The anti-empirical path of Zeno in the field of motion is certainly provoca- tive. However, the adoption of strict rationalism is embodied in his de- fence of the respective teachings of Parmenides of Elea.
Ultimately, gnosiological dualism empiricism on the one hand, rationalism on the other is incorrect. It was overtaken by the European and Neohellenic Enlightenment through the creation of modern rationalism, which places enough confidence in the empirical data and in experiments, too.
Peter, Bishop of Argos, and the Omnipotence of God The omnipotence of God and how that affects human affairs, preoccupied not only philosophers, but saints of the Church, too.
Philosophers tried to search God and His attributes by their own means, leaning on reason. Saints did it through hymns, worship and silent prayer. The aim of this essay is to analyze the a priori argumentation. Conclusion: Hence, the specific form of man is incorruptible. Conclusion: Hence, at some time the same composite will be restored. If it is established that the three propositions are true, then it follows that man, who is a composition of soul and body, will be resurrected.
As to the first, Duns Scotus cites briefly the Aristotelian definition of soul. Moreover, Duns Scotus recognizes, as common philosophical theory, that the intellective part of soul distin- guishes man from all the other beings and characterizes the human na- ture. Consequently, the intellective soul is the specific form of man. Therefore, the intellec- tive soul is the proper form of man.
Furthermore, the exercise of the operation of the physical body consti- tutes its second entelechy, ROSS , He designates the form as what constitutes a thing is what it is. According to Aristotle, sense knowledge is organic knowledge be- cause it uses sensory organs. Bodily organs are determined to a certain kind of sense eye sees and senses are capable of distinguishing the me- dium between extreme situations.
Every sense grasps one specific feature of things. Thus, they provide to man limited knowledge. In general, senses are restricted to perceive only the data of natural reality.
It is worth mentioning that Ari- stotle looks into the operation of perception as a unified sense, which he totally distinguishes from intellect, whereas Duns Scotus by identifying organic knowledge with intellectual knowledge, he virtually identifies perception with intellection. More specifically, man is a compos- ite of soul and body, form and matter. Sense knows the in- dividuals by grasping the features of each object of the natural world.
The intellect knows the universal by perceiving the intellectual images phantasia modifies the sense images to intellectual images which will be elaborated by the intellect. In this sense, Duns Scotus rejects the possibility of knowledge independent from sense data. CROSS , No sense knowledge, however, can be immaterial. Therefore, intellectual knowledge is immaterial. Firstly, it is empirically confirmed that man knows an object in a dif- ferent way than he knows it through the medium of senses: the actual universal that expresses simultaneously the main characteristic of all in- dividual objects in contradistinction to senses, which declare the main characteristic of individual objects.
Secondly, man knows being and qual- ity under a universal aspect. In other words, knowledge of universal terms of being and quality transcends knowledge of the characteristic of the first object, which is conceived by senses, because these universal terms do not refer to every being or the specific quantity.
Nevertheless, no sense has the ability to perceive its objects under a universal aspect but it is limited to know the individual object, just as vision conceives only colour and not sound. Thirdly, man knows relations, which cannot be perceived by senses, even though they proceed from the nature of things. It has to do with either relations which characterize non sensible things or relations which exist between sensible and non sensible things.
Fourthly, man distinguishes sensible objects from non sensible objects. Senses are not capable of grasping this distinction for the reason that sen- sory organs do not perceive non sensible objects and thus they do not perceive both extremes.
Fifthly, man knows conceptual relations, which are second intentions, such as the universal, the genus, the species, the judgment and others alike. Yet, senses are capable of perceiving only that it is included in nature but there are not conceptual relations in the natu- ral world. Sixthly, man knows the act whereby he perceives the abstract objects and yet he knows that this act exists within him.
Man, through internal perception, realizes that he understands and also that he knows the object of his perception. The existence of internal perception is proved by the fact that anything that has quantity is devoid of the ability 14 Duns Scotus, De spiritualitate, Eighthly, man acknowledges the unknown through the known by discursive reasoning,17 so that he ensures the validity of propositions or conclusions of the reasoning process.
