![]() This chapter concludes that even though Grosseteste did not develop a systematic account of transcendentals, he did however possess the core ideas of it courtesy of his Neoplatonic sources. That is the list of the transcendentals, the introduction of ‘truth’ among them in the thirteenth century, the analogical nature of transcendental names, the primacy of ‘good’ among them and finally considerations about the differences among the transcendentals. We will then outline five features of the transcendental theory before we discuss Grosseteste’s elaboration of those five characteristics. In particular it will trace the elements of this doctrine in the twelfth century then those in the first treatises on transcendentals in the thirteenth century. ![]() After a brief discussion of Aertsen’s thesis, it will focus on some elements of the transcendental theory before and during Grosseteste’s time. This chapter will verify if Grosseteste belonged to the tradition of transcendental thought. 1225) by Philip the Chancellor – is the doctrine of the transcendentals. In 1996 Jan Aertesen stated that the core of Medieval Philosophy – starting from the Summa de Bono (c. The philosophies are also considered in relation to the architecture of Lincoln Cathedral. Emphasis is placed in the project on the relation between Grosseteste's philosophies and previous philosophical influences (classical, Greek commentators on Aristotle, Arabic commentators on Aristotle, Neoplatonic), as well as their relation to subsequent philosophies in the middle ages, and the Renaissance to the twentieth century. This project aims to contribute to the importance of Robert Grosseteste in the history of philosophy, and to establish groundwork for further development in these two areas of philosophy, to contribute to contemporary philosophy. Robert Grosseteste was the first chancellor of Oxford University and Bishop of Lincoln 1235-53. These two areas of Grosseteste's philosophy have not been thoroughly explored, nor their importance established. The book focuses on two important areas in the philosophy of Robert Grosseteste at the beginning of the thirteenth century: Philosophy of Intellect and Philosophy of Vision. Then it will revisit some of the same texts to address the more difficult question of distinction ex parte rei. After giving a brief introduction to Grosseteste's aspectus/affectus distinction, this paper will examine key passages from his Letter 1, his De Libero Arbitrio, and his Hexaëmeron to show that Grosseteste tacitly but knowingly rejected the substance/accident composition of the soul and its powers. Are the soul's powers identical with the simple substance of the soul, or are they accidents of it? When it is granted that the powers are identical with the substance of the soul, for Robert Grosseteste, the second question is whether any distinction ex parte rei may still be applicable to the soul and its powers in general, and to aspectus and affectus in particular. ![]() The first question is that of substance/accident composition. This paper proposes to investigate two important questions pertaining to Grosseteste's metaphysics of the soul. The answer to this question is inextricable from the broader question of the relationship of the soul to its powers. One major question that must be answered is how Grosseteste conceived of aspectus and affectus on the level of being. Although Grosseteste scholars have long recognized the importance of his aspectus/affectus distinction, it has until now received little sustained attention. By distinguishing the aspectus from the affectus and then describing their relationship, Grosseteste made some of his most profound observations about the soul. Aspectus principally denotes reason, and affectus refers to the will and emotions. " desire " or " affection ") to name the cognitive and appetitive powers of the rational soul. Throughout at least four decades of his scholarly career, Grosseteste frequently used the terms aspectus (lit. Robert Grosseteste (c.1168/1170-1253) is an important figure in the history of science, philosophy, and theology. This is the full version of a paper I presented at the 2017 Patristic, Medieval, and Renaissance Studies Conference at Villanova University.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |