In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

QUESTION ONE Is the subject of metaphysics being or God? Concerning the object of this science, it has been shown above that this science deals with transcendentals. However, it has likewise been shown that it deals with the highest causes. There are various opinions as to which of these ought to be its proper object. 1 [1] Therefore our first question: Is the proper subject of metaphysics being qua being as Avicenna1 claims or God and the Intelligences as the Commentator, Averroes2 assumes?3 [Arguments Pro and Con] [Arguments for the negative] Proof it is neither: [Arg. 1] One must know two things about the subject of a science, according to the Philosopher in I Posterior Analytics, and later on in the chapter beginning “It is difficult to know”.4 First, we must know that it is [i.e., the “si est”]; second, we must know what it is [i.e., its definition]. But in this science we do not know [1] that God 1 Avicenna, Metaphysica I, ch. 2, AviL 12. 2 Averroes, Metaphysica IV, com. 1 (ed. Iuntina IV, fol. 30vb); Physica I, com. 83 (fol. 22vb). 3 Here follow two interpolated annotations: “Note that according to some, being is here the subject (or object) concerning which determinations are made per se and primarily and according to all modes. Determinations are made concerning substance [as its object] per se and primarily but not according to all modes. Accident [is its object] as determined per se but not primarily. Finally privations and negations [are its object] neither per se nor primarily nor according to any mode, but only as attributed to the primary subject which is being. Hence substance, accident, privations and negations are rather parts of the subject [of Metaphysics] rather than its subject. Likewise, note that, according to the common opinion, being is here the subject as common to the ten categories, but not as it is common to all being, whether real or rational or privative, because the latter do not fall per se under a real science such as Metaphysics. Likewise, if being according to its total ambit were here [the subject], it would have the cause of its being and hence all being and even God [would be its subject], because whatever is the subject of a science must contain its cause and parts etc. This however is impossible, therefore etc. Consequently, it must be understood concerning created being, which alone has its own cause. 4 Aristotle, Posterior Analytics I, ch. 1, 71a 11-12; ch. 9, 76b 12-20. 14 THE METAPHYSICS OF JOHN DUNS SCOTUS is [i.e., that he is real] or [2] what he is; [3] as for being, we do not know what it is. Therefore, etc. 2 The minor has three parts. [Re 1] There are two proofs for the first part [viz., we do not know that God is]. First in Bk. I of his Metaphysics,5 Avicenna proves: [a] that God’s existence is not known per se,” since we infer this from his effects, according to VIII Physics6 and XII Metaphysics ;7 and [b] “we do not despair of knowing about him, because we have signs of this.” And [c] also if we did despair, then his existence would be not foreknown or inquired about in some other science, whether it be moral, theoretical or otherwise. Hence, he concludes that we inquire about him in this science. 3 A second proof for this same part of the minor is this. In Bk. II of this work,8 Aristotle proves we must come to an end in a series of efficient causes. Hence, he proves that there must be a first efficient cause and that is God. 4 [Re 2] There are two proofs for the second part of the minor [viz. we do not know what God is]: The first is, because God has no quiddity, according to Avicenna, VIII Metaphysics, in the chapter beginning with “We need to repeat”:9 “The first, who is most high and glorious, has no genus, quiddity, or definition.”—Second, if he had a quiddity, that would not be foreknown in this science, because according to the Philosopher in Bk. II, ch. 1 of this work:10 “As the eye of the bat is to the light of the day so is the intellect of our soul to those things which by nature are most manifest.”11 5 [2] [Re 3] Proof of the third part of the minor...

Share