among religion, modern and postmodern thought. They all belong to cultures and their social histories, but such convergence does not guarantee the identification of their perspectives. Religion has consented in making irrational statements, beyond social and cultural conditions. The thought, even the postmodern one should be comprehended in its ideological and self-referential bias, and not separated from the concepts organized in a particular culture. Post-modernity, which has the intention to release itself from the tyranny of modern rationality, could offer an open horizon of though in order to establish an alliance with religion. But, after all, it has not worked. Postmodernism is still based in a conception of the individual under the emotion of the so called esse in, within a plan which is totally distinct of genuine religious experience, which has its origin in the inner personal emotion of the so called esse ad. Key words: Religion, reason, postmodern thought, modernity, culture. (shrink)

Journal Name: Semiotica Issue: Ahead of print.

The simplest axioms, formulated by medieval scholastics as rules of inference between potency and act, are also axioms concerning causality as they express some potency-act relations. These are: Ab esse ad posse valet illatio. A non posse ad non esse valet illatio. A posse ad esse non valet illatio. A non esse ad non posse non valet illatio. The project on formulating axioms of efficient causality by means of the prepositional variables calculus does not mean of (...) course that we try to create a complete theory of causality. We will, for the moment show that the quantification of the concepts „potency-act" by means of the concepts „set-element" or „parameter-specific numerical value" is very useful. We will also point out, intuitively, as an experiment, the logical operators which are linked very closely with such concepts as implication, potentiality, act, set, specific numeric value. (shrink)

This book studies seven medieval philosophers' theories of relation. It shows how each thinker's theory of relations reflects and is consistent with his overall metaphysics. The introduction locates the sources of medieval interest in relations in Aristotle and in Augustine's Trinitarian theology. Henninger summarizes the Aristotelian subject-predicate analysis of relation and its difficulties, and contrasts it with nineteenth-century developments. At the beginning of the period covered, a relation was seen as an accident inhering in a term on account of a (...) foundation in the term. For example, given two white things, there are two relations of similarity founded in the whiteness of each. A relation has the unique property of esse ad, "being towards" another. (shrink)

Horatii Epistula ad Pisones quae inde a Quintiliani temporibus Ars poetica appellari solet duobus e generibus composita esse videtur: nonnulla sunt illius formae carminum peculiaria qua praecepta traduntur; alia naturam epistularum versibus confectarum reddunt quam poeta senescens creavit. Hac de re homines docti consentiunt, at etiam nunc ambigitur, quatenus Epistula ad Pisones a poeta in formam carminis praecepta continentis redacta sit. Novissimae disputationes (a Brink et a Becker conscriptae) Horatii Epistulae illius carminis compositionem inesse demostrare volunt. Sed huius commentationis (...) auctor Horatii Epistulam cum Vergilii Georgicis comparat, ut Horatii et Vergilii opera pauca admodum communia habere ostendat -multum afuit, ut Horatius in Epistula ad Pisones praeceptoris personem induere voluerit. Tamen Epistula multa variaque dogmata complectitur: caput ultimum originem fontesque eorum explanare conatur. (shrink)

NOTA PRELIMINAR: o texto a seguir representa a versão ampliada (e corrigida conforme as indicações dos pareceristas) do artigo homônimo, publicado na revista Archai em 2014. Por algum problema técnico, acabou sendo publicada, na época, a primeira versão, sem as melhorias sugeridas pelos avaliadores. Eis, então, a versão ‘definitiva’ do artigo “Zenão e a impossibilidade da analogia”: -/- A reductio ad absurdum foi elevada por Zenão de Eléia a único método que permitiria vislumbrar a verdadeira realidade, invisível tanto aos sentidos (...) quanto à maneira de pensar comum. Mostrando uma certa continuidade com os filósofos anteriores, não só na busca de um procedimento para que a especulação pudesse avançar, como também na mesma rota de afastamento daquilo que é mais próximo, conhecido e particular (visível) em direção àquilo que é menos conhecido, distante e universal (invisível), para dizê-lo em termos aristotélicos, Zenão utilizou-se de argumentos aporéticos como único caminho possível para poder entrever o ‘reino do Ser’. Esse, com efeito, é invisível não somente aos nossos sentidos, como também ao nosso raciocínio ordinário. Eis que somente a ‘via do não-ser’, a única que poderia ser trilhada após Parménides, como diz Wolff, nos permite ter uma ideia, por quanto vaga, daquilo que é ‘verdadeiramente invisível’. Tão invisível ao ponto de ser inalcançável até mesmo pelo pensamento. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Objective Reality of Ideas in Descartes, Caterus, and Su irez NORMAN j. WELLS IT HAS LONG BEEN ACKNOWLEDGEDthat Francisco Sufirez's distinction between a formal and an objective concept exercised some influence upon Descartes's teaching on 'idea'.' It would appear, however, that not enough attention has been given to that distinction of Sufirez (and especially to another to be mentioned shordy) to aid in dispelling what I take to be (...) a widespread confusion and misunderstanding with regard to 'idea' in Descartes, especially with respect to 'idea' taken 'objectively'. Much, if not all, of the confusion in question has to do with Descartes's admittedly equivocal use of the term 'idea'. For he had allowed that 'idea' could be taken 'materially' (materialiter), on the one hand, for the knowing activity of the intellect. On the other hand, it could be taken 'objectively' (objective) for the thing (res) represented by that knowing activity.' At this point, the contemporary reader can only be brought up short, See E. Gilson, Index scolastico-cart~sien (New York: Burt Franklin Reprint, 1912), 48-49; Discours de la m~thode: Texte et commentazre (Paris: J. Vrin, 1947), 321; G. Rodis-Lewisin her edition of Meditationes de Prima PhRosoph.m (Paris: J. Vrin, 1953), 41 n. 1; L'oeuure de Descartes (Paris: J. Vrin, 1971), 53~ n. 8; J. Collins, Modern European Philosophy (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1954), 165;T.J. Cronin, S.J., Objecttve Being m Descartes and SuArez (Rome: Gregorian University Press, 1966); "Objective Reality of Ideas in Human Thought: Descartes and Su~rez," Wisdom in Depth: Essays in Honor of Henri Renard, SJ., eds. V. F. Daues, S.J., M. R. Holloway, S.J., L. Sweeney, S.J. (Milwaukee : Bruce, 1966), 68-79; L. Gilen, S.J., "Uber die Beziehungen Descartes zur zeitgenossischen Scholastik," Scholastik 32 (1957): 41-66; R. Dalbiez, "Les sources scolastiques de la th~orie cart6sienne de l'&re objectif," Revue d'histoire de la philosophic 3 (1929): 464-72;J. Owens, C.S.S.R., in The Cambridge HtstoU of Later Medu,val Philosophy, eds. N. Kretzmann, A. Kenny, J. Pinborg (Cambridge University Press, 1982), 459; G. Nuchelmans,Judgment and Propositwnfrom Descartesto Kant (Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Co., 1983), 36-54. " Oeuvres de Descartes, ed. C. Adam et P. Tannery, 11 vols. (Paris: J. Vrin, 1897-19o9; hereafter cited according to volume, page and line), Praefatio ad Lectorem, 7: 8. 19-251 "Sed respondeo hic subesse aequivocationem in voce ideae: sumi enim potest vel materialiter, pro operatione intellectus, quo sensu me perfectior dici nequit, vel objective, pro re per istam operationem repraesentata, quae res, etsi non supponatur extra intellectum existere, potest tamen me esse perfectior ratione suae essentiae." It is clear that two realities are to be causally accounted for. The [33] 34 JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY 28"1 JANUARY 1990 conditioned as we are by an appreciation of 'objectivity' altogether extramental! It makes for a considerable wrench of perspective to do justice to Descartes's acknowledged doctrine of intramental objectivity and an intramental 'thing represented' (resrepraesentata). 'Idea', then, in traditional Cartesian fashion, designates the act of representing as well as the 'thing represented '. S Yet, for all this, and despite repeated expressions of the same doctrine, there is a persistent tendency in the history of Cartesianism and its scholarship to interpret 'idea' taken 'objectively' as in some way representative. Contrary to what I take to be Descartes's constant position, such a rendering unwittingly transfers that function which is proper to the cognitive activity, mind is the efficient cause of its cognitive activity. With respect to ideas taken 'objectively', such as the ideas of God and the triangle on the levels of metaphysical and mathematical intelligibility, an efficient cause, extrinsic to the mind, is certainly at issue. For here we are in the presence of what is independent of the mind, however intramental it may be. On the triangle, see Medit. 5; 7: 64. ]4s7 : "...est tamen profecto determinata quaedam ejus natura, sire essentia, sive forma, immutabUis et aeterna, quae a me non efficta est, nec a mente mea dependet." For the idea of God, see Medit. 5; 7: 68. l o-12: "Nam sane multis modis inteUigo illam [ideam... (shrink)

