Later Medieval Metaphysics: Ontology, Language, and Logic

Notes

249 notes Introduction Charles Bolyard and Rondo Keele 1. This is a close paraphrase of the views of Spade, especially as expressed in his A Survey of Mediaeval Philosophy, Version 2.0 (online at http://pvspade.com /Logic/docs/Survey%202%20Interim.pdf), ch. 4. 1. Duns Scotus on Metaphysics as the Science of First Entity Rega Wood 1. Paul Vincent Spade, “The Unity of a Science according to Peter Aureol,” Franciscan Studies 32 (1972), pp. 203–17, esp. pp. 206–7. 2. Aristotle, Posterior Analytics 1.2.71b10–12. 3. Dominique Demange and I arrived independently at similar positions for many of the same reasons. Dominique Demange, “Pourquoi Duns Scot a critique Avicenna,” in Medioevo 15 (2008). Giovanni Duns Scoto: Studi e ricerche nel VII Centenario della sua morte in onore di P. César Saco Alarcón, ed. M. Núñez (Rome, 2008), pp. 195–232. Rega Wood, “The Subject of the Science of Metaphysics,” in The Cambridge History of Medieval Philosophy, ed. R. Pasnau and C. Van Dyke (Cambridge, 2009), pp. 609–26. As the reader will note, Demange published first and his account is more detailed than mine. 4. John Duns Scotus, Quaestiones super libros Metaphysicorum Aristotelis 1.1, ed. G. Etzkorn et al. (St. Bonaventure, NY, 1997), OPh III: 15–72. 5. For a nice summary of M1, see D. Demange, “Pourquoi Duns Scot,” pp. 208–12, esp. 212. 6. Both M1 and M2 refer to the St. Bonaventure edition cited in Note 4 above. Citations list the paragraph number and the page number in that edition and take the following form: M1/M2 paragraph number, page number. 7. Citations of the Paris prologue will include page numbers from both works. “RP” refers to K. Rodler, Der Prolog der Reportata Parisiensia des Johannes Duns Scotus, Mediaevalia Oenipontana 2 (Innsbruck, 2005); “AM” refers to Reportata Parisiensia, Opera omnia 11, Lyons 1639, repr. (Hildesheim, 1969). References take the following form: RP 1A Question.Article, paragraph number, page number; AM Question.Article, paragraph number, page number. The abbreviation “Qlae.” stands for Quaestiunculae. 8. Demange, “Pourquoi Duns Scot,” pp. 230–32. 250 notes to pages 13–17 9. John Duns Scotus, In Praedic., 4.26, 48, ed. G. Etzkorn et al. (St. Bonaventure, NY, 1999), OPh 1: 280, 288; M1 91, pp. 46–47. 10. Aristotle, Ethica Nicomachea 10.8.1177a12–b13; M2 123, p. 58. 11. Aristotle, Metaphysics 4.2.1003b7–8; M1 18, p. 21; M2 115, p. 55. 12. M2 142, 143, p. 65. 13. Demange excludes all the additions (additiones) from M1, but whether he assigns them to M2 is not clear. See Demange, “Pourquoi Duns Scot,” pp. 205, 208. 14. Paragraphs 32–33 are about whether God’s attributes are sufficiently distinct from him to permit predication, and the problem is not completely resolved. 15. M2 52, p. 34; see also M2 57, p. 35. 16. Namely, that God does not act necessarily (M2 41, p. 31). 17. The fourth addition in paragraphs 79–83 (pp. 41–43) cannot pertain to M1, but also need not pertain to M2; it assumes that entity is the subject of a propter quid science of metaphysics and deals with the question whether ens qua ens should be understood specificatively or reduplicatively. 18. For 6.1 see Demange, “Pourquoi Duns Scot,” pp. 217–20, citing M2 131, p. 60; for 8.1 see M2 46–48, pp. 32–33. 19. But cf. Demange, “Pourquoi Duns Scotus,” p. 231. 20. Ludger Honnefelder, Ens inquantum Ens, Beiträge zu Geschichte der Philosophie und Theologie des Mittelalters, Neue Folge 16 (Münster in. W., 1979), p. 307. 21. Demange, “Pourquoi Duns Scot,” pp. 204, n. 20; pp. 220–23, 230. Pages 220–23 cite M2 125–26, pp. 58–59; 134, pp. 61–62; and 153, p. 68—the last two as decisive. And I agree that M2 153 makes it clear that Scotus regards univocity as compatible with first entity as the subject of metaphysics. But 134 seems to suggest that only created entity is univocal, so I would not suggest that M2 “reconnaît formellement l’univocité de l’étant.” 22. Demange, “Pourquoi Duns Scot,” pp. 224–26. 23. RP 1A 3.1, 191, p. 60; AM 3.1, p. 20b. 24. M2 163, pp. 71–72. 25. For useful reflections on this topic see Demange, “Pourquoi Duns Scot,” pp. 227–30. 26. RP 1A 3.1, 191–92, pp. 60–61; AM 3.1, pp. 20b–21a. Cf...