Good to hear so much anglo-saxon 'scholarship' being debunked. Reaffirms my feelings,as an anglican,that we lost our way,and our soul a very long time ago.
Descartes já resolveu o dilema: tudo que não seja de natureza de coisa pensante (as seja coisa extensa) pode ser explicado pelas mesmas noções fundamentais seja ela o mundo estelar ou das coisas infinitesimais como atomos do nosso corpo.
listening to this reminds me of "8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." BEWARE of being spoiled !
There are three metaphysical elements emphasized about Scotus: univocity of being, the formal distinction, and the primacy of the will. Aquinas admits that, although the metaphysician treats being analogously, the logician treats it univocally. He also says that in every analogical concept there is a point of agreement (univocity) and a point of difference. Scotus says that the univocal concept is simply whatever can be used as a middle term in a (logical) syllogism. Further, he admits that there is an analogous concept formed from the univocal concept and its intrinsic mode, by which he means its perfection in act. So there is in fact only a difference of emphasis. Scotus maintains that the divine perfections, though not really distinct, are formally distinct on the side of God. Aquinas also admits in his "Commentary on the Sentences" that wisdom and goodness are identical with the divine Essence, but are distinct from each other, not only in our minds, but in God as well. So all the complaints about the Scotistic formal distinction can be applied equally to Saint Thomas. Finally, although it must be granted that Scotus assigns primacy to the will over the intellect, one must also note that the entire Franciscan theological tradition, including Saint Bonaventure, a Doctor of the Catholic Church, does the same. Aquinas maintains the superiority of the intellect in itself, particularly with the beatific vision, but maintains that the will is more important in this life. So, to say that Scotus represents a catastrophic turning-point in philosophy and theology is simply ridiculous. (In fact, he is even further removed from the nominalism/terminism of Ockham than is Aquinas.) Radical Orthodoxy is simply borrowing (without philosophical or theological understanding) from a certain crotchety group of Thomists who are less interested in the truth than in being on the right "team." Catholics, for their part, ought to obey the ancient promulgation by the Holy See that no one is to call into question the orthodoxy of the positions of now Blessed Duns Scotus.
He is an interesting character. What chiefly attracted my interest in him was his advocacy of the Immaculate Conception, the idea that the Incarnation would have happened even if man had not fallen, and that he is said to represent a Franciscan perspective as against a Dominican Thomistic one. I have just dipped my toes in the water and have much more to learn about his philosophical thinking. So much to learn, and it's good to have such resources as this "take" on him.
No. Milbank slanders Scotus as an Ockhamite. His claims have little to do with the actual beliefs of Scotus. Read actual Scotus scholars, such as Noone, Wolter, Cross, Fehlner, etc.
@@toahordika6 And thats your perspective. Tired of “Franciscan’s” just referring to niche authors instead of actually engaging with their interlocutor.
@@25chrishall Noone and Wolter are niche? Some of the most well respected scholars in Scotus scholarship. The problem is that Milbank refuses to engage with actual Scotus scholarship. I have personally talked with him about this multiple times and each time he has admitted near total ignorance of them but says he has no interest in reading them.
@@25chrishall I did engage with your arguments on that other thread yesterday. It is the radical Orthodoxy crowd that utterly refuses to dialogue with Scotists. See for example how Milbank responded to Horan’s book. He just dismissed it out of hand. If you have never heard the name Allan Wolter, it is you who are ignorant of Scotus scholarship, not me.
@@thebyzantinescotist7081 If you have a critique of Milbank, then critique his position. Don’t deflect to the opinion of other authors which you dont articulate. This is a red herring. The burden of proof is on you as the person critiquing the proposed position. Be a philosopher first, and Scotist second.
Scotus seems like the forefather of Protestantism. Nit-picking and being a contrarian in a subtle and complex way, without documenting a full systematic philosophy/theology.
Good to hear so much anglo-saxon 'scholarship' being debunked.
Reaffirms my feelings,as an anglican,that we lost our way,and our soul a very long time ago.
As soon as it started with Henry VIII and got worse when his son assumed the English throne.
Thanks for publishing. Very helpful
Descartes já resolveu o dilema: tudo que não seja de natureza de coisa pensante (as seja coisa extensa) pode ser explicado pelas mesmas noções fundamentais seja ela o mundo estelar ou das coisas infinitesimais como atomos do nosso corpo.
listening to this reminds me of "8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." BEWARE of being spoiled !