The purpose of this note is to banish for ever from our histories of Roman literature the term elocutio nouella as a description of the style preached and practised by Cornelius Fronto. Commenting on a speech recently delivered by the Emperor Marcus, Fronto declares : Pleraque in oratione recenti tua, quod ad sententias attinet, animaduerto egregia esse; pauca admodum uno tenus uerbo corrigenda; non nihil interdum elocutione nouella parum signatum. The standard interpretation of the last clause is that given (...) by Haines : ‘some parts here and there were not sufficiently marked with novelty of expression’. It is my contention that it means: ‘some parts here and there were insufficiently clear through new-fangled diction’. (shrink)

In his discussion of Virgilian imitations of Lucretian phraseology Cyril Bailey examines the phenomenon of what he terms the ‘doublet’, that is, the procedure whereby Virgil imitates separate elements of a Lucretian phrase at different points in his own work. Take, for example, De Rerum Natura 1. 210–12: esse videlicet in terris primordia rerum, quae nos fecundas vertentes vomere glebas terraique solum subigentes cimus ad ortus.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:80 HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY Gilson often contrasts the God of Aquinas, who is esse, with the God of Augustine, who is essentia. This difference in terminology is taken as emphasizing the essentialist character of Augustine's thought. However, Professor Anderson maintains that essentia should not be regarded as equivalent to the Thomistic notion of essence. F,ssentia is derived, according to Augustine, from esse and is most equivalent to (...) the Thomistic ens. Hence, according to Anderson, Augustine was not ignoring or slighting the factor of existence when he referred to God as essentia. Once again, Anderson's point is valid only if we grant that esse meant "to exisff' for Augustine and could not be interpreted as meaning "to be unchangeable." That there is any doubt that esse meant "to exist" for Augustine seems to be ruled out by Anderson (p. 40). One of Anderson's most interesting theses is the suggestion that the Augustinian distinction between being and non-being is substantially the same as the Thomistie distinction between essence and existence. For Augustine God alone is esse itself, while all creatures are limited by non-esse, i.e., they share in both esse and non-esse. Similarly, for Aquinas only God is esse itself, while all creatures merely possess esse. It is evident that for both philosophers the distinction between what is esse itself and what is not csse itself provides an important way of distinguishing between God and creatures. How much more alike the two distinctions are will depend on how the notion of esse is interpreted by Augustine and Aquinas. One problem is bound to arise: If for Aquinas the "proportionality" of being is to be found in the relationship between esse and essentia in ens, while for Augustine essentia ---- ens, then either Augustine does not have a Thomistic notion of the analogy of being or it must be shown what Augustine 's equivalent for the Thomistic essentia would be. Non-being does not seem adequate for such a role. A good portion of Professor Anderson's essay is devoted to discussing Augustinian metaphysics precisely in the areas in which Gilson claims that Augustine's essentialism creates problems for Augustine the Christian. These include the problems of proving the existence of God, creation and the nature of participation. It is pointed out that many of Augustine's remarks which have frequently been supposed to be of Neoplatonic inspiration are in fact based upon Scripture as far as the Saint is concerned. Although I find some portions of his essay obscure, on the whole I should say that Professor Anderson's study is quite exciting and a considerable challenge to those who are tempted to draw striking contrasts between the "essentialism" of Augustine and the "existentialism" of Aquinas. BRUCE GARSIDE McGiU University Eight Philosophers o] the Italian Renaissance. By Paul Oskar Kristeller. (Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1964.Pp. ix -~ 194.$5.00.) The eight chapters constituting the main body of this volume, devoted in succession to Petrarch, Valla, Ficino, Pieo, Pomponazzi, Telesio, Patrizi, and Bruno, are based on the Arensberg Lectures which were delivered by Professor Kristeller in 1961 at Stanford University. Footnotes and bibliographical references have been added, and as an appendix there is included an essay on "The Medieval Antecedents of Renaissance Humanism" which, though delivered as a lecture on several occasions, is here printed for the first time. The purpose of the series of eight lectures, as Kristeller indicates in his short preface, was "to give a brief survey of Italian thought during the Renaissance period". The aspects of Italian Renaissance thought, represented by the authors selected for discussion, are those traditionally described as humanism, Florentine Platonism, Paduan Aristotelianism, and speculative philosophies of nature. As representatives of the humanist movement Petrarch and Valla are selected, not merely because of their prominence but in order to make clear that Renaissance humanism cannot be identified with preference for a particular philosophical tradition. Petrarch preferred Plato to Aristotle, Augustine to Aquinas, and Cicero and Seneca to the Epicureans, whereas Valla preferred the Epicurean philosophy to that of the Stoics or Platonists, and appealed to Quintilian more than to Cicero in his proposals for a reform of... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:AQUINAS ON THE PRELIMINARY GRASP OF BEING I IN NUMEROUS PASSAGES, which are to be found scattered throughout his works, Aquinas repeatedly insists that that which is first apprehended or conceived by the intellect is being (ens).1 But from these statements an initial problem immediately arises. When Aquinas affirms that being is that which is first apprehended or conceived by the intellect is he talking about a priority which (...) concerns the logical order or the psychological order? I shall first of all explain what I mean by these two expressions. By the " logical order " I intend to refer to the order of priority and posteriority which holds between different concepts on the basis of the relations of necessary inclusion and exclusion that hold between the contents of these concepts: between the rationcs that these concepts express. Certain concepts contain as a necessary part of their content the contents of other concepts which therefore need to be understood before they themselves can be understood: these other concepts which precede them in this manner are prior to them in the logical order.2 1 See In I Sent., d. 8, q. 1, a. 3 c. and ad 3; In I Sent., d. 19, q. 5, a. 1, ad 2 and ad ult.; De Ver., q. 1, a. l; De Pot., q. 9, a. 7, ad 15; S.T., Ia, q. 5, a. 2; S.T., q. 16, a. 4, ad 2; S.T., Ia-Hae, q. 55, a. 4, ad 1; S.T., Ia-Hae, q. 92, a. 2; In I Met., 1. 2, n. 46; In IV Met., 1. 3, n. 566; In IV Met., 1. 6, n. 605; In X Met., 1. 4, n. 1998; In XI Met., I. 5, n. 2211; Sup. De Causis, Pr. VI, I. 6, n. 174. 2 "Dupliciter enim dicitur aliquid non possit intelligi sine altero. Aut ita quod non possit intelligi si non ponatur alterum esse... Sive ita quod quandocumque intelligitur unum, intelligitur alterum, sicut quicumque intelligit hominem intelligit animal. Et hoc modo "esse" potest intelligi sine vero, sed non e converso: quia verum non est in ratione entis, sed ens in ratione veri... sed numquam potest intelligi intelligibile, secundum hanc rationem, nisi intelligatur ens. Unde etiam patet quod ens est prima conceptio intellectus." In I Sent., d. 19, q. 5, a. 1, ad 2., 555 556 MICHAEL TAVUZZI, O.P. By the " psychological order " I do not intend to refer to the order of the temporal genesis within individual consciousnesses of particular concepts-as it might be studied, for example, by the developmental psychologist. This is a purely empirical matter and one which might well vary greatly from individual to individual. As such, I do not consider this perspective, whilst of great interest in itself,3 to be of direct relevance to the present consideration. Rather, by the "psychological order " I intend to refer to the order of priority and posteriority which necessarily holds between the various intentional conditions of possibility which must be realized if an act of understanding or intellectual cognition, considered in general, is to be carried out at all. If we now return to the initial problem its import will be immediately evident. After all, Aquinas would hardly identify the logical and the psychological orders, as I have characteried them, and what holds a certain position in one order might well turn out to hold a wholly different position in the other. Nevertheless, as will be seen in the course of this discussion, it seems that for Aquinas being is that which must be attained first in both the logical order and the psychological order. It must be noticed, though, that this primacy or priority which is attributed by Aquinas to our attainment of being in both the logical order and the psychological order only rarely seems to be discussed by him within the one and the same context. Each context where Aquinas affirms that being is that which is first attained by the intellect needs to be considered separately and to be closely scrutinized if one is to arrive at a correct determination of whether the cognitional priority of being which is affirmed in that particular context... (shrink)

