This paper outlines the role of the bodily essence in Spinoza’s epistemology. Spinoza maintains in the Ethics that the power of the imagination depends on bodily affections and it explains the inadequateness of imaginative ideas. However, Spinoza also exploits the capabilities of the human body to work out his account of common notions, which grounds the adequate knowledge provided by reason. Moreover, the essentia corporis plays a crucial role in the fifth part of the Ethics. Indeed, the “eternal part” (...) of the mind depends on the adequate idea of the eternal essence of the human body. By connecting this idea with other ideas, the mind has the power of ordering its ideas according to the intellect. Thus, the mind increases the number of the ideas it conceives of sub specie aeternitatis. In this sense, the bodily essence is not only the ground of Spinoza’s epistemology but also of Spinoza’s doctrine of the eternity of the mind. (shrink)

Algumas soluções medievais para o sofisma ´omnis homo de necessitate est animal´ postulam um tipo especial de ser, o ser da essência (esse essentiae), que explica como uma predicação necessária pode ser verdadeira sobre seres cuja existência é contingente. O ser da essência, distinto do ser efetivo (esse actuale), admite apenas propriedades necessárias. Deste traço se seguem duas diferenças em relação a teorias meinonguianas acerca do não ser. Inicialmente, segundo Meinong, o tipo de propriedade de um objeto é independente de (...) ele existir – o chamado ´Princípio da Independência´. Além disto, o ser da essência não é parte da explicação da intencionalidade. Teorias medievais que julgam dever explicar a intencionalidade pela postulação de um tipo especial de ser não o fazem pela postulação do esse essentiae. Objetos meinoinguianos, por seu vez, servem para explicar tanto a intencionalidade quanto a distribuição intuitiva de valores de verdade para sentenças sobre inexistentes. (shrink)

Il lavoro consiste in un'analisi del concetto di essere in Aristotele considerandolo dal punto di vista dell'espressione "to ti en einai". L'essere in quanto tale non è tematizzato in quanto tale, ma visto come sinonimo di ente, e questo nel suo significato principale di "ousia". Siccome l'ousia aristotelica venne successivamente interpretata e tradotta in ambiente latino come "substantia" ed "essentia" l'espressione "to ti en einai" aiuta a comprendere la ragione di questi termini e a determinare realmente la portata concettuale (...) di ciò che attualmente si dedomina in Occidente "essentia". Dunque il "ti en einai" non solo indica l'essere/ente della realtà extramentale (to...einai), ma contemporaneamente il suo contenuto specifico persistente nel tempo (ti en) . (shrink)

The distinction between essence (essentia) and existence (existentia) plays a major role in Spinoza’s metaphysics. Although the distinction did not originate with Avicenna, it is primarily through Avicenna’s influence that it became widespread, if not ubiquitous, in both Jewish and Christian medieval philosophy (e.g., Ogden 2021). Spinoza was clearly familiar with this important distinction through his study of Maimonides, Crescas, and Descartes, and it is particularly useful to examine Spinoza’s employment of the distinction in contrast to Descartes’. In the (...) Meditations, Descartes relies on the distinction in a proof of God’s existence, and in his exploration of the essence of material things (both in Meditation Five). (shrink)

The very first line of Spinoza’s magnum opus, the Ethics, states the following surprising definition: By cause of itself I understand that whose essence involves existence, or that whose nature cannot be conceived except as existing [Per causam sui intelligo id, cujus essentia involvit existentiam, sive id, cujus natura non potest concipi, nisi existens]. As we shall shortly see, for many of Spinoza’s contemporaries and predecessors the very notion of causa sui was utterly absurd, akin to a Baron Munchausen (...) attempting to lift himself above a river by pulling his hair up. How can a thing cause itself into existence, if before the causal activity, the cause did not exist at all? Indeed, in one of his earliest works, Spinoza himself claimed: “No thing, considered in itself, has in itself a cause enabling it to destroy itself (if it exists), or to make itself [te konnen maaken] (if it does not exist)” (KV II 26|I/110/14-16). Moreover, in other early works, Spinoza refers to God as an “uncreated thing” (TIE §97) or “uncreated substance” (CM II 1|I/237/20), and not as a cause-of-itself as in the Ethics. What made Spinoza desert the common, traditional, view of God as the uncaused first cause, or uncreated substance, and adopt instead the apparently chimerical notion of God as causa sui? A very likely explanation for this development suggests that Spinoza’s rationalism, his commitment to the principle that everything must have a reason both for its existence and for its non-existence – a commitment stated clearly both in the Ethics (see, for example, E1p8s2 and E1p11d2), and in Spinoza’s other writings (see, for example, Ep. 34 (IV/179/29)) – made him realize that the notion of an uncreated, or uncaused, thing is of no use for him: if everything must have a cause, then the first cause, or the most fundamental being, must be a cause-of-itself. All this is well and good, but we should not let Spinoza off the hook so easily, for the immediate question which arises now is whether Spinoza is not simply cheating his readers. Does Spinoza have a reason – i.e., argument – that could convince us that causa sui is indeed a more adequate characterization of God and not merely an opportunistic and ad hoc façade for the good old uncaused cause? While there are many important questions surrounding Spinoza’s notion of causa sui, it is the last question which will be the focus of this short chapter. In the first part of this chapter, we study, briefly, Descartes’ engagement with the notion of causa sui. In the second part, I show that Spinoza understood the causation of causa sui as efficient, and not formal, causation. The third and final part will attempt to locate precisely the alleged problem with the notion of causa sui, and consider how could Spinoza defend the intelligibility of this notion. Regrettably, limitations of space will force us to leave the examination of Spinoza’s closely related notion of being-conceived. (shrink)

What role does Scotus‘s understanding of univocity play in Cajetan‘s development of a theory of analogy? In this paper I examine three relevant texts from Cajetan (question 3 of his commentary on Aquinas‘s De Ente et Essentia, his treatise De Nominum Analogia, and his commentary on question 13, article 5 of Aquinas‘s Summa Theologiae) in which Cajetan articulates his understanding of analogy at least in part through dialectical engagement with Scotus‘s arguments about univocity.

