• P.V. Spade (trans.), Five Texts on the Mediaeval Problem of Universals: Porphyry, Boethius, Abelard, Duns Scotus, Ockham (Indianapolis: 1994).
• T. Bates, Duns Scotus and the Problem of Universals (London: 2010).
• R. Cross, Duns Scotus’ Theory of Cognition (Oxford: 2014).
• J.J.E. Gracia (ed.), Individuation in Scholasticism: the Later Middle Ages and the Counter-Reformation, 1150-1650 (Albany: 1994).
• G. Pini, “Scotus on Universals: a Reconsideration,” Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale 18 (2007), 395-409.
• P. King, “Duns Scotus on the Common Nature and the Individual Differentia,” Philosophical Topics 20 (1992), 50-76.
• P. King, “Duns Scotus on Singular Essences,” Medioevo 30 (2005), 111-37.
• M.M. Tweedale, Scotus vs Ockham: a Medieval Dispute over Universals, 2 vols (Lewiston: 1999).
(in spirit of creating weird terms) ... I really liked your episode today. However, I think I could use a bit of explanation why this old crap matters at all. You know something like how does the dispute on universals, and (in my opinion) sad reality that it has never been resolved, more like just abandoned reflects on the current disputes. I.e., isn't there some link between the dispute between nominalism and realism and current discussoins about social reality (e.g., gender)? Is gender real or just socially constructed? I know that philosophy is supposed to be dry and boring, but the dispuste about universals seems to get to the limits of what anybody is able to sustain.
Thanks for the show though
It's interesting you picked this topic to pose the question, because actually it is one of the medieval discussions that is most directly relevant to contemporary philosophy. It might be a challenge for me to explain to contemporary philosophers why they should care about Augustine's theory of grace and medieval theories of free will that respond to it; but the universals dispute would be no problem since that is still an ongoing and central debate in philosophy today.
I guess therefore that your question is not really about the topic being old, but why care about metaphysics at all. My response would be: look around you - everything you see is an individual object and has features in common with other things. So what we are trying to explain here is literally one of the most pervasive phenomena that there is, much more pervasive than (say) human ethical concerns, even.
Having said that, it does certainly have knock-on implications for issues you might find it easier to care about, to so speak. For instance, in ethics and politics we need the concept of an individual person, and also need to think about what people do/do not have in common (your point about gender). If you think about disputes over whether certain individuals are persons (e.g. fetuses, brain damaged humans), you might find it more plausible that a rigorous understanding of what makes each individual the individual it is could be quite handy.
But as I say, I don't think that "applied" discussions like this are the real reason it is interesting; it seems to me obviously a deep and puzzling question that is worth thinking about for its own sake. Maybe a matter of taste!
Sorry, that's my horrible English (being sick doesn't help it, and yes I am a native Czech, so with the rising temperature my familiarity with Shakespeare's language goes down). I meant it just the opposite ... yes, I liked the topic and I think it would be even more encouraging for the listeners if you underscore its relevance to the current discussions.
I must say that despite some people not liking this section on Medieval philosophy I personally have found it not only deeply interesting from a historical perspective but also greatly thought provoking. I often recommend your podcast to people who wish to know more about medieval philosophy.
Anyway, just thought I should write and say that I am amazed and thankful you have put the massive effort into making these jems every week!
Thanks very much! Very encouraging.
Actually, somewhat to my surprise the medieval episodes haven't been unpopular - the download stats are still high and hardly anyone has complained that I am lingering over it so long. I guess that once you dig into it, it is clear that they are covering lots of different philosophical issues so that there is something for everyone in the medieval period.
Or maybe the impatient people already gave up on me in late antiquity...
As the saying goes ' You can take a horse to the trough but you cannot make him drink'
Firstly, thank you so much for the the whole series and books.
What a find (for me at least) is John Dun Scotus!
I must admit that even if did not know the works of some of the philosophers, I had some vague recollection of their name and roughly where they fit in history. With Scotus I had never heard of him. So this is enough to make medieval philosophy very interesting.
Another wonderful outcome is that at least for those of us that are scientifically trained, is how the culture of most science grads is to think that Medievals were some sort of people that chcked their brain out the door for a few centuries.
Your episodes are showing that this is not true at all. Continuity was alive and we must look at other areas to find reasons for accelaration and deccelaration of "progress".
The other area I found equally impressive was the time after hellenistic thought passed over to the Greek Church fathers. These people pondered very hard on difficult topics that hardly anyone today knows or appreciates. Again thinking did not die but continued.
This is an amazing effort, and closing the gaps and shows that there will always be people that will try to make sense of it all and gracious enough to share with the rest of us.
Great, thanks very much! I couldn't agree more about Scotus - he is a philosopher everyone should know about - and also the Patristic material, which was really the first thing I got to in the podcast that I didn't know well already myself. So I was also thrilled to read up and find out how interesting the Greek Fathers were.
Scotus is kewl!
There are even those who take him as revolutionary in his theology ... https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004SCBKM8/ ... highly recommended.
Intuitive and discursive knowledge
Great episode! Such a clear exposition on such a complicated topic.
I'm very intrigued by the last section about the cognition of individuals. I thought that Kant's distinction between intuitive and discursive knowledge should be traced back to Leibniz. Now I realize that it should be traced back to Scotus.
(All) Roses are Red
I know it is a joke, but i find it interesting that we treat the statement A is B, where A is a universal, to mean strictly "All A is B" when this is so rarely the case in practical language. There are a ton of other possible uses, such as "Apples are [typically/iconically] red," "African Americans [usually] vote democrat," "it is safer [on aggrigate], to wear a seatbelt," "taller waiters [all else being equal] recieve larger tips" and even the Aristotilian "humans [by nature/by essence] have two legs." I understand why it is strictly true logically (at least Fregian and Stoic logically), but seems to be a pretty big leap to assume A is B was intended as "all A is B" in practice.
-Alexander "Otter" Johnson
Post Script: I was also wondering why Aquinas was handled different than Augustine. Both had a typical style but atypical conclusions to those of their own time period, that had little immediate influence but a much larger influence down the road. It seems a little strange that he was singled out to be handled differently than several similar philosophers such as Augustine. Is he just, whatever the reverse of trendy is, right now?
A is B
Yes, that's a good point and Aristotle as often is way ahead of you: he distinguishes carefully in the Prior Analytics between particular propositions (so about one, or more than one but not all, items within a class) and universal propositions (all the members of a class). You might remember that the medievals had those special names for syllogistic forms like Barbara and Ferio; the vowels in these mnemonic tags are the distinguish universal/particular and positive/negative propositions. So effectively they regiment a logical terminology for avoiding the ambiguity you are pointing to.
Re. your postscript the reason I tackled Aquinas like that is (a) he is often seen as dominating his period of philosophy, as if he were by far the most important figure of the medieval age, to the point that he is often the only medieval thinker studied in a survey class, and (b) in fact he is more interesting to look at in context by comparing his views to those of contemporaries or near-contemporaries like Albert, Bonaventure, Scotus, etc. Neither of those is really true for Augustine. There I had a different axe to grind which is that he is often not perceived as a late ancient thinker but as early medieval - basically, as a forerunner to Aquinas! So in a way my treatment of both is part of the same effort to decenter Aquinas from the whole story of pre-modern Christian philsoophy, by firstly contextualizing Augustine as a late ancient thinker, and secondly by emphasizing that Aquinas is only one of many scholastics worth our attention.
Add new comment