为什么阿奎那不再评论波伊提乌的《三位一体论》

Q3 Arts and Humanities
F. Ugwuanyi
{"title":"为什么阿奎那不再评论波伊提乌的《三位一体论》","authors":"F. Ugwuanyi","doi":"10.26385/SG.090106","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Over the last decade, Aquinas’s commentaries on the two works of Boethius, De Trinitate and De Hebdomadibus, has prompted worries among scholars. The central question is why Aquinas had to comment upon these works of Boethius nearly seven hundred years after the death of Boethius. Having made my submission in the ongoing debate, I was yet confronted with another problem of why Aquinas did not continue the commentary on Boethius’s De Trinitate. Note that Aquinas’s commentary stops at question six, article four without any explanation as to why, and this is before the point in the text where Boethius gets to the heart of the subject matter. This question sounds unlikely and, as such, I do not think it can be shown answered directly from the texts. Nevertheless, I believe that from the absence of a separate text on Aquinas’s reason for not continuing with the treatise of Boethius one may not conclude that such reasons do not exist. That such a conclusion would be premature can be clarified by comparison with the debate on the reasons behind his two commentaries on Boethius. Like the former, Aquinas produces no account for his reasons, but the intentions of changing the structural method of argument and the bid to establish the","PeriodicalId":36983,"journal":{"name":"Studia Gilsoniana","volume":"9 1","pages":"167-188"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Why Aquinas Stopped Commenting on Boethius’s De Trinitate\",\"authors\":\"F. Ugwuanyi\",\"doi\":\"10.26385/SG.090106\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Over the last decade, Aquinas’s commentaries on the two works of Boethius, De Trinitate and De Hebdomadibus, has prompted worries among scholars. The central question is why Aquinas had to comment upon these works of Boethius nearly seven hundred years after the death of Boethius. Having made my submission in the ongoing debate, I was yet confronted with another problem of why Aquinas did not continue the commentary on Boethius’s De Trinitate. Note that Aquinas’s commentary stops at question six, article four without any explanation as to why, and this is before the point in the text where Boethius gets to the heart of the subject matter. This question sounds unlikely and, as such, I do not think it can be shown answered directly from the texts. Nevertheless, I believe that from the absence of a separate text on Aquinas’s reason for not continuing with the treatise of Boethius one may not conclude that such reasons do not exist. That such a conclusion would be premature can be clarified by comparison with the debate on the reasons behind his two commentaries on Boethius. Like the former, Aquinas produces no account for his reasons, but the intentions of changing the structural method of argument and the bid to establish the\",\"PeriodicalId\":36983,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Studia Gilsoniana\",\"volume\":\"9 1\",\"pages\":\"167-188\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Studia Gilsoniana\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.26385/SG.090106\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studia Gilsoniana","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26385/SG.090106","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

近十年来,阿奎那对波伊提乌的两部著作《三位一体论》和《Hebdomadibus》的评论引起了学者们的担忧。核心问题是,为什么阿奎那必须在波伊提乌死后将近七百年,才评论这些作品。在进行中的辩论中提出了我的观点之后,我还面临着另一个问题,为什么阿奎那没有继续评论波伊提乌的《三位一体论》。注意,阿奎那的评论停在了问题六,第四条,没有任何解释,这是在波伊提乌触及主题核心之前。这个问题听起来不太可能,因此,我不认为它可以直接从文本中得到答案。然而,我相信,由于阿奎那不继续波伊提乌的论述的原因没有单独的文本,人们可能不会得出这样的结论:这些原因不存在。这样的结论是不成熟的,可以通过比较他对波伊提乌的两篇评论背后的原因的争论来澄清。像前者一样,阿奎那没有为他的理由提供任何解释,而是意图改变论证的结构方法,并试图建立“理性”
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Why Aquinas Stopped Commenting on Boethius’s De Trinitate
Over the last decade, Aquinas’s commentaries on the two works of Boethius, De Trinitate and De Hebdomadibus, has prompted worries among scholars. The central question is why Aquinas had to comment upon these works of Boethius nearly seven hundred years after the death of Boethius. Having made my submission in the ongoing debate, I was yet confronted with another problem of why Aquinas did not continue the commentary on Boethius’s De Trinitate. Note that Aquinas’s commentary stops at question six, article four without any explanation as to why, and this is before the point in the text where Boethius gets to the heart of the subject matter. This question sounds unlikely and, as such, I do not think it can be shown answered directly from the texts. Nevertheless, I believe that from the absence of a separate text on Aquinas’s reason for not continuing with the treatise of Boethius one may not conclude that such reasons do not exist. That such a conclusion would be premature can be clarified by comparison with the debate on the reasons behind his two commentaries on Boethius. Like the former, Aquinas produces no account for his reasons, but the intentions of changing the structural method of argument and the bid to establish the
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
Studia Gilsoniana
Studia Gilsoniana Arts and Humanities-Religious Studies
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
26 weeks
×
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