Pub Date : 2019-04-01DOI: 10.1163/15685349-12341362
C. Nothaft
This article edits and examines a little-known epistolary treatise datable to 1322, which survives in a fifteenth-century manuscript in the Herzog-August-Bibliothek, Wolfenbüttel. The author of this work was engaged in a heated argument with the Parisian philosopher Jean de Jandun over the status and rationality of astrology. Jean’s pro-astrological stance is documented in a letter dated 28 October 1321, which survives for having been appended to the main treatise. In responding to Jean de Jandun’s letter, the author delivered a trenchant critique of astrology grounded almost entirely in philosophical, as opposed to theological, ideas, addressing issues such as empirical evidence, causality, and contingency. The author’s way of pointing out ruptures between astrology and Aristotelian natural philosophy marks him out as an intellectual precursor to the much better-known anti-astrological polemics written later in the same century by Parisian thinkers such as Nicole Oresme and Heinrich von Langenstein.
本文编辑并研究了一篇可追溯到1322年的鲜为人知的书信体论文，该论文保存在Wolfenbüttel的Herzog August Bibliothek的15世纪手稿中。这部作品的作者与巴黎哲学家让·德·詹顿就占星术的地位和合理性展开了激烈的争论。吉恩支持占星术的立场记录在1321年10月28日的一封信中，这封信因附在主要论文中而得以保存。在回应Jean de Jandun的信时，作者对占星术进行了尖锐的批评，几乎完全基于哲学，而不是神学，涉及经验证据、因果关系和偶然性等问题。作者指出占星术和亚里士多德自然哲学之间断裂的方式，标志着他是同世纪晚些时候由妮可·奥雷斯梅和海因里希·冯·兰根斯坦等巴黎思想家撰写的更为著名的反占星术论战的智识先驱。
{"title":"Glorious Science or “Dead Dog”? Jean de Jandun and the Quarrel over Astrology in Fourteenth-Century Paris","authors":"C. Nothaft","doi":"10.1163/15685349-12341362","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15685349-12341362","url":null,"abstract":"This article edits and examines a little-known epistolary treatise datable to 1322, which survives in a fifteenth-century manuscript in the Herzog-August-Bibliothek, Wolfenbüttel. The author of this work was engaged in a heated argument with the Parisian philosopher Jean de Jandun over the status and rationality of astrology. Jean’s pro-astrological stance is documented in a letter dated 28 October 1321, which survives for having been appended to the main treatise. In responding to Jean de Jandun’s letter, the author delivered a trenchant critique of astrology grounded almost entirely in philosophical, as opposed to theological, ideas, addressing issues such as empirical evidence, causality, and contingency. The author’s way of pointing out ruptures between astrology and Aristotelian natural philosophy marks him out as an intellectual precursor to the much better-known anti-astrological polemics written later in the same century by Parisian thinkers such as Nicole Oresme and Heinrich von Langenstein.","PeriodicalId":43373,"journal":{"name":"VIVARIUM-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR THE PHILOSOPHY AND INTELLECTUAL LIFE OF THE MIDDLE AGES AND RENAISSANCE","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2019-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/15685349-12341362","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41915380","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-04-01DOI: 10.1163/15685349-12341364
C. Beneduce, P. Bakker
This article provides the first edition of a series of eight Quaestiones de secretis mulierum by (or ascribed to) John Buridan († ca. 1360). The introduction discusses the manuscript tradition and the relationship between Buridan’s quaestiones and pseudo-Albertus Magnus’ treatise De secretis mulierum, concluding that Buridan’s questions constitute a genuine commentary on pseudo-Albert’s text. Specifically, the eight questions by (or ascribed to) Buridan seem to be an extensive elaboration on the preface (prologus) and on the first chapter of pseudo-Albert’s text.