In this paper, we propose to study the problem of universals in Thomas Aquinas with ‘’analytic glasses’’ (according to the famous phrase of Jonathan Barnes). Starting with the semantic criteria of Peirce used by Armstrong, we propose to present a new reading of the position of Thomas, especially of the De ente et essentia . We introduce the thesis of Thomas Aquinas in contemporary discussions highlighting the difficulty of classifying Thomas Aquinas as a realist or as a universalist. Our (...) main goal is thus to present a new reading of the position of Aquinas, while showing how and why his thesis might be a promising solution in the discussion of the problem of universals. (shrink)

q. 16 of John of Naples’ Quodlibet III – Utrum dolor vel passio damnatae animae separatae sit, sicut in subiecto immediato, in eius essentia vel potentia – evokes one of the most delicate debates, both from a theological and philosophical point of view, of scholastic eschatology between the end of the 13th century and the first decades of the 14th: that relating to the action of hellfire (considered, due to the auctoritas of Gregory the Great, corporeal and identical in (...) essence to sublunar fire) on an immaterial reality such as the soul in its state of separation (i.e. in the period between the individual death and the final judgement). The article retraces the way in which (in the well-known q. 2 of Quodlibet VI) John of Naples defends Thomas Aquinas from the suspicion of incurring, with his position, the condemnations of Tempier in 1270 and 1277, and how Aquinas himself tries to explain (especially in q. 26 of his Quaestiones disputatae de veritate) the passio or pain of the soul (both in the state of separation and in that of conjunction), through the double distinction between passio corporalis and passio animalis, and, within the former, between laesio and experimentalis perceptio laesionis. It then analyses q. 16 of Quodlibet III, in which John of Naples identifies the rational appetite – i.e. the will – as the immediate subject of the separate soul’s pain. In the appendix, an edition of John’s question is provided on the basis of the manuscripts Napoli, Biblioteca Nazionale, VII.B. 28 (= N) and Tortosa, Biblioteca de la Catedral, 244 (= T). (shrink)

У статті досліджується стосунок києво-могилянських філософських курсів XVII–XVIIІ ст. до аристотелівської традиції. Спочатку виставлено критерії, за якими його можна оцінити. Виділено два основних типи критеріїв: суб’єктивні і об’єктивні. Відповідно до перших, могилянці чітко визначали свою філософію як аристотелівську, перипатетичну або ad mentem Aristotelis. Є багато аристотелівських елементів в змісті та в структурі курсів, що задовольняють об’єктивні критерії. Так, логіка і фізика структуровані відповідно до традиційного порядку книг Аристотеля з цієї тематики. Всі основні концепти (ens, essentia і existentia; actus і (...) potentia; materia і forma; чотири причини; 10 категорій тощо), на які спираються могилянські професори, походять від Аристотеля. У статті доводиться, що аристотелівські елементи прийшли в могилянські курси через схоластичну традицію, насамперед з єзуїтських філософських курсів того часу. Однак в окремих випадках, як-от лекціях Теофана Прокоповича, можна помітити глибшу обізнаність з творами Аристотеля. (shrink)

En lugar de explicar la potencia por el acto (la esencia por la existencia), nos sentimos inclinados a explicar el acto por la potencia. Habría que hacer filosofía basándonos en lo que vemos, no en lo que suponemos. -/- Pero no sólo la mente humana es causa de este reduccionismo. El ente mismo podría ser responsable, porque si bien el ente es concebible sin la existencia actual, el ser no lo es sino unido a un ente. De ahí la fatal (...) tendencia a establecer el ente, separado de la existencia actual, como primer principio de la metafísica. -/- Por último, está la neutralidad existencial de nuestros conceptos, descrita admirablemente por Kant. Si la existencia actual no puede ser representada por, ni en, un concepto, la tentación de olvidarse de ella es irresistible, y se concluirá que la especulación filosófica es existencialmente neutra. -/- Así las cosas, parecería lógico que los filósofos se hayan concentrado en el ente, dando por supuesto el ser. Pero el riesgo es enorme, porque pudiera ser que el ser fuera una fuerza viva y una causa eficiente de efectos observables en las cosas que decimos que son. En este caso, las filosofías basadas en la noción de ser inexistencial estarían abocadas al desastre, y sus defensores podrían concluir -erróneamente- que no vale la pena ponerlo como primer principio del conocimiento metafísico, reemplazando la noción de ser por una de sus partes o aspectos -a modo de sucedáneo- . La metafísica se convierte así en otra ciencia: Lógica con Ockam, Matemáticas con Descartes, Física con Kant, Sociología con Comte, etc. Pero estos intentos a la postre fracasan. Se culpa entonces a la metafísica de ser una pseudociencia y sobreviene el escepticismo metafísico. -/- En este libro se hace un recorrido histórico para mostrar esta tesis: que cualquier intento por romper la unidad del ente, separando la esencia de la existencia, para luego olvidarse de esta última, está condenado al fracaso: acabará desligándose de la realidad, que no se deja atrapar en el puro esencialismo, ni en la fenomenología existencialista. (shrink)

In this essay I argue that Darwinian theory, far from supporting a philosophy of metaphysical materialism, actually calls materialism into question. Once this is recognized we see that evolutionary theory, for all its successes (which are considerable), is more limited than is generally supposed in its ability to reveal or explain the ultimate thrust of life.