In the passage about the flax plant, lini natura et miracula at the beginning of Book 19 of his Naturalis historia, Pliny launches into a moralizing diatribe on man's assault against Nature, fulminating against the evils which man brings upon himself by taking to the high seas in ships with sails. The passage culminates in the rhetorical outburst audax uita, scelerumque plena, which serves as something of a moral aphorism for the jeremiad as a whole. Although it has been the (...) subject of much discussion in Plinian scholarship, the text still remains in need of attention : audax uita, scelerumque plena! aliquid seri, ut uentos procellasque capiat, 5. et parum esse fluctibus solis uehi, iam uero nec uela satis esse maiora nauigiis, sed, cum uix amplitudini antemnarum singulae arbores sufficiant, super eas tamen addi alia uela, praeterque alia in proris et alia in puppibus pandi, ac tot modis prouocari mortem, denique tam paruo semine nasci quod orbem terrarum ultro citro portet, tam gracili auena, tam non alte a tellure tolli, neque id uiribus suis necti, sed fractum tunsumque et in mollitiem lanae coactum iniuria ad summam audaciam peruenire! (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:AQUINAS'S FOURTH WAY AND THE APPROXIMATING RELATION HERE IS, IT CAN BE SAID, at least one troubleome premise (to some, unacceptable) in each of the Five Ways recorded by Aquinas in the Summa Theologiae (S.T., I, q.2, a.3, c.). Three of the W·ays, i.e., the First and the Second and the Fifth, have a premise which describes God-Prime Mover (Primum Movens, quod a nullo movetur), First Efficient Cause (Causa (...) Efficiens Prima), Intelligent Orderer (Aliquid Intelligens, a quo omnes res naturales ordinantur in finem), respectively-in a way which falls short of a proper or adequate (unmistakable, unquestionable, unique) identification of God. That is, it is not necessary that the Prime Mover be God, or that the First Efficient Cause be God, or that the Intelligent Orderer be God. For, whatever else God is, God is the Creator, and the Prime Mover is not. And neither is the First Efficient Cause; nor is the Intelligent Orderer. This happens because the empirical point of departure of each of these three Ways gives the causality of the Prime Mover, of the First Efficient Cause, and of the Intelligent Orderer an effect and a scope which make it impossible to identify them with the effect and the scope of the causality of the Creator. The two remaining ways, though providing a description of God which quite properly or adequately identifies God-SelfNecessary Being (Ens per se necessarium), Most a Being (Maxime Ens), respectively-make an analytic claim which is troublesome (to some unacceptable), in any case difficult to understand. In the Third Way, it is the analytic claim that "... si... omnia sunt possibilia non esse, aliquando nihil fuit in rebus;" and in the Fourth Way, it is the analytic claim that 17 18 JOSEPH BOBIK ". [si]... magis et minus dicuntur de diversis secundum quod appropinquant diversimode ad aliquid quod maxime est...,... est... aliquid quod est verissimum et optimum et nobilissimum... et... maxime ens." There are three parts in the argument of the Fourth Way,1 and it is the first of these which is difficult to understand. The first part moves from the observed existence of the more and the less good, true, noble, etc. to the concluded existence of the most good, true, noble, etc.-the simpliciter good, true, noble, etc., as it is called in the Contra Gentiles formul,ation of an argument (S.G., I, cap. 13) which is similar to (though also quite different from) the Fourth Way of the Summa Theologiae.2 The second part argues that the most true or verissimum 1 It will be of help to the reader to have the text of the Fourth Way in hand, and to have its three parts explicitly distinguished. Quarta via sumitur ex gradibus qui in rebus inveniuntur. First part: Invenitur enim in rebus aliquid magis et minus bonum, et verum, et nobile: et sic de aliis huiusmodi. Sed magis et minus dicuntur de diversis secundum quod appropinquant diversimode ad aliquid quod maxime est: sicut magis calidum est, quod magis appropinquat maxime calido. Est igitur aliquid quod est verissimum et optimum et nobilissimum, Second part: et per consequens maxime ens: nam quae sunt maxime vera, sunt maxime entia, ut dicitur II Metaphys. Third part: Quod autem dicitur maxime tale in aliquo genere, est causa omnium quae sunt illius generis: sicut ignis, qui est maxime calidus, est causa omnium calidorum, ut in eodem libro dicitur. Ergo est aliquid quod omnibus entibus est causa esse, et bonitatis, et cuiuslibet perfectionis: et hoc dicimus Deum. 2 Whereas the Fourth Way uses the approximating relation to move to the existence of the Maxime Ens from the fact that there are real things which are more and less, the way of the G.G. uses the approximating relation to move to the existence of the Maxime Ens from the fact that there are propositions such that one is more false than the other (and so, less true than the other) more puzzling still than the Fourth Way. Here is the text of the G.G. argument: Potest etiam alia ratio colligi ex verbis Aristotelis. In II enim Metaphys. ostendit quod ea quae sunt maxime vera, sunt et... (shrink)

Cicero's discussion of wit in the de oratore includes an entertaining story about Ennius and a certain Nasica : ‘Valde haec ridentur et hercule omnia quae a prudentibus per simulationem subabsurde salseque dicuntur. Ex quo genere est etiam non videri intellegere quod intellegas… ut illud Nasicae, qui cum ad poetam Ennium venisset eique ab ostio quaerenti Ennium ancilla dixisset domi non esse, Nasica sensit illam domini iussu dixisse et ilium intus esse; paucis post diebus cum ad Nasicam venisset (...) Ennius et eum ad ianuam quaereret, exclamat Nasica domi non esse, turn Ennius “quid? ego non cognosco vocem” inquit “tuam?” Hic Nasica “homo es impudens:ego cum te quaererem ancillae tuae credidi te domi non esse, tu mihi non credis ipsi?”’ This anecdote, devitalized by its divorce from a well–known name, finds a place in the Philogelos, a compendium of jokes compiled in late antiquity and ascribed to the otherwise unidentifiable Hierocles and Philagrius, : Δύσκολόν τις ζτει. δ πεκρίνατο Ούκ εμì δε. τοû δ γελσαντος καì επόντοςΨεύδ τς γρ φωνς σου κούω – επεν ῏Ω κθαπμα, ε μέν δολός μου επχες ν ατ πιστεσαι γ δ σοι οφαίνομαι ξιοπιστότερος κείνου εναι. (shrink)

Haec tractatio est responsio critica ad tractationem Ludovici Groarke, titulo “Orbitae ellipticae, possintne Aristotelice explicari?”, necnon ad commentationem Jacobi Franklin, cui titulus “De orbitis ellipticis ac Aristotelica revolutione scientifica”. Auctor imprimis ostendit (ultra censuram a J. Franklin factam procedens) explanationem “Aristotelicam” orbitarum ellipticarum a L. Groarke propositam non solum analysi Newtonianae repugnare, sed etiam in se esse incohaerentem. Porro auctor alia L. Groarke proposita impugnat: scil. nostri temporis physicam mathematicam esse essentialiter Platonicam, item Newtonianam orbitarum ellipticarum explicationem assymetriam (...) prae se ferre inexplicabilem (cui sententiae J. Franklin quoque assentit). Auctor e contra arguit, textibus nonnulis S. Thomae Aquinatis innixus, physicam modernam, mathematica sui methodo non exclusa, realisticae epistemologiae Aristotelicae esse congruam, immo pure Aristotelice intelligi posse (ac debere). Auctor tamen reicit quod J. Franklin insinuat, scil. physicam modernam nunc Aristotelicae philosophiae naturalis explere munia. Physica mathematica enim, methodo sua constricta, quaestiones genuine philosophicas (nempe ad essentias rerum spectantes) movere non potest, ac proinde philosophiae naturalis vice fungi nequit.This discussion article is a critical reaction to L. Groarke’s paper “Can Aristotelianism Make Sense of Perihelion–Aphelion Orbits?” and J. Franklin’s comment “Elliptical Orbits and the Aristotelian Scientific Revolution”. In the first place, the author shows (going beyond Franklin’s criticism) that Groarke’s proposed “Aristotelian” explanation of elliptical planetary orbits is inconsistent both in itself and with the Newtonian analysis. Furthermore, he challenges Groarke’s claims that modern mathematical physics is inherently Platonic and that the Newtonian explication of elliptical orbits involves unexplained assymmetries (a claim endorsed by Franklin as well). With the help of several Aquinas’s texts the author argues that modern physics, including its maths-driven methodology, is not incompatible with Aristotelian realist epistemology but can (and should) be interpreted in a purely Aristotelian vein. On the other hand, the author rejects the view implied by Franklin that modern physics is an up-to-date replacement of Aristotelian philosophy of nature. Due to its methodological limits, mathematical physics is incapable of asking genuinely philosophical questions concerning the essence of bodies, and so it cannot be expected to do the job of natural philosophy. (shrink)

