JAMES OF VITERBO AND THE LATE THIRTEENTH-CENTURY DEBATE CONCERNING THE REALITY OF THE POSSIBLES

IF 0.3 2区 哲学 0 MEDIEVAL & RENAISSANCE STUDIES
M. Gossiaux
{"title":"JAMES OF VITERBO AND THE LATE THIRTEENTH-CENTURY DEBATE CONCERNING THE REALITY OF THE POSSIBLES","authors":"M. Gossiaux","doi":"10.2143/RTPM.74.2.2024658","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper reconstructs the teaching of James of Viterbo on the ontological status of the possibles, and compares his position with those of Henry of Ghent and Godfrey of Fontaines. James holds that possibles are real only in a qualified sense, as objects of God's power and knowledge. While James appears to have been influenced by Henry in his explanation of divine knowledge of creatures, in his analysis of the possibles he makes no use of Henry's theory of esse essentiae, and he denies Henry's claim that divine ideas function as exemplar causes of the possibiles. James' theory is actually much closer to that of Godfrey, although Godfrey himself was highly critical of James' teaching.","PeriodicalId":41176,"journal":{"name":"Recherches de Theologie et Philosophie Medievales","volume":"33 1","pages":"483-522"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2007-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"14","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Recherches de Theologie et Philosophie Medievales","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2143/RTPM.74.2.2024658","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"MEDIEVAL & RENAISSANCE STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 14

Abstract

This paper reconstructs the teaching of James of Viterbo on the ontological status of the possibles, and compares his position with those of Henry of Ghent and Godfrey of Fontaines. James holds that possibles are real only in a qualified sense, as objects of God's power and knowledge. While James appears to have been influenced by Henry in his explanation of divine knowledge of creatures, in his analysis of the possibles he makes no use of Henry's theory of esse essentiae, and he denies Henry's claim that divine ideas function as exemplar causes of the possibiles. James' theory is actually much closer to that of Godfrey, although Godfrey himself was highly critical of James' teaching.
维泰博的詹姆斯和13世纪晚期关于现实可能性的辩论
本文对维泰博的詹姆斯关于可能性本体论地位的教学进行了重构,并与根特的亨利和方丹的戈弗雷进行了比较。詹姆斯认为,可能性是真实的,只有在一个合格的意义上,作为对象的上帝的权力和知识。虽然詹姆斯似乎受到亨利的影响,在他的解释神圣的知识的生物,在他的分析的可能性,他没有使用亨利的理论的本质,他否认亨利的主张,神圣的思想功能作为典范的原因的可能性。詹姆斯的理论实际上更接近戈弗雷的理论,尽管戈弗雷本人对詹姆斯的教学持高度批评态度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Recherches de Théologie et Philosophie Médiévales / Forschungen zur Theologie und Philosophie des Mittelalters (formerly Recherches de Théologie Ancienne et Médiévale of the Abbaye Mont César) provides a forum for original, high-quality research on all aspects of theology and philosophy from Augustine and the Early Middle Ages up to late scholasticism. Recent articles have included highly focused studies on particular facets of the medieval philosophical or theological tradition, broader reconsiderations of received views in the history of medieval theology and philosophy, and editions of texts and manuscript studies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信