Theoria, Volume 87, Issue 5, Page 1270-1306, October 2021.

In his Paris Reportatio John Duns Scotus challenges ordinary views of identity and distinction. I argue that Scotus affirms that there is more than one type of identity: some forms of identity are...

I reconstruct and analyze al-Ghazali’s arguments defending a plurality of real divine attributes in The Incoherence of the Philosophers. I show that one of these arguments can be made to engage with and defend Jeffrey E. Brower and Michael C. Rea’s “Numerical Sameness Without Identity” model of the Trinity. To that end, I provide some background on the metaphysical commitments at play in al-Ghazali’s arguments.

The Franciscan Geraldus Odonis (d. 1349) presented his indivisibilist theory of continua in Paris at a time when similar theses were advanced in the studia across the Channel. The Chancellor of the University of Oxford, Henry of Harclay (d. 1317), caused considerable stir among his colleagues by endorsing a mathematical atomism, and his most famous follower, Walter Chatton, O. F. M., developed his brand of atomism in the early 1320s. The present article focuses on one of the five different redactions (...) of Odonis’s famous question De continuo, preserved in his commentary on Book ii of Peter Lombard’s Sentences (d. 44, q. 4). The first part of the article examines the main differences between the various redactions of the question De continuo. The second part explores the philosophical content and the circumstances surrounding the redaction found in Book ii of Odonis’s Sentences commentary. While acknowledging that Odonis’s atomism is similar to Harclay’s, it is argued that Odonis’s theory is a significant departure from the type of atomism espoused by Harclay. The Appendix provides the first complete critical edition of the said redaction of Odonis’s question De continuo. (shrink)

The first quodlibetal question by William of Alnwick is a reply to John Duns Scotus' Quaestio de Formalitatibus, where the latter clarified his understanding of the formal distinction: ‘formal non-identity’ of the personal properties in God (and of the divine attributes) does not preclude a formal distinction if the latter is conceived as a distinction weakened by the modifier ‘formal’. Whereas Scotus' Quaestio has been subjected to a detailed analysis by Stephen Dumont, “Duns Scotus’ Parisian Question”, there is as yet (...) no such analysis of Alnwick's response. In the present paper his position is explained in detail. Alnwick rejects Scotus' view of ‘formal’ as a weakening modifier; he argues that the formal distinction necessarily is unqualified and may still import too much of unwanted realism in the matter at hand. Both Scotus and Alnwick acknowledge that the formal non-identity reflects the nature of things without falling back to a real distinction. But for Alnwick the right kind of distinction is a qualified distinction that is not a formal distinction. (shrink)

This contribution investigates the first treatise on natural theology intended as such by its author. Nicholas Bonetus is the author of this treatise. The article examines Bonetus' life, works, and commitment to Scotism before surveying Duns Scotus' views on natural theology. Scotus is shown to have been optimistic regarding whether some doctrines now regarded to be strictly theological, such as the Trinity, can be proven by pure reason. Bonetus followed in Scotus' footsteps. The article surveys Bonetus' fundamental ideas on the (...) nature of natural theology. It is shown that he organized the science along the lines of an Aristotelian science, with the result that natural theology has a subject, and attributes that are demonstrated of the subject. The subject according to Bonetus is the first immoveable mover, and the science demonstrates various attributes of God, such as divine intellect and will, from which Bonetus derives the Trinitarian processions. Following the article is an appendix containing descriptions of the manuscripts, where it is shown that the majority do name the text «theologia naturalis». (shrink)

In response to scholarship which has shown that seventeenth-century Scottish scholasticism was influenced by John Duns Scotus (1265/66–1308), Jean-Pascal Anfray has argued that Scottish scholasticism was only indirectly influenced by Scotism, especially by Jesuit thinkers like Francisco Suárez (1548–1618), using the Aberdeen Doctor James Sibbald (1595–1647) and his theory of the body-soul composite as a litmus test. In reply to Anfray’s claims, this article undertakes three interconnected tasks. First, it renews calls for philosophical Scotism to be defined according to a (...) principles-based approach focusing on Scotus’s metaphysics of essence in contrast to a quasi-falsificationist approach. Second, it shows how Sibbald adopts the Scotist metaphysics of essence over the very different Suárezian metaphysics of essence. Third, it demonstrates how Sibbald endorses Scotus’s qualified pluralism in accounting for the body-soul composite. Sibbald thus turns out to be more directly Scotist (and less Suárezian) than first thought. (shrink)