Secundum Petrum Bieri dualismus ontologicus hoc trilemma generat: 1) Status mentis non sunt status physici. 2) Status mentis causalitatem exerceunt in regionem statuum physicorum. 3) Regio statuum physicorum est causaliter clausa. Haec tertia propositio a Bieri “physicalismum methodologicum” exprimere dicitur. Ut hoc trilemma solvat, Bieri unum eius membrorum reicere suadet. Hylemorphismus causalitatem mentis ut causalitetem formalem explicat, relationem vero hominis ad mundum ut causalitatem efficientem. Unde clausura causalis mundi de causalitate efficiente intelligi potest, quae in physica investigatur. Liberum arbitrium ab (...) intentione mentis originem trahit. Etiam possibilitas libertatis humanae ex intentionalitate mentis explicari potest. Libertas adhuc hominis ut electio unae duarum optionum intelligi potest. Homo eligens rationes ponderat, quae sunt abstractae et distinctae a causis efficientibus rerum materialium, quae sunt concretae. Doctrina hylemorfica insuper fundamenum sufficiens ad problema identitatis personae per tempus solvendum praebere potest. Quoniam omnia elementa materialia in homine per tempus mutantur – imo DNA mutari potest –, principium identitatis immateriale esse debet. Pro principio identitatis igitur forma substantialis personae accipi potest, quae est metaphysica explicatio naturae mentis, quae actionem liberam electione deliberata per intentionalitatem libertatemque arbitrii inchoare potest)Peter Bieri formulates the assumptions of the ontological dualism via a trilemma: 1) Mental states are not physical states. 2) Mental states have causal effects in the realm of physical states. 3) The realm of physical states is causally closed. Bieri labels the third sentence of this trilemma as methodological physicalism. In order to solve this trilemma Bieri proposes to abandon one of the three premises. Hylomorphism explains mental causality as formal causality, and the relation between human beings and the world as efficient causality. Thus, the causal closure of the world can be understood as closure of the efficient causes, which are studied by physics. Free decision begins with the intentionality of the mind. The possibility of human freedom can also be explained through the intentionality of the mind. Human freedom can be understood as a choice between two alternatives. When choosing, human beings weigh reasons which are abstract and distinct from the efficient causes of material objects that are concrete. Hylomorphism can, further, provide sufficient grounds for solving the issue of personal identity through time. Since all the material elements in a human being change through time – even the DNA can change – the principle of identity cannot be material in character. Thus, it is the substantial form of a person (i.e. the metaphysical explanation of the mind, which is capable of initiating free action through its intentionality and freedom of choice in deliberate decision making) that can be accepted as the principle of identity. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:American Journal of Philology 124.1 (2003) 137-141 [Access article in PDF] Qvomodo Stemma Gladiatoris Pellicvlae More Philologico Sit Constitvendvm Martin M. Winklersive Martinvs Satiricvs Philocinematographicvs [Figures]Poetae rervmqve scriptores et antiqui et recentiores lectoribus fabulas suas sententiis vel versibus bene textis soliti sunt adferre. Sed hodie novum exstat narrandi genus, quod fabulas hominibus adfert praecipue picturis eo modo compositis et inter se coniunctis ut oculi humani imagines singulares celerrime et (...) sine ulla motus intermissione ipsas moveri percipiant, personarum dialogis et arte musica sonisque diversis comitantibus et iuvantibus. Adeo enim progressa est ars magna lucis et umbrae, quam primum photographiam deinde cinematographiam nominare consuevimus, ut fabulae cuiusvis modi—breves longae, novae antiquae, laetificae tragicae—imitatione veri paene perfecta spectatoribus persuadeant tempora iam praeterita in vitam novam esse recreata.In ipsa arte narrandi non multum interest inter eos qui verbis utuntur, ut poetae ac scriptores, et eos qui imaginibus, ut cinematographi. Praeclare Horatium in arte poetica exponenda dixisse recordemur ut picturam poesin esse. Qua in re Simonidem illum Ceum aliosque poetas Graecos secutus est Flaccus noster. Utroque enim modo, et verbis et picturis, auctores antiqui atque hodierni homines docent delectant movent. 1 Facillime ergo intellegimus fabulam cinematographicam genus quoddam esse textus, sed textus non tantum legendi aut audiendi sed imprimis videndi vel spectandi. Peritissimus quisque talium fabularum [End Page 137] auctor omne tulit punctum, nam miscuit utile dulci. Is quoque non aliter ac poeta antiquus aut prodesse vult aut delectare.Sed editiones nonnullarum fabularum cinematographicarum inter se differunt et lacunas corruptelas vitia alia exhibent. Non enim raro pelliculas adfectas esse constat eius generis damno quod textuum antiquorum docti in editionibus suis obelis indicare solent. Itemque quomodo fabulae cinematographicae originem suam trahant ab antiquioribus quaerere et explicare haud absurdum est. 2Ergo editorum usum secutus his paginis originem pelliculae Gladiatoris anno MM editae exempli gratia stemmate quasi philologico explicabo. Deinde stemmatis sigla brevibus adnotationibus percurram. 3 Hoc modo me demonstraturum spero principia artis philologicae, quae litterarum Graecarum Romanarumque docti adhuc solum soliti sunt textibus adhibere, fabulis quoque cinematographicis magno cum fructu admoveri posse. In stemmate infra dato titulos fabularum cinematographicarum et auctorum eorum nomina Latine reddidi.Ridlius Scotus, pelliculae Gladiatoris auctor, magna cum acclamatione publica, minore criticorum, narrare studet quae imp. Caes. M. Aurelii Commodi Antonini Aug. aetate in imperio Romano gesta sunt. Sed stemmate monstrabo Gladiatorem imprimis ortum esse a nonnullis fabulis cinematographicis prioribus, quibus sons aut insons copiosissime usus sit ille Scotus. Qua de causa pellicula eius nobis indicat quemadmodum res Romanae temporibus nostris undique floreant. Cum ipsa et ceterae huius modi fabulae falsa inventione abundare soleant, tamen rerum et linguarum Romanarum Graecarumque magistri hodie hoc artis popularis genere in scholis saepius niti consueverunt, ut discipulos a falsa ad veram adducant rerum gestarum scientiam et rebus antiquis accuratius instruant. Quibus igitur magistris hoc offero stemma, nam amicus Scotus, sed magis amica veritas. 4 [End Page 138] [Begin Page 140] Conspectvs Siglorvm WPellicularum res antiquas tractantium archetypus, qui est summa rerum Romanarum a scriptoribus antiquis et recentioribus expositarum.AConsensus fabularum quae vel litteris vel ludis scaenicis vel picturis cinematographicis praecipue Italicis Americanisque res Romanas narrant depinguntque.TTriumphus Animi Helena Riefenstahle auctore anno MDCCCCXXXV editus. 5SSpartacus Antonio Viro—nomine suppresso—et Stanlio Cubrico auctoribus anno MDCCCCLX editus.CCasus Imperii Romani Antonio Viro auctore anno MDCCCCLXIIII editus. 6B1-3Triga Georgii Lucae Bella Galactica inscripta et annis MDCCCCLXXVII MDCCCCLXXX MDCCCCLXXXIII primum edita, quae his picturis cinematographicis constat: Pars Quarta: "Spes Nova" (B1), Pars Quinta: "Imperium Referit" (B2), Pars Sexta: "Iedi Reversi" (B3). 7 Editio trigae altera anno MDCCCCLXXXXVII edita itemque Bellorum Galacticorum trigae novae Pars Prima: "Simulacri Minae" anni MDCCCCLXXXXVIIII nihil ad rem.M1-3Triga Georgii Molitoris Maximus Furens inscripta, annis MDCCCCLXXVIIII MDCCCCLXXXI MDCCCCLXXXV edita et his picturis cinematographicis constans: Maximus Furens (M1), Maximi Furentis Pars Altera vel Bellator Peregrinans (M2), Maximus Furens Vltra Tonitrus Tholum (M3). 8GGladiator Ridlio Scoto auctore anno MM editus. 9 [End Page 140]His alias poteram et plures subnectere causas vel philologicas vel cinematographicas. Qui de Scoti Gladiatore plurima cognoscere velint... (shrink)

