Since the mid-90’s the figure of Peter Lombard and his Book of Sentences has regained the importance in scholarly world and been studied from both historical-theological and historical-philosophical perspectives. But some aspects of his thinking, encapsulated in the written form, which was to become the material basis for the thirteenth- through the fifteenth-century theological projects, remained somewhat insufficiently researched. Therefore this article analyzes the select parts of the Book of Sentences with the purpose of looking at how Peter Lombard handled (...) the issue of God’s knowledge. The article shows that for Peter Lombard God’s knowledge is God’s awareness of everything knowable. It has no causal power which belongs to the divine will. Nevertheless, this knowledge is able to function in two different modes: it can be either a purely cognitive act as awareness alone, or a double cognitive and voluntary act as awareness and simultaneous volition in the form of approbation. Hence, God’s knowledge in general is not causative, but God’s knowledge of the good must be causative because he simultaneously knows and wills what is good. The article reasonably suggests that Lombard’s logic implies the compatibility of God’s (fore)knowledge and voluntary activity, on the one hand, and the contingency of the created order and the rational creatures’ free will, on the other hand. But the details of this conception remain unrevealed as Lombard’s presentation of the problem is to be declared underdeveloped. (shrink)

RESUMO Este trabalho tem por objetivo apresentar os tipos de Argumentos Tópicos reconhecidos por Boécio, apontando suas diferenças quanto à disciplina a que pertencem. A partir disso, pretende-se considerar seu uso na “Consolação”, ressaltando que a utilização dessa forma de argumento possui, de acordo com o próprio filósofo, implicações sobre o objetivo do autor ao escrever o texto. Tendo sido sua última obra e escrita tão próxima ao estudo que realizou dos textos sobre os Tópicos, cuja pretensão era de, mais (...) tarde, harmonizar com as demais partes da lógica para fortalecê-la conforme parece propor em ambos os escritos sobre o tema, pareceria pertinente supor que Boécio utilizaria esse tipo de argumento para encontrar as inferências mais adequadas ao seu discurso, dando-lhe força e deixando clara sua intenção por meio da estrutura formal a que recorreu. ABSTRACT This paper aims to present the types of Topical Arguments recognized by Boethius, presenting their differences as to the discipline to which they belong. From this, it is intended to point out its use in the Consolation, emphasizing that the use of this type of arguments has, according to the philosopher himself, implications on the author's goal for writing the text. Having been his last work and having been written so close to his study of the texts on the Topics, which he intended to harmonize later with the other parts of logic in order to strengthen it as it seems to be proposed in both of his writings on the subject, it would seem appropriate to suppose that Boethius would use this type of argument to find the most appropriate inferences to his discourse, giving it strength and making his intention clear through the formal structure to which he resorted to. (shrink)

The article treats the doctrine of transubstantiation or the Eucharistic change as formulated by Thomas Aquinas in his Summa theologiae, Question 75, against its double conceptual (Christian religious vs. Aristotelian philosophical), as well as double linguistic (Latin vs. translated Greek), background. The doctrine is presented and analyzed as a philosophical-theological theory that can be explicated and assessed using the concept of philosophical untranslatable(s), recently discovered and brought to the fore by the proponents of the “translational turn” in continental philosophy. It (...) is argued on the basis of careful study of Aquinas’ text that the notion of transubstantiation should be identified as a conceptual untranslatable. -/- Here the term “untranslatable” means a unique reinterpretation of Aristotelian language of being and change, which results in a conceptual innovation that has some inherent problems as well as creative and promising inventions. The usage of such a concept is justified by the fact that the reconceptualization that Aquinas did to a number of Peripatetic ideas creates a few untranslatable notions, which do not have much meaning outside the peculiarly Thomistic Latin vocabulary. Despite some criticisms they are not necessarily to be regarded as contradictions, but rather as thomistic untranslatables. (shrink)

The last thirty years of scholarship in western medieval philosophical historiography have seen a number of reflections on the methodological paradigms, schools, trends, and dominant approaches in the field. As a contribution to this ongoing assessment of the existing methods of studies in medieval philosophy and theology and a supplement to classifications offered by M. Colish, J. Inglis, C. König-Pralong, J. Marenbon, A. de Libera, and others, the article offers another explanatory tool. Here is a description of an imaginary system (...) of methodological coordinates that systematizes the current tendencies by placing them in a three-dimensional system of axes. Every axis corresponds to a certain aspect of the historical and systematic research in medieval thought and symbolizes a possible movement between two extremes representing opposite methodological values and directions. The methods and approaches practiced in recent studies in medieval philosophy and theology might be schematically located inside this general system of argumentational, focal (or objectival), and (con)textual axes with their intersection identified with what some scholars call the “integral” model of study. This explanatory tool allows one to see how current approaches and methods form a panoply of axes that belong together in one complex grid and helps to visualize the tapestry of existing approaches in medieval philosophical historiography. (shrink)