tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-70602978677945264.post8831756124139023700..comments2023-01-19T10:26:24.136+00:00Comments on Speculum Stultorum: A Suggestive Passage in AuriolBrunellushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08630207490739621242noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-70602978677945264.post-85634497540292655572007-08-28T19:55:00.000+01:002007-08-28T19:55:00.000+01:00It's slightly useful - the material you emailed wa...It's slightly useful - the material you emailed was more so (and thanks for that).Edward Ockhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-70602978677945264.post-65841979387948576852007-08-28T17:19:00.000+01:002007-08-28T17:19:00.000+01:00I'm afraid I've only come across the material on b...I'm afraid I've only come across the material on being (55 pages in Buytaert's edition) tangentially, in trying to fathom Auriol's use of disjunction. Buytaert points to Scotus, In IV <I>Metaph.</I> summa I cap. I (ed. Vives V 649-50), and <I>Sent.</I> I.3.3.ii (ed. Garcia I 335-36).<BR/><BR/>I have come across a similar passage in the <I>Reportatio</I> of Ockham's Oxford lectures (c.1317-19), which suggests that <I>aliqui</I> may have been <I>multi</I>:<BR/><BR/>‘<I>ista responsio communis quae datur sufficit, scilicet quod intellectus non est dubius utrum sit substantia vel accidens, sed scit hoc disiunctum quod est substantia vel accidens, licet dubitet utrum determinate sit substantia vel determinate accidens. Unde potest dici quod est certus quod est ens in voce, ita quod certitudo entis est in voce, et dubitat in voce utrum determinate sit substantia vel accidens.’</I> (III.10, pp. 342-43.)<BR/><BR/>Hope that's of some use.Brunellushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08630207490739621242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-70602978677945264.post-59015435822381623342007-08-28T15:10:00.000+01:002007-08-28T15:10:00.000+01:00I did find the passage below in the SEP, but it is...I did find the passage below in the SEP, but it is no easier than the one you quote.<BR/><BR/>"Auriol maintains that the concept of being is an indeterminate concept that grasps all beings at once and equally. This concept of being itself has no determinate content; instead it contains within itself implicitly all other concepts that the intellect could possibly form. Being, then, for Auriol is not contracted to its inferiors through any added difference, but merely through explicating what is already contained implicitly and indeterminately in the concept of being ..."Edward Ockhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-70602978677945264.post-83179064067129379062007-08-28T15:07:00.000+01:002007-08-28T15:07:00.000+01:00As you will know if you have been following develo...As you will know if you have been following developments in the Logic Museum, I have been hard at work translating a bunch of source texts around this subject (i.e. the univocity of being). I am taking it in date order so have yet to reach Auriol, or even Ockham or Scotus.<BR/><BR/>I don't find it easy to grasp. Is there any colour you could put on this view, or any further material you could post? What is the source of the view of Scotus that he cites?Edward Ockhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.com