Concerning the last two categories, man ascertains that they are not products of sense knowledge, because the conceptual relations are necessary for their formation. In addition to this, intellectual knowledge being non organic is not limited and transcends sense knowledge.
Duns Scotus uses three proofs in order to establish that the intellec- tive soul is the specific form of man. Firstly, as shown above, intellect is non organic, non finite act and its objects are abstract.
So it must be ema- nated from something that is not extensible, which will exist formally in man. So, intellect proceeds from intellective form, since its object is abstract. Therefore, the intellective form per se formally characterizes man. This is exactly the intellective form.
Likewise, inasmuch as intellect is formally in man and pro- ceeds from intellective form, the specific form of man is the intellective form. In Latin it is used the term reflectio. It is discernible from the intuition, in which intellect perceives directly its objects. Conclusion: Hence, the intellective form is the form of man third proof. Conclusion: Hence, the intellective soul is the intellective form.
Conclusion: Hence, the intellective soul is the specific form of man. In conclusion, the first proposition, the intellective soul is the specific form of man, is adequately known by natural reason.
He analyzes the first nine proofs which establish the eternal existence of soul whilst, as regards the last two proofs which reject it, he is limited to collation and not to critical examination. Duns Scotus does not accept the rational evidence of im- mortal nature of soul and for that reason he thinks that it is unnecessary to interpret the proofs which assent to his view.
First proof: Intellect differs from the rest as what is eternal differs from what is perishable. He analyzes the Aristotelian theory as follows: intellect is imper- ishable since it does not use any perishable bodily organ in order to per- form its operations. In contrast, an organic operation is corruptible inas- much as it uses bodily organs which are destructible.
For all that, this ascertainment does not exclude the possibility the intellect to perish in some other way. Moreover, Aristotle claims that the intellect perishes when the interior sense perishes the soul is a principle which has a main function to the composite, consisting of the operative principle. The composite is perishable. Hence, its operative principle is alike perish- able.
Passive intellect is a receptive potency of intellect which receives images from the outside world. By being inseparable part of soul, just as the sense, passive intellect is corrupted and finally dies.
In other words, Aristotle denies the immortal nature of the individual soul. Active intel- lect functions freely and creatively without being dependent either from the body or the sense images. Therefore, active intellect, being immate- rial and pyre act, is eternal. Perhaps, he neglects it deliberately in order to advance his theory. Aristotle explains that a stimulant which stimulates the sense excessively tends to impair it in such a way that another stimulant which does not stimulate the sense so intensely is less able to be perceived.
So, intellect is imperishable. The medieval philosopher accepts the above views explaining that a stimulant which stimulates the sense excessively destroys it only acciden- tally, since it damages the organ through which the operation is per- formed. Quite the contrary, intellect cannot be destroyed by a highly in- telligible object inasmuch as it does not use some bodily organ.
However, he underlines that this ascertainment is not satisfactory in order the im- perishability of intellect to be established, because it must be proven at first that the existence of intellect is independent from the perishable ex- istence of composite. He ex- plains that Aristotle doubts whether it is possible for the entire soul to continue to exist outside the composite. Nevertheless, he supposes that if there is something that survives death, this is absolutely the intellect, since its existence is independent of the existence of perishable composite.
Subsequently, soul is not perishable and destroy- able. Aristotle ac- cepts the second type of production, which does not presuppose the crea- tion, inasmuch as he presented the creation of soul to be accidentally in- volved during the animation of body. By denying the creation, Aristotle argues that the efficient cause of new existence is the first agent, under- lining that if an effect derives from both the recipient and the agent, then the first is mutable and the second is immutable.
Especially, natural causes determine when the body is ready to receive life and God pro- duces the motion in order the body to be animated. Duns Scotus ascer- tains that according to Aristotle God is the efficient cause of soul, be- cause its existence cannot be caused by any secondary cause.
He explains that if something receives a new form which is not caused by any secon- dary cause, then God as the first agent must be its immediate cause. It is necessary to exist for a passive potency its active potency which corre- sponds to it. But, if there is no such an active potency, then the immedi- ate potency that corresponds to passive potency will be divine.
