Advertisement

Tot scibilia quot scientiae? Are There as Many Sciences as Objects of Science? The Format of Scientific Habits from Thomas Aquinas to Gregory of Rimini

  • Pascale Bermon
Chapter
Part of the Historical-Analytical Studies on Nature, Mind and Action book series (HSNA, volume 7)

Abstract

The present contribution addresses the problem of the format of the scientific habitus from Thomas Aquinas (1265) to Gregory of Rimini (1345). It shows that the definition of the habitus of science in the propositional format is not an invention of the nominalists (Ockham), but was already discussed at the University of Paris around 1300 in the circle of John Duns Scotus, perhaps as a consequence of the condemnation at Paris in 1277 of propositions containing what can be labelled an “Averroist” theory of science.

Keywords

Habitus Science Knowledge Nominalism Averroism Proposition 

References

Primary Literature

  1. Adam Wodeham. 1990. Lectura secunda in librum primum Sententiarum, ed. Rega Wood and Gedeon Gál. 3. St. Bonaventure: St. Bonaventure University.Google Scholar
  2. Godfrey of Fontaines. 1932. Les quodlibets onze-quatorze de Godefroid de Fontaines, ed. Jean Hoffmans. Les Philosophes Belges 5. Louvain: Peeters.Google Scholar
  3. Gonsalvus of Spain. 1935. Quaestiones disputatae et de quodlibet, ed. Leo Amorós. Bibliotheca Franciscana Scholastica Medii Aevi 9. Florence: Ex Typographia Collegii S. Bonaventurae.Google Scholar
  4. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. 1993. Nouveaux essais sur l’entendement humain. Paris: Flammarion.Google Scholar
  5. Gregory of Rimini. 1979–1987. Lectura super primum et secundum Sententiarum, ed. A.D. Trapp and V. Marcolino, 7 vols. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  6. Henry of Ghent. 1983. Quodlibet IX, ed. R. Macken. Henrici de Gandavo Opera Omnia 13. Leuven: Leuven University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Hervaeus Natalis. 1912. Defensa doctrinae D. Thomae, ed. Engelbert Krebs, Theologie und Wissenschaft nach der Lehre der Hochscholastik: An der Hand der Defensa doctrinae D. Thomae des Hervaeus Natalis. Münster: Aschendorff.Google Scholar
  8. ———. 1995. Opinio de difficultatibus contra doctrinam fratris Thome, ed. P. Piccari, La “Opinio de difficultatibus contra doctrinam fratris Thome” di Erveo di Nedellec, Memorie Domenicane n.s. 26: 5–194.Google Scholar
  9. John of Reading. 1989. Scriptum in I librum Sententiarum, prologus, q. 10, ed. Steven J. Livesey, Theology and science in the fourteenth century: Three questions on the Unity and Subalternation of the sciences from John of Reading’s commentary on the Sentences, 140–205. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
  10. John Duns Scotus. 1997. Quaestiones super libros Metaphysicorum Aristotelis, ed. Robert Andrews, Girard J. Etzkorn, Gedeon Gál, et al., 2 vols. Opera Philosophica 3–4. St. Bonaventure: Franciscan Institute.Google Scholar
  11. Peter Auriol. 1952–1956. Scriptum super primum Sententiarum, ed. E.M. Buytaert, 2 vols. St. Bonaventure: Franciscan Institute.Google Scholar
  12. Thomas Aquinas. 1888–1906. Summa theologiae, ed. Commissio Leonina. Opera Omnia iussu impensaque Leonis XIII P. M. edita 4–12. Rome: Ex Typographia Polyglotta.Google Scholar
  13. William of Ockham. 1967. Ordinatio: Prologus et distinctio I, ed. Gedeon Gál and Stephen Brown. Opera Theologica 1. St. Bonaventure: Franciscan Institute.Google Scholar

Secondary Literature

  1. Bermon, Pascale. 2007. L’assentiment et son objet chez Grégoire de Rimini. Paris: Vrin.Google Scholar
  2. Brown, Stephen F. 1995. Petrus Aureoli: De unitate conceptus entis (Reportatio Parisiensis in I Sententiarum dist. 2, p. 1, qq. 1–3 et p. 2, qq. 1–2). Traditio 50: 199–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Friedman, Russell L. 2007. Dominican quodlibetal literature, ca. 1260–1330 In Theological Quodlibeta in the Middle Ages: The Fourteenth Century, ed. Christopher Schabel, 401–491. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
  4. Fuchs, Oswald. 1952. The Psychology of Habit According to William Ockham. St. Bonaventure: Franciscan Institute.Google Scholar
  5. Le Ny, Jean-François. 1979. La sémantique psychologique. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
  6. Livesey, Steven. 1985. William of Ockham, the subalternate sciences, and Aristotle’s theory of metabasis. British Journal for the History of Science 18: 127–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Maurer, Armand. 1958. Ockham’s conception of the unity of science. Mediaeval Studies 20: 98–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. ———. 1974. The unity of a science: St. Thomas and the nominalists. In St. Thomas Aquinas 1274–1974: Commemorative Studies, ed. Armand Maurer, 269–291. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies.Google Scholar
  9. Newman, John Henry. 1870. An essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent. New York: Catholic Publication Society. Many subsequent editions.Google Scholar
  10. Newman, John Henry. 2013. William Ockham on Metaphysics. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
  11. Piché, David. 1999. La condamnation parisienne de 1277. Paris: Vrin.Google Scholar
  12. Spade, Paul Vincent. 1972. The unity of science according to Peter Auriol. Franciscan Studies 32: 203–217.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pascale Bermon
    • 1
  1. 1.CNRSPSL Research UniversityParisFrance

Personalised recommendations