Advertisement

Scotus and Buridan on the First Known (Primum cognitum)

  • Timothy B. NooneEmail author
Chapter
  • 197 Downloads
Part of the Historical-Analytical Studies on Nature, Mind and Action book series (HSNA, volume 3)

Abstract

Noone’s chapter deals with the issue of what the “primordial” object of our intellective cognition is, contrasting Buridan’s position with that of John Duns Scotus (c. 1266–1308), perhaps, the most influential author on the issue after Aquinas. The chapter argues that, on the question of whether Buridan was influenced by Scotus on the primum cognitum, there is some slight, but not overwhelming, evidence that Buridan knew arguments similar to those advanced by Scotus, but none that show in a detailed manner any important influence of Scotus’s theory. The chapter concludes that we have, at the level of empirical psychology, some convergence between the two thinkers; however, at the level of ontology and the metaphysical underpinnings of human thought, Buridan and Scotus are quite far apart. Indeed, it would seem that Buridan only thinks about the related issues in terms of a new, nominalist paradigm, simply leaving the original problematic behind.

Keywords

Objects of thought Primum cognitum Nominalism vs. realism 

Bibliography

Primary

  1. Duns Scotus, J. (1954). Ordinatio I, dist. 3. In C. Balić et al. (Eds.), Opera omnia (Vol. 3). Vatican City: Vatican Press.Google Scholar
  2. Duns Scotus, J. (1960). Lectura I, dist. 3. In C. Balić et al. (Eds.), Opera omnia (Vol. 16). Vatican City: Vatican Press.Google Scholar
  3. Duns Scotus, J. (2004). In A. B. Wolter and O. V. Bychkov (Trans. and Ed.), The examined report of the Paris lecture: Reportatio I–A, Latin text and English translation. St. Bonaventure: Franciscan Institute. Rep. Parisiensis I-A prol. q. 2 n. 157 (ed. BW 56).Google Scholar
  4. Duns Scotus, J. (2006). Quaestiones super secundum et tertium De anima. In T. Noone et al. (Eds.), Opera Phiosophica (Vol. 5). St. Bonaventure: Franciscan Institute.Google Scholar
  5. Kilwardby, R. (1992). In G. Leibold (Ed.), Quaestiones in secundum librum Sententiarum. Munich: Verlag der Bayerischen.Google Scholar
  6. Locke, J. (1996). An essay concerning human understanding. Abridged and edited by Kenneth Winkler. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar

Secondary

  1. Alcorta, J. I. (1968). De ente ut primo cognito secundum Scotum. In De doctrina Ioannis Duns Scoti, Acta Congressus Scotistici Internationalis, Oxonii et Edinburgi 11–17 Sept. 1966 celebrati (Vol. 2, pp. 93–103). Rome: Societas Internationalis Scotistica.Google Scholar
  2. de Libera, A. (1996). La querelle des universaux: De Platon à la fin du Moyen-Âge. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
  3. Goris, W. (2007). Absolute Beginners: Der mittelalterliche Beitrag zu einem Ausgang vom Unbedingten. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Heiser, B. (1942). The Primum cognitum according to Duns Scotus. Franciscan Studies 2, 193–216.Google Scholar
  5. Honnefelder, L. (1979). Ens inquantum ens: Der Begriff des Seienden als solchen als Gegenstand der Metaphysik nach der Lehre des Joannes Duns Scotus. Münster: Aschendorff.Google Scholar
  6. Klug, H. (1927). Das Objekt unseres Verstandes und die okkulte Erkenntniskraft unserer Seele nach dem seligen Johannes Duns Skotus. Franziskanische Studien, 14, 68–90.Google Scholar
  7. Noone, T. (2009). Scotus on mind and being: Transcendental and developmental psychology. Acta Philosophica, 18, 249–282.Google Scholar
  8. Noone, T. (2011). Of angels and men: Sketches from high medieval epistemology. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies.Google Scholar
  9. Noone, T. (2012). Duns Scotus on angelic knowledge. In T. Hoffmann (Ed.), A companion to angels in medieval philosophy (pp. 187–221). Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Pickavé, M. (2007). Heinrich von Gent über Metaphysik als erste Wissenschaft: Studien zu einem Metaphysikentwurf aus dem letzten Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts. Brill: Leiden.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Pini, G. (2008). Scotus on the object of cognitive acts. Franciscan Studies, 66, 281–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Catholic University of AmericaWashington, DCUSA

Personalised recommendations