And Scotus and Ockham are misread if they are seen as simply preparatory for later Reformation and Counter-Reformation polemics. For example, Gregory of Rimini is not just proto-Luther. While there are many very valuable discussions of philosophy in this volume, the danger is that the complexity of the historically situated medieval debates will be ignored. That leads to an aprioristic phenomenological ahistorical world of pure essences. One cannot conveniently separate "structures of thought" from historical realizadons of doctrine. Thomas in the Catholic world and in some modern secular treatments of medieval philosophy is largely due to the polemics of the Reformation. The modern dominance of the philosophy of St. Thomas did not dominate the late Middle Ages. Still, the author does acknowledge that the philosophy of St. Thomas are seen to be infected with the same Scotist virus. Even those early modern Thomist philosophers such as Cajetan and John of St. By ignoring more recent work on Scotus, Ockham and later medieval philosophy, it conveniently presents the older theses of modern Neo-Thomism, which presented a historiography of philosophy in such a manner as to disenfranchise any philosophy, Franciscan or Augustinian. This contrast of a domain of being (with its doctrinal principles) set over against the realm of history makes one wonder if the author is not enmeshed in the very net of "principles" which he so clearly identifies as the problem in Scotism. In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:īOOK REVIEWS 493 devenir, est formellement et de mani~re immtdiatement evident principe d'intelligibilitt, ~ moins de reduire l'etre au devenir, et de dire que tout devient historiquement " (my italics).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |