• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文学位 >The debate over spiritual matter in the late thirteenth century: Gonsalvus Hispanus and the Franciscan tradition from Bonaventure to Scotus .
【24h】

The debate over spiritual matter in the late thirteenth century: Gonsalvus Hispanus and the Franciscan tradition from Bonaventure to Scotus .

机译：十三世纪后期有关精神问题的辩论：贡萨尔维斯·西班牙裔人和方济各会的传统，从Bonaventure到Scotus。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

The doctrine of spiritual matter, or universal hylomorphism, which holds that there is a material as well as a formal component in spiritual creatures, was a subject of considerable debate in the late thirteenth century. It was commonly held by Franciscans and others whose thought has been described as "Augustinian," while rejected by Thomas Aquinas, his followers and others considered more "Aristotelian." Modern scholarship has almost universally accepted the assumption that the doctrine had its origins in the influence of the Fons vitae of Avicbron, accepted by some scholastics in lieu of a robust Aristotelianism, and that it met its demise in the unanswerable refutations of Thomas Aquinas, after which the position was no longer tenable. This dissertation shows that both assumptions are false. Avicebron was a negligible influence on scholastics defending spiritual matter, and only important to its detractors, while the defenders were, especially at the end of the thirteenth century, no less steeped in Aristotelianism than their opponents. Thomas Aquinas, while important to the debate, did not end it, and those defending his position later did not necessarily embrace all his reasons. Beginning with alternative accounts of the nature of matter in Plato and Aristotle, I trace the origins of the spiritual matter controversy to its sources in the thought of Plotinus and Augustine, consider the position and influence of Avicebron, and discuss the development of the controversy in the early scholastics before the classical alternative positions were given in the metaphysics of Bonaventure and Thomas Aquinas, who are each considered in depth. I then trace in some detail the course of the debate in the works of a number of Franciscans defending a broadly Bonaventurean account of spiritual composition, and a number of non-Franciscans rejecting it on a variety of grounds, both Thomistic and otherwise. In many ways the Bonaventurean metaphysics reaches its apogee in the thought of Gonsalvus Hispanus, who both recapitulates and advances the debate up to his time. Gonsalvus' writings on spiritual composition are studied comprehensively before I conclude by looking at responses made to him by Godfrey of Fontaines and John Duns Scotus.
机译：精神物质学说，即普遍的同质学说，认为精神生物既有物质成分又有形式成分，这在十三世纪后期引起了广泛的争论。它通常由方济各会主义者和其他思想被描述为“奥古斯丁主义者”的人所持有，而被托马斯·阿奎那斯，他的追随者和其他人所认为的“亚里士多德主义者”拒绝。现代学者几乎普遍接受这样一个假设，即该学说起源于阿维克布伦的《奉贤信》的影响，被一些学者取代了强大的亚里士多德主义，并且在托马斯·阿奎那无可辩驳的驳斥之后，它的消亡了。该职位不再成立。本文表明，这两个假设都是错误的。 Avicebron对学术界捍卫精神事务的影响微不足道，仅对批评者很重要，而捍卫者，尤其是在13世纪末，在亚里士多德主义中的热情丝毫不亚于其对手。托马斯·阿奎那（Thomas Aquinas）虽然对辩论很重要，但并未结束辩论，后来为捍卫他的立场而辩护的人未必会接受他的所有理由。从对柏拉图和亚里斯多德的物质性质的替代性叙述开始，我从普罗提努斯和奥古斯丁的思想中追溯精神物质争议的起源到其来源，考虑艾维斯布伦的位置和影响，并讨论该争议的发展。 Bonaventure和Thomas Aquinas的形而上学给出了经典替代位置之前的早期学者，他们都被深入研究。然后，我在一些方济各会主义者捍卫广泛的Bonaventurean关于精神构成的论述中，以及许多非方济各会主义者出于各种理由而拒绝该论证的过程中，详细地追溯了辩论的过程，无论是托姆主义还是其他。 Bonaventurean形而上学在许多方面都达到了贡萨尔维斯·西斯潘努斯（Gonsalvus Hispanus）的思想的顶峰，他既概括了辩论，又将辩论推进到了他的时代。在结束本文之前，我会先研究Fontaines的Godfrey和John Duns Scotus对他的回应，然后对Gonsalvus关于精神构成的著作进行全面研究。

著录项

  • 作者

    Sullivan, Michael B.;

  • 作者单位

    The Catholic University of America.;

  • 授予单位 The Catholic University of America.;
  • 学科 Metaphysics.;History Medieval.;Philosophy.
  • 学位 Ph.D.
  • 年度 2010
  • 页码 462 p.
  • 总页数 462
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号