本文提供了约翰·布里丹(†约1360年)所著(或归因于)的一系列八部《秘密问题》(quaestions de secretis mulerum)的第一版。引言部分讨论了手稿的传统以及布里丹的问题与伪阿尔伯图斯·马格努斯的专著《秘密》之间的关系，并得出结论说，布里丹的问题构成了对伪阿尔伯特文本的真正评论。具体来说，布里丹提出(或归因于)的八个问题似乎是对伪阿尔伯特文本的序言(序言)和第一章的广泛阐述。
{"title":"John Buridan’s Quaestiones de secretis mulierum: Edition and Introduction","authors":"C. Beneduce, P. Bakker","doi":"10.1163/15685349-12341364","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15685349-12341364","url":null,"abstract":"This article provides the first edition of a series of eight Quaestiones de secretis mulierum by (or ascribed to) John Buridan († ca. 1360). The introduction discusses the manuscript tradition and the relationship between Buridan’s quaestiones and pseudo-Albertus Magnus’ treatise De secretis mulierum, concluding that Buridan’s questions constitute a genuine commentary on pseudo-Albert’s text. Specifically, the eight questions by (or ascribed to) Buridan seem to be an extensive elaboration on the preface (prologus) and on the first chapter of pseudo-Albert’s text.","PeriodicalId":43373,"journal":{"name":"VIVARIUM-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR THE PHILOSOPHY AND INTELLECTUAL LIFE OF THE MIDDLE AGES AND RENAISSANCE","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2019-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/15685349-12341364","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48111927","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-04-01DOI: 10.1163/15685349-12341368
N. Faucher
Giles of Rome’s view of faith in the reportatio of his questions on book III of the Sentences (q. 38, d. 23) is founded on a likening of faith to rhetoric. The firm intellectual assent that characterizes them both is caused by the will, motivated by emotion, or affective bias. This paper argues that this is made possible by Giles’ move away from Aquinas’ position on the assent produced by rhetorical discourse, which Aquinas thought to be of little certainty, while Giles affirms that, based on the will’s natural control over the intellect, it can be as certain as faithful assent, and that the psychological process that produces it can serve as a model for that which produces faithful assent. The new function Giles gives to rhetoric underlines the evolution of thirteenth-century views on faith, as shown through a comparison of Giles’ view with two other doctrines of faith that use examples similar to the one Giles employs: those of Philip the Chancellor and Peter John Olivi. For the former, faith founded on affective bias is a typical example of non-virtuous faith, while for the latter, just as for Giles, it is the very model of virtuous faith.
{"title":"Faith and Rhetoric in Giles of Rome","authors":"N. Faucher","doi":"10.1163/15685349-12341368","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15685349-12341368","url":null,"abstract":"Giles of Rome’s view of faith in the reportatio of his questions on book III of the Sentences (q. 38, d. 23) is founded on a likening of faith to rhetoric. The firm intellectual assent that characterizes them both is caused by the will, motivated by emotion, or affective bias. This paper argues that this is made possible by Giles’ move away from Aquinas’ position on the assent produced by rhetorical discourse, which Aquinas thought to be of little certainty, while Giles affirms that, based on the will’s natural control over the intellect, it can be as certain as faithful assent, and that the psychological process that produces it can serve as a model for that which produces faithful assent. The new function Giles gives to rhetoric underlines the evolution of thirteenth-century views on faith, as shown through a comparison of Giles’ view with two other doctrines of faith that use examples similar to the one Giles employs: those of Philip the Chancellor and Peter John Olivi. For the former, faith founded on affective bias is a typical example of non-virtuous faith, while for the latter, just as for Giles, it is the very model of virtuous faith.","PeriodicalId":43373,"journal":{"name":"VIVARIUM-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR THE PHILOSOPHY AND INTELLECTUAL LIFE OF THE MIDDLE AGES AND RENAISSANCE","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2019-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/15685349-12341368","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44943734","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-04-01DOI: 10.1163/15685349-12341365
John Monfasani
{"title":"Futura contingentia, necessitas per accidens und Prädestination in Byzanz und in der Scholastik, written by Stamatios Gerogiorgakis","authors":"John Monfasani","doi":"10.1163/15685349-12341365","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15685349-12341365","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":43373,"journal":{"name":"VIVARIUM-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR THE PHILOSOPHY AND INTELLECTUAL LIFE OF THE MIDDLE AGES AND RENAISSANCE","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2019-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/15685349-12341365","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42248363","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-04-01DOI: 10.1163/15685349-12341366
W. Courtenay
In recent decades the publication of additional documentary sources and doctrinal and prosopographical studies for the University of Paris in the 1330s has radically expanded our information about theologians in what was once an obscure decade. Using a variety of evidence, this article outlines what we now know about bachelors of the Sentences active at Paris in the 1330s, part of what the author once called “the dormition of Paris.”
