Ryan M. Reeves (PhD Cambridge) is Assistant Professor of Historical Theology at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. Twitter: / ryanmreeves Instagram: / ryreeves4
Further reading is blank at the end. I'd recommend starting with Richard Cross's book "Duns Scotus" and the Cambridge Companion to Scotus, for secondary starters.
John Duns, commonly called Duns Scotus (c. 1266 - 8 November 1308), is generally considered to be one of the three most important philosopher-theologians of the High Middle Ages. Scotus has had considerable influence on both Catholic and secular thought. The doctrines for which he is best known are the "univocity of being," that existence is the most abstract concept we have, applicable to everything that exists; the formal distinction, a way of distinguishing between different aspects of the same thing; and the idea of haecceity, the property supposed to be in each individual thing that makes it an individual. Scotus also developed a complex argument for the existence of God, and argued for the Immaculate Conception of Mary. Duns Scotus was given the scholastic accolade Doctor Subtilis (Subtle Doctor) for his penetrating and subtle manner of thought. He was beatified by Pope John Paul II in 1993.
It seems obvious to me that Scotus has the most perfect arguments, and that The Church has been moving in his favor for at least the last 170 years. The crux of Scotus asserts that God wills in a most orderly and just manner, and by this is bound to the nature of all things created, including human free will. A standard of timeless perfection may never be completely understood by flawed human reasoning, but the constant we experience as the emotion of love drives our lives at the core. Pope Benedict XVI stated this succinctly: "The heart is a better way of knowing". A person can change their thinking on a whim, but the heart is much less pliable. Victory humble Scotus ... with no malice to anyone.
What did Heidegger see in Scotus - as per univocity of being -- it serves a touchstone in Deleuze as well. For the former the Ontic/Ontological division is a clear idea inspired from Scotus, while for the latter, the idea of a differentiated plane of immanence as proceeding identity makes some sense; but in both cases I still wonder what Scouts meant at a more finite level with the idea of a "univocity of being."
In order that the happiness of the saints may be more delightful and that they may give to God more copious thanks for it, they are permitted perfectly to behold the sufferings of the damned...The saints will rejoice in the punishment of the damned. ~ St. Thomas Aquinas 1225 1274-03-07
very interesting. I'm enjoying these lectures a lot. (p.s. Berwickshire is pronounced more like Berrickshur, with the stress on the first syllable. The "w" is silent) :-)
I love these lectures I watch wheneverI can. I can’t help but be very curious if mr reeves is Catholic or Protestant , it won’t change me watching these and maybe he’s said what he is but I wanna know haha
Great video! Can you make a video about the differences of Duns Scotus and William of Ockham, their philosophies, their beliefs, their history? Thanks. Would be helpful. It is said that they were 'arch-rivals' so knowing the differences would be great.
Yeah I need to do one that tells about their differences in contrast. The two videos I have on them leave it to the student to notice the distinctions. Would be helpful! :)
This is a great introduction to Scotus! I wish I could have seen it in my college years :). I would love to know your suggestions for further reading. They seem to be missing from the video, from 22:05 to 22:41.
As a person who finds Scotus compelling, I have begun to read from him and his admirers. I respectfully suggest "A Treatise On God As The First Principle" [c-2015, Aeterna Press, provided by EWTN]. It is less than 90 pages w/medium size print in paperback, inexpensive and aims to understand "I am who am". Bl. Scotus is a most ordered thinker who had my highlighter smokin' by page 40. Peace.
So Aquinas thought God was bound by some external system, but was beyond any language's ability to describe him. But Scotus thought God was not bound by any system, but thought we could describe him positively with words? Seems opposite.