In this paper, I attend to the ontological shift in Merleau-Ponty’s later writing and suggest that this conceptual turn opens the space for questions of the latent sense of the sensible foreclosed by dualist accounts and propositional theories of meaning. By attending to the Nature Lectures, I claim that there is a sens [meaning and orientation] of nature whose regulatory principle ought to be found in nature itself. This is to say that there is a normativity of nature that, albeit (...) not exclusive of sociocultural-linguistic norms, is irreducible to them. As I argue, this normativity is a “transspatializing and transtemporalizing”: it transverses its carnal manifestations, thereby inaugurating and becoming traceable within their materialization while remaining invisible in its excess or poietic renewing. I conclude by attending to the question of the “latent sense” of nature, suggesting that this sense is not conceptual or propositional, but intuitive as in the sense of right and left, a sense that is distributed across spatio-temporal individuals and emerges via the play of yet-to-be-determined incarnate manifestations.Dans cet article, j’aborde le tournant ontologique du dernier Merleau-Ponty et je suggère qu’il implique une interrogation sur le sens latent du sensible, exclu par les approches dualistes ainsi que par les théories propositionnelles de la signification. En analysant les cours sur la Nature, je vise à montrer qu’il y a un sens [signification et direction] de la nature, dont le principe régulateur est à chercher dans la nature elle-même. Cela revient à dire qu’il y a une normativité de la nature qui, bien qu’elle n’exclue pas les normes socio-culturelles-linguistiques, ne leur est pas pour autant réductible. Une telle normativité est « trans-spatiale et trans-temporelle » : elle traverse ses manifestations charnelles, en inaugurant ainsi et en devenant traçable dans ses matérialisations, tout en demeurant invisible dans son excès et dans son renouvellement poïétique. Je termine en abordant la question du « sens latent » de la nature, en suggérant que ce sens n’est ni conceptuel ni propositionnel, mais intuitif, tout comme l’est le sens de la droite et de la gauche, c’est-à-dire un sens qui est distribué à travers les individus spatio-temporels et qui émerge dans le jeu des manifestations incarnées encore-à-déterminer.In questo articolo intendo esaminare la svolta ontologica degli ultimi scritti di Merleau-Ponty per suggerire come questa apra ad un’interrogazione sul senso latente del sensibile, che rimane escluso dagli approcci dualistici e dalle teorie proposizionali del significato. Analizzando i corsi sulla Natura, vorrei mostrare come vi sia un senso [significato e orientamento] della natura il cui principio regolatore deve essere rintracciato nella natura stessa. Ciò significa che vi è una normatività della natura che, benché non esclusiva delle norme socioculturali-linguistiche, è irriducibile ad esse. Questa normatività è “trans-spaziale e trans-temporale”: essa attraversa le sue manifestazioni carnali, inaugurando e divenendo tracciabile nelle sue materializzazioni, pur rimanendo invisibile nella sua eccedenza o rinnovamento poietico. Concludo soffermandomi sulla questione del “senso latente” della natura, suggerendo che questo senso non è concettuale o proposizionale, ma intuitivo al modo del senso della destra e della sinistra, un senso che è distribuito attraverso gli individui spazio-temporali e che emerge nel gioco delle manifestazioni incarnate ancora-da-determinare. (shrink)

Resumo: A reforma na educação básica promovida Lei 5.692/1971, no contexto do regime militar pós-1964, teve como uma de suas consequências a exclusão da Filosofia do ensino médio. Em resposta, educadores, estudantes e entidades ligadas a essa área de conhecimento iniciaram um amplo movimento pela volta da disciplina às escolas. No centro desse movimento estavam os Departamentos de Filosofia de algumas das principais universidades do país, os quais promoveram encontros nacionais para debater e planejar ações voltadas a esse objetivo. (...) O presente artigo pretende discutir brevemente as considerações do I Encontro Nacional de Departamentos de Filosofia, realizado em 1981, no Rio de Janeiro, do qual resultaram o Documento do Rio de Janeiro e, mais tarde, o Documento de Brasília, ambos com grande repercussão na imprensa. O texto é parte da dissertação de mestrado do autor, defendida em 1991, aqui atualizado e adaptado para fins de publicação. Espera-se que a retomada daquelas discussões auxilie professores e estudantes de filosofia a enfrentar os desafios com que se deparam contemporaneamente. Palavras-chave: Ensino de Filosofia; Documento do Rio de Janeiro; Documento de Brasília; Filosofia no ensino médio. The movement for the return of Philosophy to secondary education in the post-1964 context: the first National Meeting of Philosophy Departments and the Brasília Document Abstract: The reform in basic education promoted by Law 5.692/1971, in the context of the post-1964 military regime, had as one of its consequences the exclusion of Philosophy from secondary education. In response, educators, students and entities connected to this area of knowledge started a broad movement for the return of the subject to the schools. At the centre of this movement were the Philosophy Departments of some of the main universities, which promoted national meetings to discuss and plan actions aimed at this goal. The present article intends to briefly discuss the considerations of the 1st National Meeting of Philosophy Departments, held in 1981 in Rio de Janeiro, which resulted in the Rio de Janeiro Document and, later, the Brasilia Document, both of which had great echoes in the press. The text is part of the author's Master's dissertation, defended in 1991, here updated and adapted for publication purposes. It is hoped that the resumption of those discussions will help teachers and students of philosophy to deal with the challenges they face contemporarily. Key-words: Teaching of Philosophy; Rio de Janeiro Document; Brasilia Document; Philosophy in secondary education. Il movimento per il ritorno della filosofia nell'istruzione secondaria nel contesto post-1964: il primo Incontro Nazionale dei Dipartimenti di Filosofia e il Documento di Brasília Astratto: La riforma dell’istruzione promossa dalla legge 5.692/1971, nel contesto del regime militare post-1964, ha avuto tra le sue conseguenze l’esclusione della filosofia dalle scuole secondarie. In risposta, educatori, studenti e associazioni legate a quest’area del sapere hanno dato vita a un ampio movimento per il ritorno della disciplina nelle scuole. Al centro di questo movimento c’erano i Dipartimenti di Filosofia di alcune delle principali università del Paese, che hanno promosso incontri nazionali per discutere e organizzare azioni in tal senso. Il presente articolo intende discutere brevemente le considerazioni del 1° Incontro Nazionale dei Dipartimenti di Filosofia, tenutosi nel 1981 a Rio de Janeiro, che ha prodotto il Documento di Rio de Janeiro e, successivamente, il Documento di Brasília, entrambi di grande impatto sulla stampa. Il testo fa parte della tesi di Master dell’autore, presentata nel 1991, qui aggiornata e adattata ai fini della pubblicazione. Si spera che la ripresa di queste discussioni aiuti i professori e gli studenti di filosofia ad affrontare le sfide che si pongono al giorno d’oggi. Parole chiave: Insegnamento della filosofia; Documento di Rio de Janeiro; Documento di Brasilia; Filosofia nell'istruzione secondaria. Data de registro: 23/01/2023 Data de aceite: 23/08/2023. (shrink)

Questo primo volume degli "Scritti di Ugo Bianchi" - "Religions in Antiquity" - raccoglie contributi relativi a temi e problemi del cristianesimo antico. Con esso si realizza un progetto, formulato in anni lontani (1983) dallo stesso autore, che contemplava varie sezioni di cui l'ultima - "Christiana" comprendeva i saggi che costituiscono la prima metà del volume; a questi ne sono stati aggiunti altri, sulle medesime tematiche, che risalgono ad anni successivi. Precede i saggi un contributo di carattere metodologico ("Tipologia storica (...) delle religioni e comparazione: il caso del dualismo"). "Ugo Bianchi, nel suo lungo itinerario scientifico che abbraccia alcune delle più significative aree del vasto panorama delle esperienze religiose della storia umana, non ha mai proposto una "teoria" interpretativa generale e onnicomprensiva di esse, quale molto spesso - con esiti e fortune diversi hanno fatto tanti storici delle religioni. Egli, al contrario, ha mostrato riserbo o vera e propria diffidenza nei confronti di tali "teorie" che il progresso della ricerca e la riflessione critica hanno sempre in varia misura smentito o ridimensionato. Di fatto, lo studioso ha costantemente riconosciuto la debolezza intrinseca di tali tentativi alla luce delle mobili e differenziate realtà che la storia ci consegna e che solo a prezzo di un'analisi comparativa condotta con duttilità e rigore..." (dall'Introduzione Giulia Sfameni Gasparro). (shrink)

