O artigo aborda o tratado lógico de Geraldo Odon "De duobos communissimis principiis scientiarum" focando na noção de ens tertio adiacens: o ente significado pela totalidade da proposição e seu verificador. Odon o identifica ao sujeito dos princípios de não-contradição e terceiro excluído. O ens tertio adiacens também corresponde ao primeiro objeto adequado do intelecto e ao sujeito da lógica, a qual é entendida como a primeira ciência. Na segunda parte do artigo, localizamos Odon no debate historiográfico do realismo proposicional, (...) ao lado de Walter Burley. This paper deals with Geraldus Odonis' logical treatise "De duobus communissimis principiis scientiarum" by focusing on the concept of 'ens tertio adiacens': the being signified by the totality of the proposition and its truthmaker; Odonis identifies it to the subject of the principles of noncontradiction and excluded middle. The ens tertio adiacens also corresponds to the first adequate object of the intellect and to the subject of logic, which is understood as the first science. In the second part of the paper, we place Odonis in the historiographical debate of propositional realism, alongside Walter Burley. (shrink)

Thomas Bradwardine (d. 1349) was an English philosopher, logician, and theologian of some note; but though recent scholarship has revived an interest in much of his work, little attention has been paid to an early treatise he wrote on the topic of future contingents, entitled De futuris contingentibus. In this thesis I aim to address this deficit, arguing in particular that the treatise makes original use of the divine power distinction to resolve the apparent conflict between God’s foreknowledge on the (...) one hand, and human free will on the other. Bradwardine argues that God’s foreknowledge operates in accord with God’s ordained power, and so relative to God’s ordained power, our actions are indeed compelled; however, because of Bradwardine’s appeal to the distinction in power, he is able to maintain that our actions remain free relative to God’s absolute power, and are thus free, absolutely speaking. This solution is, I argue, unique to Bradwardine, although it seems to be abandoned in his later writing. Bradwardine’s approach to the problem is heavily influenced by three figures in particular — Boethius, Anselm of Canterbury, and John Duns Scotus — each of whose solutions I discuss in some detail. Furthermore, Bradwardine explicitly places his own solution in opposition to that of William Ockham, and so I give substantial attention to examining Ockham’s position. But while I agree with Bradwardine’s assessment that Ockham’s position undermines God’s foreknowledge in ways that should be untenable to someone of 14th-century Christian commitments, I argue that Bradwardine’s solution amounts to an equally untenable determinism. An appendix contains excerpts from my own English translation of the De futuris contingentibus (the first into any modern language), in parallel with the original Latin. (shrink)