{"title":"Parisian Theologians in the 1330s","authors":"W. Courtenay","doi":"10.1163/15685349-12341366","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15685349-12341366","url":null,"abstract":"In recent decades the publication of additional documentary sources and doctrinal and prosopographical studies for the University of Paris in the 1330s has radically expanded our information about theologians in what was once an obscure decade. Using a variety of evidence, this article outlines what we now know about bachelors of the Sentences active at Paris in the 1330s, part of what the author once called “the dormition of Paris.”","PeriodicalId":43373,"journal":{"name":"VIVARIUM-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR THE PHILOSOPHY AND INTELLECTUAL LIFE OF THE MIDDLE AGES AND RENAISSANCE","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2019-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/15685349-12341366","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46060452","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-04-01DOI: 10.1163/15685349-12341369
M. Thakkar
{"title":"Walter Chatton on Future Contingents: Between Formalism and Ontology, written by Jon Bornholdt","authors":"M. Thakkar","doi":"10.1163/15685349-12341369","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15685349-12341369","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":43373,"journal":{"name":"VIVARIUM-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR THE PHILOSOPHY AND INTELLECTUAL LIFE OF THE MIDDLE AGES AND RENAISSANCE","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2019-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/15685349-12341369","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48017054","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-04-01DOI: 10.1163/15685349-12341363
Yehuda Halper
At the end of the fifteenth century, the Castilian-Aragonian Eli Habilio wrote what is now the only extant, complete, and original Hebrew commentary on the entire Metaphysics of Aristotle. This commentary is short, about 15 folio pages long, and consists almost entirely of quotations from Averroes’ Middle Commentary on Aristotle’s Metaphysics in the early fourteenth-century translation of Qalonimos ben Qalonimos. Yet Habilio elsewhere expresses only disdain for Averroes and hopes that Jews will turn away from Averroes to read Scotus’ metaphysical works instead. The author’s claim is that Habilio’s Commentary is intended to supplement his translation of Antonius Andreas’ questions on the Metaphysics and provide a Hebrew summary of the most read Hebrew version of the Metaphysics (viz., Averroes’ Middle Commentary) that would choose its words in such a way as not to contradict Scotus and in some cases even to encourage its readers to seek out a Scotist approach.
在15世纪末，卡斯蒂利亚-阿拉贡人Eli Habilio撰写了现在唯一现存的，完整的，原始的希伯来语对亚里士多德整个形而上学的评论。这篇评论很短，大约有15页长，几乎全部引用了阿威罗伊对亚里士多德《形而上学》的中间评论，在14世纪早期翻译的Qalonimos ben Qalonimos中。然而，哈比里奥在其他地方只表达了对阿威罗伊的蔑视，并希望犹太人会离开阿威罗伊，转而阅读斯各脱斯的形而上学作品。作者声称，哈比里奥的《注释》是为了补充他对安东尼乌斯·安德烈亚斯关于形而上学的问题的翻译，并提供一份希伯来语摘要，概述了最受欢迎的希伯来语版本的《形而上学》(即阿威罗伊的《中间注释》)，该注释将以一种不与司各特相矛盾的方式选择词语，在某些情况下甚至鼓励读者寻找苏格兰人的方法。
{"title":"The Only Extant, Complete, and Original Hebrew Commentary on the Entire Metaphysics of Aristotle: Eli Habilio and the Influence of Scotism","authors":"Yehuda Halper","doi":"10.1163/15685349-12341363","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15685349-12341363","url":null,"abstract":"At the end of the fifteenth century, the Castilian-Aragonian Eli Habilio wrote what is now the only extant, complete, and original Hebrew commentary on the entire Metaphysics of Aristotle. This commentary is short, about 15 folio pages long, and consists almost entirely of quotations from Averroes’ Middle Commentary on Aristotle’s Metaphysics in the early fourteenth-century translation of Qalonimos ben Qalonimos. Yet Habilio elsewhere expresses only disdain for Averroes and hopes that Jews will turn away from Averroes to read Scotus’ metaphysical works instead. The author’s claim is that Habilio’s Commentary is intended to supplement his translation of Antonius Andreas’ questions on the Metaphysics and provide a Hebrew summary of the most read Hebrew version of the Metaphysics (viz., Averroes’ Middle Commentary) that would choose its words in such a way as not to contradict Scotus and in some cases even to encourage its readers to seek out a Scotist approach.","PeriodicalId":43373,"journal":{"name":"VIVARIUM-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR THE PHILOSOPHY AND INTELLECTUAL LIFE OF THE MIDDLE AGES AND RENAISSANCE","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2019-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/15685349-12341363","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"64462023","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-10-15DOI: 10.1163/15685349-12341359
Graziana Ciola
This paper offers an analysis of Marsilius of Inghen’s definition of consequentia and of his treatment of logical validity as presented in the first book of his treatise on Consequentiae. Comparing Marsilius of Inghen’s, John Buridan’s, and Albert of Saxony’s theories, the author argues that Marsilius’ account is based on a conception of consequence as a relation of entailment among propositions rather than as a type of conditional sentence and, thus, moves the discussion away from the sentential level. Therefore, Marsilius’ theory represents an original and important contribution to fourteenth-century discussions on consequences.