Excerpt from Poetarum Philosophorum Fragmenta Plagulis correctis indicibusque non sine taedio confectis dum respiro et laetiore animo quid praefandum sit meditor, ecce nuntius longe tris tissimus afi'ertur, georgium kaibelium nobis litterisque acerba morte ereptum esse, qui non solum studiorum societate inde a beatissimo oon tu'oernio - Bonnensi mihi erat coniunctissimus, sed in hoc quoque communi amicorum opere velut auspex et signifer, cuius auctoritatem me aequi et decebat et iuvabat. Nam singularis graecae artis cognitio, quae in illo fuit, in nullo (...) genere litterarum magis enituit quam in Comicis, unde splendidum ante biennium factum est huius Corporis initium. Iam adu lescentem prima tirocinia in Aristophane ponere memini eundemque audio supremam fuisse moribundi curam ac querelem. Inter bos vitae laboriosae et fructuosae terminos omnem graecitatem peragravit et undique messem uberrimam rettulit; at nusquam libentius et intentius versabatur quam in atticae comoediae reliquiis. Dorienses enim, quos edidit, propter illos cpinor tetigerat.' quodsi verum est cum primi illins voluminis perfectione vix unam alteramve aequalium editionem recte posse eom parari, quid prasstaturum eum fuisse credimus, si fatum concessisset, ut ipsam 'atticam comoediam nobis ex fragmentis instauraret, in qua totus habitabat et spirabat! Aut nemo mortalium aut, si quisquam, ille et natus erat et paratus ad Menandri et aequalium umbras ex inferis citandas et in vitae lucem revocandas. Adeo in intimam eorum consuetudinem inde fesso labore atque fortasse magis etiam sensus quadam cognatione se insinuaverat. Nam tota eius indoles ad atticum istum saporem facta erat. Ut scripture eius elegantia apicum prae ceteris nitebat, ut suavissima sermocinatio mirum quantum amicos tenebat, priusquam morbi ingra veseentie tormentis animi serenitas obscurari coepta est, ita tota eius ars versus graecos et exblicandi et pangendi Praxiteleo quodam perfusa erat nitore. About the Publisher Forgotten Books publishes hundreds of thousands of rare and classic books. Find more at www.forgottenbooks.com This book is a reproduction of an important historical work. Forgotten Books uses state-of-the-art technology to digitally reconstruct the work, preserving the original format whilst repairing imperfections present in the aged copy. In rare cases, an imperfection in the original, such as a blemish or missing page, may be replicated in our edition. We do, however, repair the vast majority of imperfections successfully; any imperfections that remain are intentionally left to preserve the state of such historical works. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:THE SUBSTANTIAL UNITY OF MATERIAL SUBSTANCES ACCORDING TO JOHN POINSOT JOHN D. KRONEN The University of St. Thomas St. Paul, Minnesota EVERY SUBSTANCE metaphysician must answer several difficult questions peculiar to his or her ontology. In this paper I will examine John Poinsot's answer to two of these questions, one concerning the nature of the form of substantial composites, and one concerning which material objects are substantial composites. I (...) shall argue that Poinsot's answers to these questions show the untenability of a structuralist view of substantial form and of a reductive materialist view of living beings. But before considering these questions I must briefly outline Poinsot's view of what the general nature of substance is, as explained in his treatise on material logic.1 Poinsot's Account of Substance in General In the section of his Material Logic concerned with the categories Poinsot gives a succinct account of the nature of substance 1 Cursus Philosophicus thomisticus; vol. I, Ars logicae prima et secunda pars, ed. P. Beato Reiser (Turin, Italy: Marietti, 1820), Q. XV, pp. 523-527. It should be noted that I am not concerned in this paper with describing either the psychological origin of the notion of substance, or of justifying it against phenomenalism. My only aim is to show how such a view of substance leads to a certain notion of form when it is applied, so to speak, to material objects. For an interesting account of the origin of the concept of substance in Poinsot see John Deely, Tractatus De Signis: The Semiotic of John Poinsot (Los Angeles, Berkeley, and London: The University of California Press, 1985), p. 86, n. 16. Deely takes it that Poinsot has a deeper categorial scheme than that of Aristotle from which the latter's scheme "emerges," as it were. In this article, then, I am not concerned with that deeper scheme which Deely refers to in this interesting note. 599 600 JOHN D. KRONEN in general and of its relation to the supposit and to the act of existing. He notes that by " substance " narrowly considered is meant that kind of essence to "which it is due to exist in itself as opposed to that kind to which it is due to exist in another" (i.e., an accident).2 He defends this as the primary " definition " 3 of substance against the other definition of it which is " that which stands under accidents," on the grounds that a thing must exist in itself, at least ontologically speaking, before it can support accidents 4 and that to define substance as that which supports accidents is to define it in relation to other things, not itself. This point is important because many modern and contemporary philosophers who have attacked the notion of substance have done so by arguing that there are no beings which stand under accidents. For Poinsot this attack, even if successful, would show that there are no accidents, not that there are no substances. Poinsot insists that " substance " connotes a quiddity to which to exist in itself is due since actual existence does not belong to the essence of any created thing.5 Further, Poinsot insists that to exist in itself " connotes more than a mere negation of existing in another; rather it connotes a positive perfection." This is because to exist in a dependent way is to exist in an imperfect way, so to exist independently must be to exist in a more perfect way.6 Finally, Poinsot distinguishes between the substance and the supposit. The substance is the complete nature of the thing, while 2 Ibid., p. 523. a " Substance " as a supreme genus cannot strictly be defined since it cannot be differentiated from any higher genus. 4 Haec autem proprietas existendi per se intelligitur vel secundum considerationem absolutam et in ordine ad se, et sic dicitur subsistens, quasi non indignes alio ut sustentetur, sed in se sistens; vel dicitur secundum habitudinem ad alia, quatenus ilia sustentat in esse, et sic dicitur non solum subsistens, sed etiam substans. Ibid., p. 523. 5 ••• esse actu per se vel in alio non est ipsa quidditas substantiae vel accidentis, quia esse seu existere in nulla quidditate creata... (shrink)

Tvnicam linteam pro lanea uulgo Romae saeculo tertio post Chr. n. gestatam esse iure optimo Friedlaenderus contendit, sed idem Romanos fortasse iam antea eo uestimento usos esse addit, idque fretus loco Iuuenalis, quern supra indicaui. Mihi tamen uidentur uersus illi Aquinatis non posse afferri ad Friedlaenderi sententiam tuendam, quod ut demonstrem, eos infra describam et tractabo.

Aquinas’s Five Ways are not to be understood as demonstrative proofs, successful or not, for the existence of God. Rather, they provide a necessary step towards supplying licensable surrogates for the essential predications that cannot logically be drawn from the incomprehensible nature of God, yet would seem needed for the Summa’s declared genre of argued theology. (Predication secundum analogiam provides surrogates for non-relational accidental predications, likewise unavailable.) What Aquinas is proving in arguing deum esse in ST I.2.3 is not (...) God’s actual existence (see ST I.3.4 ad 2) but an alternative interpretation of “God’s being something” where “God is something” is a placeholder for, say, “God is prime mover” or, more explicitly, for such (necessary) identities as “The prime mover is the necessitated necessitator,” an identity whose necessity depends at more than one place on the assumption of God’s existence from faith, not on demonstrative proof of God’s existence. (shrink)

Questo articolo parte dall’analisi esposta da Jean-François Lyotard nel famoso testo del 1979 La_ condizione postmoderna_ dove si considera come, con l’esaurirsi delle grandi narrazioni (grand narratives) che legittimavano le istituzioni del sapere negli ultimi due secoli, tutte le procedure della ricerca e della trasmissione del sapere hanno come unico principio guida quello di prestazione, ormai esteso dall’economia politica liberista ad ogni ambito. Il confronto con Nietzsche aiuta a comprendere come tali grandi narrazioni nascano già in origine compromesse con passioni (...) che innervano le istituzioni di sapere di massa e che gli apparati ideologici tendono a non riconoscere e a celare. Il ricorso a Spinoza permette di analizzare la “vita affettiva” delle istituzioni, le quali necessariamente traggono la loro forza da una sorta di drenaggio affettivo, il solo capace di legare ad esse la moltitudine degli uomini, la gran parte dei quali è schiava delle loro passioni. Per quanto concerne la formazione Spinoza sembra suggerire di non affidarla solo alle istituzioni governative anch’esse attraversate dalle passioni, quanto di rendere la formazione degli altri il compito di ogni uomo libero che – guidato solo da un desiderio razionale – solo in tale impresa può mostrare tutta l’_ars _e tutto l’_ingegno_ che possiede. (shrink)