There are three metaphysical elements emphasized about Scotus: univocity of being, the formal distinction, and the primacy of the will. Aquinas admits that, although the metaphysician treats being analogously, the logician treats it univocally. He also says that in every analogical concept there is a point of agreement (univocity) and a point of difference. Scotus says that the univocal concept is simply whatever can be used as a middle term in a (logical) syllogism. Further, he admits that there is an analogous concept formed from the univocal concept and its intrinsic mode, by which he means its perfection in act. So there is in fact only a difference of emphasis. Scotus maintains that the divine perfections, though not really distinct, are formally distinct on the side of God. Aquinas also admits in his "Commentary on the Sentences" that wisdom and goodness are identical with the divine Essence, but are distinct from each other, not only in our minds, but in God as well. So all the complaints about the Scotistic formal distinction can be applied equally to Saint Thomas. Finally, although it must be granted that Scotus assigns primacy to the will over the intellect, one must also note that the entire Franciscan theological tradition, including Saint Bonaventure, a Doctor of the Catholic Church, does the same. Aquinas maintains the superiority of the intellect in itself, particularly with the beatific vision, but maintains that the will is more important in this life. So, to say that Scotus represents a catastrophic turning-point in philosophy and theology is simply ridiculous. (In fact, he is even further removed from the nominalism/terminism of Ockham than is Aquinas.) Radical Orthodoxy is simply borrowing (without philosophical or theological understanding) from a certain crotchety group of Thomists who are less interested in the truth than in being on the right "team." Catholics, for their part, ought to obey the ancient promulgation by the Holy See that no one is to call into question the orthodoxy of the positions of now Blessed Duns Scotus.
I just discovered Scotus. Not sure how to process him yet. Can't believe I missed him all these decades.
He is an interesting character. What chiefly attracted my interest in him was his advocacy of the Immaculate Conception, the idea that the Incarnation would have happened even if man had not fallen, and that he is said to represent a Franciscan perspective as against a Dominican Thomistic one. I have just dipped my toes in the water and have much more to learn about his philosophical thinking. So much to learn, and it's good to have such resources as this "take" on him.
@@anselman3156 always so much to learn.....
Just got this video recommended to me after watching Esoterica's video on the subject. Fantastic discussion!
As coisas de mesma Ordem existencial são explicadas a partir de uma mesma base de noções fundamentais( Platão /Descares)
A distinção entre eles é relativo à questão da universais. Para Scott, elas são reais de acordo com Platão.
Fascinating. Basically it seems that Scotus/Ockham are in a very real sense the anti- Plato/Aristotle. Thank you!
No. Milbank slanders Scotus as an Ockhamite. His claims have little to do with the actual beliefs of Scotus. Read actual Scotus scholars, such as Noone, Wolter, Cross, Fehlner, etc.
@@toahordika6 And thats your perspective. Tired of “Franciscan’s” just referring to niche authors instead of actually engaging with their interlocutor.
@@25chrishall Noone and Wolter are niche? Some of the most well respected scholars in Scotus scholarship. The problem is that Milbank refuses to engage with actual Scotus scholarship. I have personally talked with him about this multiple times and each time he has admitted near total ignorance of them but says he has no interest in reading them.
@@25chrishall I did engage with your arguments on that other thread yesterday. It is the radical Orthodoxy crowd that utterly refuses to dialogue with Scotists. See for example how Milbank responded to Horan’s book. He just dismissed it out of hand. If you have never heard the name Allan Wolter, it is you who are ignorant of Scotus scholarship, not me.
@@thebyzantinescotist7081 If you have a critique of Milbank, then critique his position. Don’t deflect to the opinion of other authors which you dont articulate. This is a red herring. The burden of proof is on you as the person critiquing the proposed position. Be a philosopher first, and Scotist second.
I must find out more of this englishman and fellow Yorkshireman,Ashard(?) of St.Victor!
Looking for God in the word salad of non belief has long plagued the whole Christian "project."
Scotus seems to be proto-Spinoza.
Then I think you have read neither.
Luther rules
Better to rule in hell than to serve in heaven?
"enchanted, enchanted, enchanted...." Such a tiresomely repeated word. Too derived from notions of magic and spell casting, NOT Christianity.
Hey. I know you from Paul VK. Also subbed to your channel. Good to "see" you here.
@@freedomslunch Hi! Yes, I've enjoyed your comments on PVK. Good to have you as a viewer. I hope the varied content stays interesting.
Scotus seems like the forefather of Protestantism. Nit-picking and being a contrarian in a subtle and complex way, without documenting a full systematic philosophy/theology.
Have you ever read anything Scotus wrote? He’s incredibly systematic on both philosophy and theology.
@@thebyzantinescotist7081 Lmao why are you ranting everywhere in these comments? We've seen your channel, we know you're clueless on these topics...
No. He is Ockham's (and Luther's) worst nightmare.
No, that title is usually ascribed to William of Ockham.