tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608697421187043479.post755222247142534025..comments2023-10-19T21:48:56.560-05:00Comments on meaning in history: John Duns Scotus and the Western Crisis, Part 1mark wauckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08247066866195200890noreply@blogger.comBlogger24125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608697421187043479.post-26052232632330162852013-01-12T19:06:38.336-06:002013-01-12T19:06:38.336-06:00Thanks, Roberto. I'll admit to being taken so...Thanks, Roberto. I'll admit to being taken somewhat by surprise by the degree of acrimony that was generated.mark wauckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08247066866195200890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608697421187043479.post-79522206462669827182013-01-12T17:24:39.909-06:002013-01-12T17:24:39.909-06:00Now I see. It is a very interesting debate, but un...Now I see. It is a very interesting debate, but unnecessarily acrimonious. In my opinion, the noise in the debate was sparked by begining a comment of this blog with "Look, I'll try to be civil, but have you read Scotus?"<br /><br />But, tone aside, congratulation also for the debate.Roberto Lopezhttp://www.rlopez7.infonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608697421187043479.post-62203859923285409252013-01-11T21:28:38.830-06:002013-01-11T21:28:38.830-06:00An incredibly scholarly post (almost a paper) in a...An incredibly scholarly post (almost a paper) in an non-academic setting. Congratulations. I am still digesting the post and the comments.Roberto Lopezhttp://www.rlopez7.infonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608697421187043479.post-27343149623570051752012-05-29T19:17:09.429-05:002012-05-29T19:17:09.429-05:00I think I'm starting to get it: the fear of Th...I think I'm starting to get it: the fear of Thomism is the beginning of wisdom, right?<br /><br />Re participation, it's not my fault that you haven't read this blog.mark wauckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08247066866195200890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608697421187043479.post-56263484831791940632012-05-29T17:48:14.042-05:002012-05-29T17:48:14.042-05:001. JP II canonized non-existent people? Ergo, pap...1. JP II canonized non-existent people? Ergo, papal infallibility is false.<br /><br />2. I tend to agree with Sullivan's view of Thomism as partisan. Thomism has aimed at thought-control since the very beginnning. The Dominicans at their general chapter in 1280 or 1282 in Strasbourg imposed Thomism on the whole order, and persecuted those who deviated (such as Durandus). The Franciscans Lee Faberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00476833516234522602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608697421187043479.post-43731342426265615392012-05-28T21:16:16.820-05:002012-05-28T21:16:16.820-05:00In the spirit of "keeping up the argument,&qu...In the spirit of "keeping up the argument," Credo in Unum Deum may be interested in my new post.mark wauckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08247066866195200890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608697421187043479.post-64319421375533711712012-05-28T20:06:08.995-05:002012-05-28T20:06:08.995-05:00Ah. I love the debate within the Church among fai...Ah. I love the debate within the Church among faithful Catholics. Of course, Bonaventure and Aquinas have equal authority in the Church and, as Paul VI put it, Scotus is the perfecter of Bonaventure, which would logically give Scotus quite a bit of authority as well. Remember that we are Catholics and the real enemy is Protestantism and other non-Catholic worldviews. I feel a little bit of Credo In Unum Deumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12853267753412902721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608697421187043479.post-71667138204858626092012-05-27T22:17:59.039-05:002012-05-27T22:17:59.039-05:00I certainly regard myself as a faithful Catholic, ...I certainly regard myself as a faithful Catholic, and my blogging is intended to reflect that. However, I'm afraid there's no short or simple way to distinguish my stance from yours. My primary concern is to develop a theory of revelation that is rooted in a theory of man in history. My views on what I term "Platonism," are connected with that effort and owe a lot to the workmark wauckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08247066866195200890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608697421187043479.post-42695880864806189072012-05-27T21:35:21.640-05:002012-05-27T21:35:21.640-05:00From my brief perusal of your blog you appear to b...From my brief perusal of your blog you appear to be a faithful Catholic with pious motives. So perhaps you can understand that if I am over-zealous it is in defense of saints, doctors, and blesseds of the Church, and of their philosophy and theology, produced in faithful service to the Church, and of arguments and propositions none of which have ever been censured by the Magisterium or found to Michael Sullivanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11191322302191384384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608697421187043479.post-38432032762150447192012-05-27T21:18:46.576-05:002012-05-27T21:18:46.576-05:00Michael Sullivan apparently feels that I have wron...Michael Sullivan apparently feels that I have wronged him, or that I may wrong him, by referring to a number of his comments that I have thus far not posted. There are 7 such comments at last count.