{"title":"Marsilius of Inghen on the Definition of consequentia","authors":"Graziana Ciola","doi":"10.1163/15685349-12341359","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15685349-12341359","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000This paper offers an analysis of Marsilius of Inghen’s definition of consequentia and of his treatment of logical validity as presented in the first book of his treatise on Consequentiae. Comparing Marsilius of Inghen’s, John Buridan’s, and Albert of Saxony’s theories, the author argues that Marsilius’ account is based on a conception of consequence as a relation of entailment among propositions rather than as a type of conditional sentence and, thus, moves the discussion away from the sentential level. Therefore, Marsilius’ theory represents an original and important contribution to fourteenth-century discussions on consequences.","PeriodicalId":43373,"journal":{"name":"VIVARIUM-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR THE PHILOSOPHY AND INTELLECTUAL LIFE OF THE MIDDLE AGES AND RENAISSANCE","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2018-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/15685349-12341359","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42780775","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-10-15DOI: 10.1163/15685349-12341358
J. Spruyt
Thirteenth-century views on consequences have not yet received much attention. Authors of this period deserve closer scrutiny, because of their profound interest in the nature of consequence. The fundamental feature of a consequence was captured in the claim that its antecedent is the cause of its consequent. At the same time authors systematically discussed consequences in terms of truth-preservation. This paper considers the requirements of syllogistic argument and consequences in general, including the role of ‘cause’ in the identification of syllogisms proper, looks at different descriptions of consequence, moves on to discussions of the syncategorema ‘si’ – in syncategoremata treatises by Peter of Spain, Henry of Ghent, Nicholas of Paris and William of Sherwood, as well as some sophismata tracts – and explores what thirteenth-century authors make of the truth-functional characterisation of consequence, showing how it clashes with the authors’ insistence on a causal connection between antecedent and consequent.
{"title":"Consequence and ‘Cause’: Thirteenth-Century Reflections on the Nature of Consequences","authors":"J. Spruyt","doi":"10.1163/15685349-12341358","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15685349-12341358","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Thirteenth-century views on consequences have not yet received much attention. Authors of this period deserve closer scrutiny, because of their profound interest in the nature of consequence. The fundamental feature of a consequence was captured in the claim that its antecedent is the cause of its consequent. At the same time authors systematically discussed consequences in terms of truth-preservation. This paper considers the requirements of syllogistic argument and consequences in general, including the role of ‘cause’ in the identification of syllogisms proper, looks at different descriptions of consequence, moves on to discussions of the syncategorema ‘si’ – in syncategoremata treatises by Peter of Spain, Henry of Ghent, Nicholas of Paris and William of Sherwood, as well as some sophismata tracts – and explores what thirteenth-century authors make of the truth-functional characterisation of consequence, showing how it clashes with the authors’ insistence on a causal connection between antecedent and consequent.","PeriodicalId":43373,"journal":{"name":"VIVARIUM-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR THE PHILOSOPHY AND INTELLECTUAL LIFE OF THE MIDDLE AGES AND RENAISSANCE","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2018-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/15685349-12341358","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46538856","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-10-15DOI: 10.1163/15685349-12341356
B. Bosman
In medieval theories of consequence, we encounter several criteria of validity. One of these is known as the containment criterion: a consequence is valid when the consequent is contained or understood in the antecedent. The containment criterion was formulated most frequently in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, but it can be found in earlier writings as well. In The Tradition of the Topics in the Middle Ages, N.J. Green-Pedersen claimed that this criterion originated with Boethius. In this article, the author shows that a notion of containment is indeed present in Boethius, but is not used to define or describe the relation between antecedent and consequent, i.e., the relation of consequence, as Green-Pedersen asserted. The author then offers two interpretations of the notion of containment that are present in Boethius – a metaphysical and a semantic interpretation – and shows how these relate to the containment criterion.
{"title":"The Roots of the Notion of Containment in Theories of Consequence","authors":"B. Bosman","doi":"10.1163/15685349-12341356","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15685349-12341356","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000In medieval theories of consequence, we encounter several criteria of validity. One of these is known as the containment criterion: a consequence is valid when the consequent is contained or understood in the antecedent. The containment criterion was formulated most frequently in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, but it can be found in earlier writings as well. In The Tradition of the Topics in the Middle Ages, N.J. Green-Pedersen claimed that this criterion originated with Boethius. In this article, the author shows that a notion of containment is indeed present in Boethius, but is not used to define or describe the relation between antecedent and consequent, i.e., the relation of consequence, as Green-Pedersen asserted. The author then offers two interpretations of the notion of containment that are present in Boethius – a metaphysical and a semantic interpretation – and shows how these relate to the containment criterion.","PeriodicalId":43373,"journal":{"name":"VIVARIUM-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR THE PHILOSOPHY AND INTELLECTUAL LIFE OF THE MIDDLE AGES AND RENAISSANCE","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2018-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/15685349-12341356","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47936524","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：