This article deals with one particular aspect of Livy's narrative of the Gallic Sack of Rome, told in Book 5, and traditionally placed in 390b.c.—namely the issue over the validity of the ransom agreement struck by the Romans with the Gauls. The broader context is well known—and needs only brief reiteration here. When the Gauls march on Rome, the Romans give battle at the river Allia, leading to a resounding Gallic victory. Most of the Romans flee the battlefield and then (...) the city, except for a small group of both old and young, male and female, who hold out on the Capitoline Hill. That hill is subsequently put under siege by the Gauls. Following several months of beleaguerment, both sides are depicted as severely worn out by hunger and fighting. It is important for present purposes to stress that, when the Gauls stood at the gates and besieged the city, one of Rome's greatest heroes, Marcus Furius Camillus, was noticeably absent. Camillus was in neighbouring Ardea, some fifty miles south of Rome, training an army of Roman soldiers to challenge the Gallic invaders after his recent recall from exile and appointment to the dictatorship. But before Camillus’ return to Rome, the besieged Romans surrendered and agreed a ransom with the Gauls in order to liberate their city. The continuation of the story as given in Livy is equally well known. Camillus arrives in the middle of the ransom exchange, asking for the exchange to be stopped. Unsurprisingly, the Gauls are not keen on following Camillus’ orders, and insist on the ransom. Consequently, Camillus challenges the agreement between Romans and Gauls on a constitutional basis; the agreement was reached with a lesser magistrate after Camillus’ appointment to the dictatorship (5.49.2):cum illi renitentes pactos dicerent sese, negat eam pactionem ratam esse quae postquam ipse dictator creatus esset iniussu suo ab inferioris iuris magistratu facta esset, denuntiatque Gallis ut se ad proelium expediant.When they, resisting, said that they had come to an agreement, he [Camillus] denied that an agreement was valid which, after he himself had been made dictator, had been concluded by a magistrate of lower status without his instructions, and he announced to the Gauls that they should prepare themselves for battle.The constitutional argument has often been repeated by modern scholars. Ogilvie comments that ‘(t)he dictatorship was held to put all other magistracies into suspension.’ Feldherr notes similarly that, ‘(o)nce Camillus has been appointed dictator, hisimperiumsupersedes that of the lesser magistrates who negotiated the surrender.’ And to explain why the Gauls nevertheless entered into negotiations in Camillus’ absence, Ross observes that ‘the Gauls, of course, could hardly have known either of Camillus’ appointment as dictator or of the fact that the dictatorship superseded all other magistracies.’. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:THE MODALITY OF BEING ROBERT c. BEISSEL Phoenix, Arizona " It must be of itself that the divine thought thinks." Aristotle, Metaphysics, Bk. 12, c. 9. ST. THOMAS IS AS Neoplatonic as Plotinus in his awareness that Being is not being and that being is not Being.1 Yet, like St. Augustine, St. Thomas knew that being is closer to Being than to itself; he knew that beyond the question (...) " Why being rather than nothing? " lay another, a more baffling one, namely, " Why being rather than only Being? " That being is not Being is indisputable. The philosopher seeks to understand how, in spite of that, being is and why. How to understand being while really distinguishing it from Being without diminishing Being-such is the puzzle. The difficulty lies in finding its answer without denying or changing the terms of the question, no matter how hard those terms may be. A problem is sometimes underestimated, even by one who knows its answer, because its answer is not really understood. A school child may not think the question "Why is the earth round? " difficult, when by rote it knows that gravity causes all earthly bodies to fall to a center. Only when the child perceives that gravity may not be easy to understand does it appreciate the difficulty of the question. St. Thomas cannot be accused of underestimating the problem 1 Two notes : one on terminology and one on citations. First, " Being " here signifies ens primum, the god, the creator; "being " signifies being composed of potentiality and act, including both material and immaterial substance and accidents, ens creatum. Second, citations are given below only for points of Aristotelian-Thomistic sources which the specialist reader may want to verify or into which that reader may wish to inquire further. For the rest, it has been presumed the reader is familiar enough with the Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophical tradition to recognize the common doctrine of the school. 49 50 ROBERT C. BEISSEL of being. He knew that, when Being is shown to be the cause of being, a puzzling implication follows, namely, that Being is the immediate analogical cause of being. The following pages detail the problem this implication presents and the solution it finds in the work of St. Thomas. I The philosophical ancient history of demiurges and intermediate intelligences supplied to keep Being decently removed from being attests to the difficulty of understanding what it means to say that Being is the immediate cause of being. Moderns deny the existence of Being for much the same reason that ancient philosophers placed intermediaries between Being and being: the ancients thought being unworthy of Being; the moderns think being so evidently imperfect that nothing like Being could be responsible for it. Although it lacks similarly clear historical witness, the difficulty of understanding what it means to say that Being is an analogical cause of being is no less striking. Univocal causes are of the same species as their effects and, therefore, are distinct from them numerically by reason of subject or matter. But, while analogical causes are specifically different from the subjects in which their effects are wrought, the perfections they cause in them are not distinct from the perfections of those causes. Indeed, those perfections in cause and effect are identical, not just in species but in number.2 Examples may be helpful here. Agents of natural generation are univocal causes of their issue, not only in factum esse, 2 Summa Theol. 1-2, q. 20, a. 3, ad 3. St. Thomas refers to this distinction in many places, e.g., 1, q. 4, aa. 2, 3c and ad 3; q. 13, a. Sc and ad 1; q. 104, a.1; Contra Gentes, 2, c. 21; 3, c. 65; 4, c. 7; De Ver., q. 10, a. 12, ad 3; and many other places in the works cited as well as in other works. (The interested reader is best advised to look at the Tabula Aurea for the distinction under the entry Causa.) It goes without saying that all talk of "cause" here presumes an Aristotelian notion of causality, not a Humean one. All causes actually causing exist simultaneously with their effects for as... (shrink)

Quomodo versus lyrici legendi sint, plerumque inter metricos constat, licet de origine singulorum versuum vel colorum dubia moveantur; at ne illud quidem confirmari potest in genere illo peculiari, quo multae strophae Pindari et Bacchylidis et nonnullae poétarum scenicorum compositae sunt. Quod in talibus versibus maxime conspicuum est, hoc est, quod metra τоû σоυ et διπλασíоυ γéνоυς; in eis coniunguntur vel coniungi videntur, ita, ut ambitus utriusque partis aut par aut non multum maior minorve sit. lam antiqui metrici parum compertum habebant, (...) qua ratione eiusmodi versus explicarent. Cum maior pars ceterorum versuum lyricorum etiam post Alexandri aetatem in usu essent et doctrina grammaticorum hanc quoque materiam complecteretur, pauca versuum illorum vestigia remanebant, postquam chori lyrici et dramatici conticuerunt. Habemus quidem Meliambos Cercidae eodem genere carmina pangere conati, quo clarissimi illi veteres, sed eos perlegentes statim sentimus artem intermortuam non ab isto Megalopolitano nova vita donatam esse; nihil enim frigidius cogitari potest, quam si quis oda pindarica recitata ad Cercidae versus se convertat eosque alta voce pronuntiare conetur. Metrici graeci et romani praeter paucos versus eosque singillatim genus nostrum non tractant nee quisquam ex eorum numero de genere toto disseruit. Horatium et suamet ipsum arte prae ceteris excellentem et doctrina metrica haud mediocriter imbutum non aliter ac nos huius aevi philologos nescire, quomodo carmina pindarica ab ipso poeta componerentur, ex Oda notissima patet, in qua Pindarum quisquis studet aemulari frustra in re desperata desudare perhibetur. Ad universam lyricorum graecorum artem pertinent, quae a Cicerone in Oratore affirmantur, qui tamen clausulis orationis numerosae operam dans rem metricam non neglexit: sed in versibus res est apertior, quamquam etiam a modis quibusdam cantu remoto soluta esse videatur oratio, maximeque id in optima quoque eorum poëtarum, qui λυρικоí a graecis nominantur, quos, cum cantu spoliaveris, nuda paene remanet oratio. Causam hanc vel maximam esse puto in nullo alio carmina pangendi genere musicam, saltationem, metrum tam arte cohaesisse; cum poësis non iam pars habebatur υθμιξου, quod φθγγοδ, σχμα, συλλαβ definiebant, ut Aristoxeni terminis utar , via stabilita ambitum singulorum versuum ac colorum statuere conarentur et indoloem pedum metricorum conicendo indicarent. (shrink)

È possibile che, perlomeno in alcuni casi, la parzialità in epistemologia vada promossa? Per ‘parzialità epistemica’ intendiamo la volontà di non venire meno alle proprie tesi anche laddove sembrasse che esse siano contraddette dall’evidenza. Tale parzialità ovviamente contraddice quanto è invece solitamente dato per scontato, ossia la disposizione – che chiamiamo ‘imparzialità epistemica’ – ad accettare qualsivoglia tesi, non importa se irriconciliabile con le proprie opinioni, purché essa sia adeguatamente supportata dall’evidenza. Qui si intende argomentare che, sulla scia di (...) Tommaso d’Aquino, e perlomeno in alcuni casi riguardanti la vita di fede e la religione, la parzialità epistemica andrebbe promossa. Si intende mostrare che da ciò deriverebbe una posizione più ampia di quella che invece emerge dall’assunzione dell’imparzialità epistemica; inoltre, alcuni problemi, che quest’ultima comporta, verrebbero risolti. (shrink)

