Hill/Lagerlund: The Philosophy of Francisco Suarez

Konečně jsem se dostal k četbě nové (tedy teď už ne tak docela) knihy o Suárezovi, editované Benjaminem Hillem (Western Ontario) a Henrikem Lagerlundem.

Kromě úvodu od Hilla a indexu kniha obsahuje pětkrát dva plus jeden článek:

Part I: Background and Influence
1. Suárez in a Late Scholastic Context: Anatomy, Psychology, and Authority (Michael Edwards)
2. Descartes and Leibniz as Readers of Suarez: Theory of Distinctions and Principle of Individuation (Roger Ariew) 

Part II: Metaphysics
3. Shadows of Beings: Francisco Suarez's Entia Rationis (Christopher Shields)
4. Suarez on Continuous Quantity (Jorge Secada)

Part III: Natural Philosophy
5. Suarez on Propinquity and the Efficient Cause (Dennis Des Chene)
6. Suarez and the Last Stand for the Substantial Form (Helen Hattab)

Part IV: Mind and Psychology
7. Suarez, Immortality, and the Soul's Dependence on the Body (James B. South)
8. Suarez on Self-Awareness (Cees Leijenhorst)
9. Unity in the Multiplicity of Suarez's Soul (Marleen Rozemond)

Part V: Ethics and Natural Law
10. Reason and Obligation in Suarez (Thomas Pink)
11. Suarez and Natual Law (James Gordley)

V úvodu Hill krátce diskutuje důvody, které vedly k tomu, že je studium Suareze v současnosti tak zanedbáné (nemá zatím článek ani na SEP!), jedná se mj. o problém s periodizací (podobně jsem o tom psal ve svém článku v r. 2009):

 “No doubt, there are many reasons for this neglect. But one has particularly struck us—Suárez seems to have slipped between the cracks in our historiographical taxonomy. Suárez flourished around the time that three of our historical categories intersected, medieval philosophy (300˗1500), Renaissance philosophy (1450 ˗1600), and early modern philosophy (1600˗1800), and his work … does not obviously belong more to one than to the others.”  (p. 2)

Hill a Lagerlund potíž řeší tak, že sezvali odborníky na středověkou, renezanční i novověkou filosofii, aby se každý ze své perspektivy Suarezem zabýval:

"The problem where to pigeon-hole Suárez led Hill and Lagerlund to an innovative, interdisciplinary approach: “… we have sought to bring together historians of medieval and Renaissance philosophy with historians of early modern philosophy to approach similar themes from across Suárez’s entire philosophical corpus.”  (p. 6)

Nicméně, zdá se, že toto řešení vidí spíše jako východisko z nouze; že by raději viděli historii pojatou souvisle mezi 1400-1700 tak, jak to zmiňuje, ale nečiní, Marenbon ve své Medieval Philosophy: A Historical and Philosophical Introduction (2007):

"Although periodizations in intellectual history must be seen as tentative and plural - they are linked to particular research projects, questions and emphases - a good case can be made, given the traditions traced in this book and the type of problems on which it has dwelled, for regarding philosophy from c. 200 to c. 1700, from roughly the time of Plotinus to that of Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz, as one, long period." (p. 350)  [ovšem srv. 20.04.2012etc]

A jak to činí Robert Pasnau pro téma substance ve své monumentální Metaphysical Themes, 1274-1671 (2011):

„The present study seeks to learn something about the metaphysics of substance in light of four rich but for the most part neglected centuries of philosophy, running from the late medieval period to the early modern era. At no period in the history of philosophy, other than perhaps our own, have metaphysical problems received the sort of sustained attention they received during the later Middle Ages, and never has a whole philosophcal tradition come crashing down as quickly and completely as did scholastic philosophy in the seventeenth century. My hope is to understand the nature of the late medieval project, and the reasons for its demise. The very first thing that must be done, in pursuing such a project, is to find a better way to talk about these four centuries. ... I set aside all such talk of modernity, renaissainces, and middle ages. My subject is simply four centuries in the history of philosophy.“ Metaphysical Themes, 1274-1671, p.2

Ať už přistupujeme k problematice historie filosofie v letech 1400-1700 jakoli - interdisciplinárně či se snahou ignorovat zaběhnuté specializace - důležité je věnovat pozornost "pohledu zevnitř", tj. jak se viděl Suarez a jak jej viděli jiní v tradici barokní (především katolické) scholastické kultury. Tato perspektiva ovšem Hillově autorům schází. (Na rozdíl od německých autorů jako je Paul Richard Blum, Ulrich Leinsle či Sven Knebel). Proto považuje Hill (cum grano salis, samozřejmě) Suarezovu smrt za nejdůležitější událost před Descartovými (blouznivými) sny, z nichž se zrodil nový věk:

 

„Suárez died in Lisbon on the morning of 25 September 1617 after a short illness. … In about two years René Descartes would have his famous series of dreams wherein the spirit of truth commanded him to go forth and spread the news of his new universal method for philosophy, which is generally considered the beginning of philosophy’s modern age. Thus it is fitting perhaps that the death of Francisco Suarez, who despite developing and adopting so many modern philosophical ideas was nevertheless so medieval in his philosophical orientation and outlook, was the last philosophical event of note before Descartes and his dreams ushered in the so-called modern age of philosophy.” (s. 21)