+cornutus11 // Yes I worred that too much of this backstory would have confused people at a general introduction level. This is one of the more interesting conversations about our language and God. My experience as a student is I felt we were given nuance before the basics, so I went with a more 'stripped down' approach here. :)
Prof. Reeves, as much as I admire your understanding of Church history, I believe Thomistic theology is beyond you. For Thomas the intellect is by nature superior to the will and in this sense the condition of its operation. In man original sin makes his will unruly at times. Even when it is unruly, tho, it will act in consequence of something offered by the mind; thus the mind always remains first, the condition of the will's act. In God, all that we distinguish and divide mentally as human creatures, will find its analogue but unified in the absolute simplicity of divine being. So intellect and will in God are one, but truth being what the will tends toward by nature, the intellectual in God must be the lodestone of his will, drawing the will to itself. This does not bind God, since intellect and will in Him are infinite in their possibilities and perfectly in sync. By the way, if you place the will above the intellect in God, you have the Muslim concept of God -- or Allah: all Will, all arbitrary, free to contradict himself, free to call murder evil today and good tomorrow, free to decree terrorism if He so chooses.
Sorry for such a minor point, but the image you use at the 19:30ish point is that of Urizon from William Blake. Urizon is Blake's embodiment of the uncaring version of God who is harsh, uncaring and unkind to humanity.
Tom Puddy // Yes that's something of the imagery I want. I often drop this in for conversations about God's sovereignty or predestination, since the default for many is to assume any conversation on this is of an uncaring, harsh God.
ja jane // He doesn't mean grasp in the sense of understand in general or overall. (He did write an awful lot of theology, after all!) He means more of a humble sense that our words cannot be taken as entirely equal with who God is. He more wanted people to realize that human language has its limits.
![[UNCUT] รัฐสั่งหยุดปล่อยคลื่น! แต่หยุดพลังปะทุ “น้องหญิง” ไม่ได้ I คนดังนั่งเคลียร์](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/RmQh47eIiV0/mqdefault.jpg)
Further reading is blank at the end. I'd recommend starting with Richard Cross's book "Duns Scotus" and the Cambridge Companion to Scotus, for secondary starters.
Mr. Reeves, Will you ever a video on Saint Bonaventure?
John Duns, commonly called Duns Scotus (c. 1266 - 8 November 1308), is generally considered to be one of the three most important philosopher-theologians of the High Middle Ages.
Scotus has had considerable influence on both Catholic and secular thought.
The doctrines for which he is best known are the "univocity of being," that existence is the most abstract concept we have, applicable to everything that exists; the formal distinction, a way of distinguishing between different aspects of the same thing; and the idea of haecceity, the property supposed to be in each individual thing that makes it an individual.
Scotus also developed a complex argument for the existence of God, and argued for the Immaculate Conception of Mary.
Duns Scotus was given the scholastic accolade Doctor Subtilis (Subtle Doctor) for his penetrating and subtle manner of thought.
He was beatified by Pope John Paul II in 1993.
It seems obvious to me that Scotus has the most perfect arguments, and that The Church has been moving in his favor for at least the last 170 years. The crux of Scotus asserts that God wills in a most orderly and just manner, and by this is bound to the nature of all things created, including human free will. A standard of timeless perfection may never be completely understood by flawed human reasoning, but the constant we experience as the emotion of love drives our lives at the core. Pope Benedict XVI stated this succinctly: "The heart is a better way of knowing". A person can change their thinking on a whim, but the heart is much less pliable. Victory humble Scotus ... with no malice to anyone.
I love this concise explanation of some of Scotus' thought. Thanks for posting it!
What did Heidegger see in Scotus - as per univocity of being -- it serves a touchstone in Deleuze as well. For the former the Ontic/Ontological division is a clear idea inspired from Scotus, while for the latter, the idea of a differentiated plane of immanence as proceeding identity makes some sense; but in both cases I still wonder what Scouts meant at a more finite level with the idea of a "univocity of being."
Wonderful, Thank you.
Thanks for using your gift to bring these lectures with useful insights. God bless you!
Hey Ryan, I'm doing an assignment on Scotus and this video was enormously helpful. Can you please recommend some bibliography? Thank you.
In order that the happiness of the saints may be more delightful and that they may
give to God more copious thanks for it, they are permitted perfectly to behold the
sufferings of the damned...The saints will rejoice in the punishment of the
damned.
