天主教、路德宗和加尔文宗经院哲学家论物质的个体化

IF 0.2 2区 哲学 Q3 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
Helen Hattab
{"title":"天主教、路德宗和加尔文宗经院哲学家论物质的个体化","authors":"Helen Hattab","doi":"10.1163/15733823-20251342","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This paper asks the question whether any peculiar features of Protestant, specifically, Calvinist metaphysical theories of the individuation of bodies could explain the preponderance of Calvinists among early-seventeenth century atomists. By examining the arguments on individuation of the highly influential late-sixteenth century Catholic philosophers, Zabarella and Suarez, I show that Zabarella’s approach to individuation crossed over to the early Lutheran Aristotelian metaphysician, Cornelis Martini, whereas Suarez’s approach was favored by Scheibler – one of the next generation of Scholastic Lutheran philosophers –, and by his equally influential Calvinist contemporary, Burgersdijk. Though the lack of confessional divides indicates that there is no direct link between Calvinist theories of individuation and atomism, I show that Protestant appropriations of Suarez’s account opened up a metaphysically safe space for non-hylomorphic views of bodies.</p>","PeriodicalId":49081,"journal":{"name":"Early Science and Medicine","volume":"8 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Catholic, Lutheran and Calvinist Scholastics on the Individuation of Material Substances\",\"authors\":\"Helen Hattab\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/15733823-20251342\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>This paper asks the question whether any peculiar features of Protestant, specifically, Calvinist metaphysical theories of the individuation of bodies could explain the preponderance of Calvinists among early-seventeenth century atomists. By examining the arguments on individuation of the highly influential late-sixteenth century Catholic philosophers, Zabarella and Suarez, I show that Zabarella’s approach to individuation crossed over to the early Lutheran Aristotelian metaphysician, Cornelis Martini, whereas Suarez’s approach was favored by Scheibler – one of the next generation of Scholastic Lutheran philosophers –, and by his equally influential Calvinist contemporary, Burgersdijk. Though the lack of confessional divides indicates that there is no direct link between Calvinist theories of individuation and atomism, I show that Protestant appropriations of Suarez’s account opened up a metaphysically safe space for non-hylomorphic views of bodies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49081,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Early Science and Medicine\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Early Science and Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/15733823-20251342\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Early Science and Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15733823-20251342","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文提出的问题是,新教,特别是加尔文主义关于身体个性化的形而上学理论的任何独特特征,是否可以解释加尔文主义在17世纪早期原子论者中的优势。通过研究16世纪晚期极具影响力的天主教哲学家Zabarella和Suarez关于个性化的论点,我发现Zabarella的个性化方法跨越了早期路德派亚里士多德形而上学家Cornelis Martini,而Suarez的方法则受到Scheibler(下一代经院路德派哲学家之一)和他同样有影响力的加尔文派同时代人Burgersdijk的青睐。虽然缺乏忏悔的分歧表明加尔文主义的个性化理论和原子论之间没有直接的联系,但我表明新教对苏亚雷斯的描述的挪用为非肉体形态的观点开辟了一个形而上学的安全空间。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Catholic, Lutheran and Calvinist Scholastics on the Individuation of Material Substances

This paper asks the question whether any peculiar features of Protestant, specifically, Calvinist metaphysical theories of the individuation of bodies could explain the preponderance of Calvinists among early-seventeenth century atomists. By examining the arguments on individuation of the highly influential late-sixteenth century Catholic philosophers, Zabarella and Suarez, I show that Zabarella’s approach to individuation crossed over to the early Lutheran Aristotelian metaphysician, Cornelis Martini, whereas Suarez’s approach was favored by Scheibler – one of the next generation of Scholastic Lutheran philosophers –, and by his equally influential Calvinist contemporary, Burgersdijk. Though the lack of confessional divides indicates that there is no direct link between Calvinist theories of individuation and atomism, I show that Protestant appropriations of Suarez’s account opened up a metaphysically safe space for non-hylomorphic views of bodies.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Early Science and Medicine
Early Science and Medicine HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE-
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
22
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Early Science and Medicine (ESM) is a peer-reviewed international journal dedicated to the history of science, medicine and technology from the earliest times through to the end of the eighteenth century. The need to treat in a single journal all aspects of scientific activity and thought to the eighteenth century is due to two factors: to the continued importance of ancient sources throughout the Middle Ages and the early modern period, and to the comparably low degree of specialization and the high degree of disciplinary interdependence characterizing the period before the professionalization of science.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信