<br /><br />I would first of all point him toward my comments policy, which in relevant part states that I wish to avoid abusive, nonconstructive or non-pertinent comments. Yes, his comments re mark wauckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08247066866195200890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608697421187043479.post-64176292508186307912012-05-27T20:14:39.980-05:002012-05-27T20:14:39.980-05:00Mr Wauk, I hope you will do me the courtesy of eit...Mr Wauk, I hope you will do me the courtesy of either including all of my comments or deleting them all, since I've now gone to the trouble of responding to your initial post at length.<br /><br />It's true I haven't read anything you've written on the nature of Platonism - this is the first time I've seen your blog. However, it also seems true that you haven't read much Michael Sullivanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11191322302191384384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608697421187043479.post-28832780926495556922012-05-27T20:10:24.533-05:002012-05-27T20:10:24.533-05:00I won't bother going over your statements abou...I won't bother going over your statements about Scotus' ethics, since you state that the ethical considerations are based on the epistemological ones, which you have botched. To say in your concluding paragraph that "Scotus, philosophically, runs into a brick wall of skepticism" is enough to discredit you. Scotus was no skeptic and his thought does not "lead to" Michael Sullivanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11191322302191384384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608697421187043479.post-78914321363158704972012-05-27T20:07:41.920-05:002012-05-27T20:07:41.920-05:00Michael Sullivan has begun bombarding me with comm...Michael Sullivan has begun bombarding me with comments--in addition to the very childish one that I posted and to which I responded, there are now 5 fresh comments from him. I'm loathe to post comments that I lack the time or desire to respond to. Basically, Sullivan thinks he understands where I'm coming from, without having read much of what I've written. He assumes that I regardmark wauckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08247066866195200890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608697421187043479.post-4007845042768879192012-05-27T19:24:40.658-05:002012-05-27T19:24:40.658-05:00Re Lee Faber's comment regarding Scotus' d...Re Lee Faber's comment regarding Scotus' doctrine of abstraction, Faber does not attempt to engage with the authorities whom I cite, who point out the differences that Scotus introduces into this (in origin) Aristotelian doctrine. Faber maintains that those differences are "not as different as presented," but does not see fit to expand. My discussion does, however, touch on mark wauckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08247066866195200890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608697421187043479.post-47418973035959750352012-05-27T19:15:08.848-05:002012-05-27T19:15:08.848-05:00Michael Sullivan's juvenile attempts at sarcas...Michael Sullivan's juvenile attempts at sarcasm are sadly misguided. <br /><br />Sullivan is free to maintain that Aquinas was a Neoplatonist. That's a gross distortion. Yes, scholars have gone into the relationship in great depth, but I know of none who would subscribe to to Sullivan's views. In any event, they're mistaken. True scholars are aware of the substantial mark wauckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08247066866195200890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608697421187043479.post-36324721929282155022012-05-27T18:37:52.199-05:002012-05-27T18:37:52.199-05:00Mr Wauck - or is it Dr Wauck? - here's the pro...Mr Wauck - or is it Dr Wauck? - here's the problem with your analysis:<br /><br /><i>In general I cite the historical studies for the proposition that there was an Augustinian tradition in the West that was, from a philosophical standpoint, inspired by ultimately Platonic influences--through the Neoplatonic influenced thought of Augustine himself as well as through other sources, importantly Michael Sullivanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11191322302191384384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608697421187043479.post-64678701209737738072012-05-27T10:11:03.648-05:002012-05-27T10:11:03.648-05:00OK, we'll call it over zealous.