~ St. Thomas Aquinas 1225 1274-03-07
god is good god is love god is truth god is unity which is the natural state of the universe
very interesting. I'm enjoying these lectures a lot. (p.s. Berwickshire is pronounced more like Berrickshur, with the stress on the first syllable. The "w" is silent) :-)
I love these lectures I watch wheneverI can. I can’t help but be very curious if mr reeves is Catholic or Protestant , it won’t change me watching these and maybe he’s said what he is but I wanna know haha
Great video! Can you make a video about the differences of Duns Scotus and William of Ockham, their philosophies, their beliefs, their history? Thanks. Would be helpful. It is said that they were 'arch-rivals' so knowing the differences would be great.
Yeah I need to do one that tells about their differences in contrast. The two videos I have on them leave it to the student to notice the distinctions. Would be helpful! :)
I've been under the impression that Cornelius Van Til came up with the term "Creator/Creation Distinction".
This is a great introduction to Scotus! I wish I could have seen it in my college years :). I would love to know your suggestions for further reading. They seem to be missing from the video, from 22:05 to 22:41.
As a person who finds Scotus compelling, I have begun to read from him and his admirers. I respectfully suggest "A Treatise On God As The First Principle" [c-2015, Aeterna Press, provided by EWTN]. It is less than 90 pages w/medium size print in paperback, inexpensive and aims to understand "I am who am". Bl. Scotus is a most ordered thinker who had my highlighter smokin' by page 40. Peace.
Scotus sounds like an early Wittgenstein to me
No further reading?
So Aquinas thought God was bound by some external system, but was beyond any language's ability to describe him. But Scotus thought God was not bound by any system, but thought we could describe him positively with words? Seems opposite.
Great video, but to be more precise, a distinction existed in the middle ages between univocal, equivocal, and analogical ways of speaking about God.
+cornutus11 // Yes I worred that too much of this backstory would have confused people at a general introduction level. This is one of the more interesting conversations about our language and God. My experience as a student is I felt we were given nuance before the basics, so I went with a more 'stripped down' approach here. :)
Didn't he reject the Atonement Theory?
Think you have in mind Abelard. He came under serious fire and was silenced for this.
Prof. Reeves, as much as I admire your understanding of Church history, I believe Thomistic theology is beyond you. For Thomas the intellect is by nature superior to the will and in this sense the condition of its operation. In man original sin makes his will unruly at times. Even when it is unruly, tho, it will act in consequence of something offered by the mind; thus the mind always remains first, the condition of the will's act. In God, all that we distinguish and divide mentally as human creatures, will find its analogue but unified in the absolute simplicity of divine being. So intellect and will in God are one, but truth being what the will tends toward by nature, the intellectual in God must be the lodestone of his will, drawing the will to itself. This does not bind God, since intellect and will in Him are infinite in their possibilities and perfectly in sync. By the way, if you place the will above the intellect in God, you have the Muslim concept of God -- or Allah: all Will, all arbitrary, free to contradict himself, free to call murder evil today and good tomorrow, free to decree terrorism if He so chooses.
Well that's one way to put it :)
Divine logos according Heraclitus as evidence of God existence?
Sorry for such a minor point, but the image you use at the 19:30ish point is that of Urizon from William Blake. Urizon is Blake's embodiment of the uncaring version of God who is harsh, uncaring and unkind to humanity.
Tom Puddy // Yes that's something of the imagery I want. I often drop this in for conversations about God's sovereignty or predestination, since the default for many is to assume any conversation on this is of an uncaring, harsh God.
How could Aquinas get away with saying someone could get to understand G-d? That is just incredulous to me. He was bold.
ja jane // He doesn't mean grasp in the sense of understand in general or overall. (He did write an awful lot of theology, after all!) He means more of a humble sense that our words cannot be taken as entirely equal with who God is. He more wanted people to realize that human language has its limits.
Ryan Reeves o i c.Thank you, because I don't understand G-d atall!
ja jane // :)
god created all and hell too..why further discussion is needed fails me..
These guys talked too much... They should've just read the scriptures
So should @ryanreeves too much ology and not enough theo
Well I have Ology tattooed across my lower back...
Ryan Reeves haha