L’investigazione del testo, che pone il «valore di legge» ma che disorienta il diritto accostando al valore la «forza di legge», passa dalla sua scomposizione, dall’interrogazione delle lettere che sono depositate e custodite nei suoi anfratti, negli interstizi. Bisogna, cioè, seguire tanto l’esplicito, la superficie, quanto le tracce disseminate, talvolta nascoste, senza dimenticare che la superficie è tale per il profondo. La ricerca muove da un’opzione ermeneutica. Ogni ricerca presuppone un’ipotesi preliminare, che l’inchiesta abbia già una direzione. In principio era (...) il Verbo e il Verbo si fece carne, ma in un senso peculiare. Nella Seconda Lettera ai Corinzi, Paolo di Tarso disse che «la lettera uccide, lo spirito dà vita», opponendo la Legge cristiana, la buona novella, l’evangelo, la parola orale portata «sulle tavole di carne dei [...] cuori», alla Legge ebraica, antica, immobile, rigida, scritta «su tavole di pietra». Altrove, però, nella Lettera ai Romani, precisò: «Togliamo dunque ogni valore alla legge mediante la fede? Nient’affatto, anzi confermiamo la legge», ove la legge, a cui il valore è qui già legato da una relazione di predicazione, è la lettera giudaica e la fede è lo spirito vivente della rivelazione cristiana. Ecco che il «valore di legge» è la secolarizzazione, più o meno consapevole, di un tema messianico. E, muovendo dalla prospettiva teologica in cui la Legge “significa”, si azzarda che «la lettera uccide chi la ignora». Contro lo spettro paolino, o meglio prima del paolinismo e poi dell’agostinismo, dell’ordine nuovo dello spirito contro la antica, morta, silente, lettera, questa lettura della Legge tenta di farsi carico del peso del testo, di “valorizzarlo” e di non ridurlo a figura, a immagine di altro, ad anagogia o ad allegoria con quel tanto di nichilismo che questa porta con sé, ove la lettera assume valore ancillare. La lettera della Legge è dura, nel senso che è, teologicamente, «scrittura su tavola» ed è, nel Secolo, scrittura incisa su carta. Ha una sua fissità, seppure alterabile. La sua normatività è tutt’uno con la sua inscalfibilità, con la sua resistenza e, dunque, con la sua positività. Ma – per restare dentro l’ordine discorsivo dell’interpretazione della Scrittura – non si avanza una proposta interpretativa masoretica, che venera superstiziosamente la lettera della Scrittura originaria e men che meno il pensiero e la voce di chi la creò e rivelò. Tutto al contrario. Per dirla nel discorso dell’interpretazione delle leggi e, tra esse, della prima legge, la Costituzione, implica il testualismo, ma non nella versione soggettivistica dell’original intent, perché i testi scritti, che sono “cose”, vivono di vita propria, separata dal loro autore (o “firmatario”) e dai lettori, potenzialmente infiniti, e producono sensi e conseguenze inintenzionali. Senza arrivare alla radicale conclusione strutturalista di Roland Barthes, che già nel 1968 decretava La mort de l’auteur, perché lo impedisce – ove ritenuta applicabile alla Costituzione/legge – l’art. 12 delle preleggi che prescrive di ricavare il senso della legge fatto palese (anche) dall’intenzione del legislatore, l’autore si trasfigura in funzione (dell’autore), perde la propria individualità e intenzionalità e si confonde, si disfa, nel discorso, nell’ordine del testo. La scissione strutturalista (e non solo) tra autore e testo nella teoria costituzionale conduce difilato al rigetto delle ragioni dell’originalismo ingenuo delle intenzioni e, con esso, del mito delle origini, ma non porta affatto all’oblio del testo in nome della esclusiva normatività della unwritten o living Constitution: sostiene, anzi, il privilegio della scrittura della legge e non della voce, del corpo e non del senso. Nel mezzo, contro il dualismo tra materia e pensiero, tra il significato immanente alle lettere, “cose scritte” nel testo e il tesoro delle intenzioni di chi scrisse la Costituzione, ciò che conta è la posizione, la “incorporazione”, nel documento costituzionale, nella scrittura che si fa testo nel senso proprio di “tessuto”, del «valore di legge» che, almeno nella “lettera”, è rimasto incorrotto e che quelle lettere hanno agito sul testo che le ha accolte e il testo ha retroagito su quelle nel tempo. Le possibilità discorsive e significanti del valore di legge dipendono, cioè, strutturalmente, dal reticolo di dati interrelati e interdipendenti che lo legano seguendo la logica interna al testo costituzionale. Va da sé che la valorizzazione della (lettera della) Legge presupponga, all’origine, un sottinteso ebraico e, quindi, la lotta alla polemica paolina contro il formalismo conservatore della legge (ebraica). È una polemica simile all’accusa di conservatorismo dell’originalismo testualista. A difesa, il testualismo è conservatore o meno a seconda del testo che serve e della relazione tra il testo dell’origine e le interpretazioni che ne sono seguite. Ma, contro l’originalismo, contro la conversione del testo costituzionale in Sacra Scrittura, la lettura che qui si esperisce si apre al commento – che quel reticolo sappia analizzare – del testo, alla sua significatività mai esaurita, che annulla la concepibilità di un testo originario inteso quale testo “autentico”. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:REJOINDER TO BRUCE MARSHALL FREDERICK J. CROSSON University of Notre Dame Notre Dame, J.ndiana DISCUSSIONS HAVE to end sometime, and the differences in the reading of Aquinas by Bruce Marshall and myself will perhaps have sufficiently come into view if brief comments on several points are made. 1. In his second statement 1 Marshall seems to have shifted his argument. Originally he argued that a non-believer (e.g. a pagan (...) philosopher such as Aristotle) could not know or even properly refer to God.2 But in the subsequent statement, he seems to concede that, according to Aquinas, " That there is one God was known even by the philosophers, and is not a part of faith " and that " while some of the Gentiles knew God with respect to certain things which were knowable by reason, nevertheless they did not know him insofar as he is the Father...." (501; cf. 51213 ). Marshall seems now to hold that although that knowledge was possible at one time, it is not any longer: As Thomas reads Paul, then, the error (and specifically the idolatry) of the Gentiles overrides the knowledge of himself which God has given to them " from 1creation through the senses " ; in consequence the further possibility of this knowledge... is withdrawn by God. With regard to the Gentiles, including their sapientes-the philosophers with demonstrative arguments-the denial of knowledge overrides the initial ascription of it (512, my emphasis). 1 Bruce D. Marshall, " Thomas, Thomisms, and Truth", The Thomist 56 (1992) pp. 499-524. His original article was in ibid. 53 (1989), pp. 353-402. Page references in the text or footnotes without other citation will be to these articles. 2 " The person whose discourse does not cohere with the broader norms of Christian belief is not even talking about God, and so cannot possibly know or refer to him " (378-379), emphasis mine. 299 300 FREDERICK J. CROSSON I confess to a certain difficulty in understanding what "overrides " means here: cancels? contradicts? blots out? In any case, it seems that it was, at some time and for some non-Christian thinkers (e.g. Aristotle), possible to come to the knowledge of God's existence by reason, but that Marshall interprets Aquinas as saying that that knowledge is no longer even possible. 2. Marshall's general claim is that Aquinas must be read as holding a coherentist notion of revealed truth, so that a pagan and a Christian cannot mean the same thing the word ' God '. But Aquinas says exactly the opposite: Neither a Catholic nor a pagan knows the nature of God as he is in himself, but each knows him by some understanding (aliquam rationein ) of causality or excellence or remotion... Consequently a pagan can take this name God, when he says an idol is God, in the same way that a Catholic does in saying an idol is not God.3 3. Again and again, Marshall returns to the claim that, according to Aquinas, " In simple things any failure of knowledge (defectus cognitionis) is in fact a total lack of knowledge " (382) ;4 he cites the Commentary on John, in which Thomas declares... while it is possible for composite things to be known in part and to be unknown in part, if simple things are not grasped completely, they are not known (501). In Marshall's view, these claims about the knowledge of simple forms exclude the possibility of any adequation between the conclusion of a pagan philosopher's demonstration and the Divine esse: "... the defectus cognitionis of which Thomas speaks in II-II, 2, 2, ad 3, entails not a partial, but a total lack of corres:. pondence between the mind and God" (384). Marshall seems to read such statements as if they made the following objection: a Summa Theologiae I, q. 3, a. 10, ad 5: Dicendum quod ipsam naturam Dei prout in se est, neque catholicus neque paganus cognoscit; sed uterque cognoscit earn secumdum aliquam rationem causalitatis vel excellentiae vel remotionis... Et secundum hoc in eadem significatione accipere potest gentilis hoc nomen Deus, cum. (shrink)