Pár citátů z první části knihy ("Background and Influence") a nějaké postřehy k nim.
----------
Proč je v současnosti tak málo známá scholastika šestnáctého a sedmnáctého století? Podle Edwardse hraje velkou roli neznalost scholastického způsobu práce (intellectual practices):
„... much of ... the intellectual map of late Scholasticism ... remains terra incognita. In some cases this uncertainty simply reflects the limits of current exploration. I
contend that in some respects it also stems from a degree of inattention to the
conventions and characteristic intellectual practices of late Scholasticism.
These conventions and practices, specifically the distinctive use of classical,
medieval, and contemprary authorities and the techniques for assesing them,
formed the backbone of what might be called the late Scholastic method of
proceeding as much as the rules and assumptions of syllogistic logic.“ (p. 26)
Jedním z důležitých elementů scholastického způsobu práce je citace autorit - jedná se pro současné historiky o element, který je jen obtížně uchopitelný. Jednalo se totiž o problém, se kterým se museli nějak vyrovnávat samotní scholastikové:
"... historians of late Scholasticsim face a number of conceptual problems in dealing with the tendency of authors in these traditions to cite, engage, and refute multiple authorities on disputed questions. While in some respects this method of handling autority was simply part of the Scholastic method inherited from their medieval predecessors, many sixteenth- and seventeenth-century authors cited a much greater number and variety of authorities than their predecessors. As a result, modern scholars have often described the Scholastic and Aristotelian philosophy of the late Renaissance as both textually complex and radially 'eclectic' [Schmitt] or 'syncretic' [Spruit] in chracter. This complexity undoubtedly formed part of a broader dynamic within the learned world of the seventeenth century. In
natural philosophy, the recovery and editing of classical texts in the
sixteenth century, together with post-Reformation confessional imperatives and
developments in fields such as medicine and optics, fuelled by what early
modern scholars called an ‘oveabundance of books’ and modern historians have
termed ‘information overload’—that is, a vast and apparently unquenchable
expansion of scholarly literature. In late Scholastic psychology—the main focus
of this chapter—a substantial amount of material from the cognate disciplines
of anatomy and medicine was increasingly brought to bear on the study of the
soul. Thus in the view of many early modern readers, as more and more books were published, the horizon of the world of learning seemed to recede ever-faster into the distance. It is worth ephasizing that this was not merely a problem of information management, or of disciplining or ordering an unruly mass of material ... it was also a genuine philosophical issue. Late scholastic authors like Suarez were frequently faced both with an ever-expanding field of authorities whose opinions required attention and with the need to tackle newly emerging or resurgent problems and texts. The strategies they used in response shed significant light on some of the ways in which Scholasticism in the sixteenth and seventeenth century differed from medieval and classical approaches to Aristotle. ” (p. 26)
Tedy, stručně shrnuto, citace autorit je důležité téma:
„My starting assumption is that the use made of authority in late Scholasticism
is not merely an explanandum, but also an appropriate topic in the history of
philosophy.“ (p. 27)
Po tomto velkolepém nastínění zásadně důležitého tématu, se dozvíme na jakém konkrétním případě bude Edwards toto téma studovat: na pouhých dvou citacích (!) v nichž Suarez ve svém komentáři De anima zmiňuje dílo De corpore animato (1610) italského jezuity Girolamo Dandiniho (Hieronymus Dandinus, 1554-1634).
Proč užívá Suárez tohoto díla (a ne např. přímo dílo Andrea Vesaliho De humani corporis fabrica, 1543). Podle Edwardse:
“Essentially, Dandinus tackled the eye in greater
detail and from the same disciplinary and confessional perspective as Suarez-on
this one question, he acted as a reliable Jesuit clearing-house of anatomical
knowledge.” (s. 35)
-------------
Roger Ariew (South Florida): "Descartes and Leibniz as
Readers of Suárez: The Theory of Distinctions and Principle of Individuation"
Suáreze lze sice v jakémsi smyslu označit za tomistu (protože pro něho byl Tomáš a tomistická tradice nejdůležitější autoritou), ovšem ve skutečnosti se jeho pozice od Tomáše v mnohém odlišují a v řadě zázadních bodech jsou bližší Dunsi Scotovi. Ariew poukazuje např. na:
- Suárez accepted analogical predication with Thomas (DM 28.3.2), but thought that a concept of being can be found which is strictly unitary („proper and adequate formal concept of being as such is one“ DM 2.1.9)
- Suárez accepted the Scotist dotrine of matter existing without form by divine power (DM 34.5.36)
- Suárez argues, however, against both Thomas and Scotus that the principle of individuation is matter and from together (DM 5.2.8-9)
- against Thomas Suárez is in favor of a third distinction between the real and the rational (DM 7.1.16)
- Suárez disputed the Thomist dotrine of a real distinction between essence and existence
Tedy:
„On these metaphysical issues Suárez seems to have been as much a Scotist as a Thomist—or perhaps may be better understood as neither Thomist nor Scotist. This makes faily easy the task of tracing Suárez’s influence in early modern period. Taking two original Suarezian doctrines which he aligns himself with neither Thomas nor Scotus, one can detect both his influence and the limitations of that influence in Descartes and Leibniz.” p. 41
Zde se jedná o chybnou metodologii - existují jiní autoři, kteří (ať už nezávisle či závisle) hájí stejná stanoviska jako Suárez. Tj. z toho, že lze někde vystopovat Suarezovo ne-Tomášovské a ne-Scotovské stanovisko nevyplývá, že se jedná o Suárezův vliv.
Ariew si vybral k analýze Descartovu teorii distinkcí (Principia I, 60-62) ve srovnání s DM 7 a Leibnizovu disertaci Disputatio metaphysica de principio individui (1663) spolu jeho pozdějšími spisy (bakalářská práce o eucharistii, 1668, Discours de métaphysique, sepsáno 1686) ve srovnání s DM 5.
Závěr k Descartesovi:
“Was then Descartes a reader of Suarez on the theory
of distinctions? It seems plausible to presume so, though it should be noted
that if he read him it was after he had already written the Meditations.”
Závěr k Leibnizovi:
Ariew zvažuje vliv Eustachia a Sancto Paulo a Francoise Abra de Raconis, ovšem oba zastávají jinou klasifikaci distinkcí než Descartes a Suarez).
Závěr k Leibnizovi:
“The inescapable conclusion here is that Leibniz wrote
a Bachelor’s thesis in 1663 in which he affirmed his teacher’s position that
the principle of individuation is the Suarezian whole entity as opposed to just
the substantial form. But in 1668 he wrote a tract on the Eucharist in which he
defended in proper persona the position that the principle of individuation is
the substantial form, that is something significantly less than the whole
entity. … For the Leibniz of the Discourse on Metaphysics an individual is a
mind or haecceity, a Scotist individuating form, which Leibniz likened to the
half of Thomas’ doctrine for individuating angels or separated intelligences.’
(p. 52-3)
Tedy:
Tedy:
“With Leibniz nad Descartes we have two different
kinds of readers of Suarez. Even so, both were influenced by the currents of
late Scholastic metaphysics—especially the metaphysics of the great Jesuit
philosopher Francisco Suárez—although each in his own fashion.” (p. 53)
Žádné komentáře:
Okomentovat