I believe it&...OK, we'll call it over zealous.<br /><br />I believe it's over zealous to suggest that all the authorities I cite--with the exception of Gilson--"are just not competent to discuss Scotus because they have not read him, and they read him under the lense of outdated 19th c. historiography." Two points in that regard: 1) it's necessary to consider the purpose for which I mark wauckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08247066866195200890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608697421187043479.post-84630520465557187702012-05-26T22:51:07.939-05:002012-05-26T22:51:07.939-05:00"Bad Faith" is a bit strong. Over-zealou..."Bad Faith" is a bit strong. Over-zealous perhaps. I've read thousands of pages of scotus in the original. The authorities you cite, with the exception of Gilson, have not.<br /><br />1. The authorities you cite are just not competent to discuss Scotus because they have not read him, and they read him under the lense of outdated 19th c. historiography. Gilson is an exception; he Lee Faberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00476833516234522602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608697421187043479.post-42099526384675076162012-05-26T20:49:49.838-05:002012-05-26T20:49:49.838-05:001. It's notable that you refuse to engage most...1. It's notable that you refuse to engage most of the authorities I cite. Gilson--who wrote comprehensive books not only re Aquinas but also re Augustine, Bonaventure, and Scotus--is one example. Van Steenberghen and Knowles are two more--both, with Gilson, are respected historians of Medieval thought. And there are more.<br /><br />2. "I'm not sure how Scotus defends essentially mark wauckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08247066866195200890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608697421187043479.post-33869492261908712342012-05-26T19:24:49.469-05:002012-05-26T19:24:49.469-05:00But let's say you're right: everything Sco...But let's say you're right: everything Scotus does and writes is in the interest of defending every minute point of Augustine, and the Aristotelian terminology (you know, Aristotelian terminology like 'quidditas' 'modus intrinsecus' 'contentiva unitiva'); Augustine is a doctor of the church, and if Scotus' who is a full blooded Augustinian caused all those Lee Faberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00476833516234522602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608697421187043479.post-67609082879970847992012-05-26T19:19:36.170-05:002012-05-26T19:19:36.170-05:00I'm not sure how explaining Scotus' actual...I'm not sure how explaining Scotus' actual arguments is invective. all of your authorities, and those of Macintyre are Thomists, who themselves have thomist axes to grind.<br /><br />But I don't know why one would read them, or Benedict XVI to find out about Scotus. Some of Scotus' works are available in transation are there decent discussions that don't rely on the decline Lee Faberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00476833516234522602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608697421187043479.post-76173551380699853392012-05-24T09:01:30.164-05:002012-05-24T09:01:30.164-05:00Lee Faber obviously has a Scotist axe to grind, an...Lee Faber obviously has a Scotist axe to grind, and so relies heavily on invective. He resolutely ignores the context of Scotus' thought vis a vis Aquinas as well as the rest of the Augustinian tradition--which Pieper and the other authorities cited are at pains to stress as essential to a proper understanding of Scotus' thought. Equally, he ignores a characteristic of Scotus that mark wauckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08247066866195200890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608697421187043479.post-31827039911401783202012-05-23T22:10:04.764-05:002012-05-23T22:10:04.764-05:00Well, I don't have time to debate this all day...Well, I don't have time to debate this all day, so i'll close by looking at the abstraction bit. <br /><br />First, the divine ideas are a distinct issue from abstraction. all the scholastics wrestle with making a space for the 'aeternal rationes' of Augustine, even aquinas. Scotus probably gives them the weakest interpretation of all, and makes these rationes are knowledge of Lee Faberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00476833516234522602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608697421187043479.post-84345592287054167142012-05-23T21:51:39.664-05:002012-05-23T21:51:39.664-05:00Look, I'll try to be civil, but have you read ...Look, I'll try to be civil, but have you read Scotus? Thomists have been the enemies of Scotus since the middle ages, and all the scholars you cite, save T. Williams (whose articles are part of a debate with Allan wolter, both of whom have been demolished by Dumont) are thomists, some even writing before there was a critical edition of scotus. <br /><br />Pieper is wrong about just about Lee Faberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00476833516234522602noreply@blogger.com