He formulates two definitions: Firstly, the natu- ral desire is the inclination of nature towards something. He explains that nature per se is good and thus man is good and his volition is equally good, when he desires something direct according to nature, without the intervention of something else at the time he knows it.
A person has bad habits when his volition does not derive directly from his nature but indi- rectly, resulting in forming the inclination to desire anything that is in accordance with these habits. Secondly, the natural desire is an act elic- ited in conformity with natural desire. The intellective soul, by being simple form, is devoid of matter.
Thus, it must exist. The natural desire is not in vain. Therefore, every intel- lective essence is immortal. The proposition shows the Aristotelian theory on the distinc- tion between potency and energeia actuality existence of things. The potency is the ability of a subject to receive a specific form and the energeia is the total realization of form in the subject.
Aristotle discerns two types of the term essence. According to Duns Scotus, if matter defined only the existence and the impossibility of non-existence of the object which includes it as a structural component, then the form of fire, by being immaterial, would not exist.
Given that the form of fire exists, he concludes that matter de- fines also that a thing exists necessarily if it is received into it. The criticism of Duns Scotus is unsuccessful for the reason that he misconstrues the Aristotelian thesis.
According to Aristo- telian definition, brave is the man who acquires the highest good by defy- ing the dangers, the bodily pain and death. Duns Scotus solves this issue by accepting the Aristotelian theory. If a man performs such a virtuous act, he will obtain the highest good whilst form or the composite that is composed by matter and form.
The form is immutable for the reason that its existence does not come by birth and so it is not subject to decay. On the contrary, matter is perishable, since it is created by birth, namely the composite of matter and form is equally perishable, inasmuch as it is born. So, the natural desire for death does not express the natural desire for non- existence but for a peace existence.
It is preferable for man to obtain the greatest good occasionally or instantly than not to have it at all or to have a long-lasting immoral life. Eighth proof: The causes of death, as they defined by Aquinas, are two. Death derives whether from the prevalence of contraries or the defi- ciency of necessary prerequisites for preservation of life. However, none of these causes explain adequately the potential death of soul.
Soul is a per se existence either it is in the body or out of it. Aquinas specifies that the only differ- ence that there is between the coexistence of soul and body is the anima- tion of the latter, namely soul communicates its existence to the body when it exists in that. He explains that if per se existence is the op- posite of the accidental existence essential existence , then the form of fire, if it were to exist separate from matter, it would also have per se ex- istence and hence it would be imperishable.
This conclusion is valid only if it is established that the soul has its existence naturally and not by a miracle. Yet this is not known by natural reason. Moreover, if per se exis- tence is the characteristic of composite with reference to essence, soul does not have per se existence outside the body, inasmuch as it cannot communicate its existence to body.
Duns Scotus argues that the parts of the com- posite are not accidents but substances. Man is composed by prime matter, the form of the body, local forms of bodily organs and the soul. Each part has its own specific ex- istence, which is dependent on the existence of the composite.
These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies.
Temperatures Rising - Galaxie 500 - Today (Cassette, Album), Something In Common (Duet With Whitney Houston) - Bobby Brown - Bobby (CD, Album), . To Be Loved - Papa Roach - The Paramour Sessions (CD, Album), South Of Sante Fe - Brooks & Dunn - If You See Her (CD, Album), Amor - Bing Crosby - Star Gold (Vinyl, LP), Black Soldier - İlhan Mimaroğlu* Featuring Freddie Hubbard - Sing Me A Song Of Songmy (Vinyl, LP), Генрих И Смерть - Король И Шут - Жаль, Нет Ружья (CD, Album), Cherry, Planet Funk - Who Said (CDr), Integrated - Union Jack (2) - Bad Ska (CD), Slide Away - J.J. (9) - Intro. (CD, Album), Θυμάμαι - Πλάσμα - Πλάσμα (CD, Album), Bernardine Surfin Along - The Tides - Surf City / Surfin USA And Other Surfin Favorites (Vinyl, LP, Album)