Utrum sit unicus intellectus quo omnes homines intelligent (pp.
Utrum unus sit intellectus numero in omnibus hominibus (pp. Benoît Patar, Le Traité de l'ame de Jean Buridan (Louvain-la-Neuve–Longueuil, Quebec, 1991). Utrum intellectus sit unus numero vel plurificatus in omnibus hominibus (pp. Winfried Fauser, Der Kommentar des Radulphus Brito zu Buch III De anima (Munster, 1974). 444-448)Ĭommentary on De anima, III, ed. Utrum animae omnium hominum sint una substantia, an diversae (pp. Bonaventurae Opera Omnia, 2 (Quaracchi, 1885). 1-30.Ĭommentaria in quattuor libros Sententiarum magistri Petri Lombardi, in S. 38-40)ĭe unitate intellectus, in Alberti Magni Opera Omnia (Munster, 1975), 17. Quod anima, quae est forma hominis, secundum quod homo, corrumpitur corrupto corpore (pp. Quod ista est falsa vel impropria: homo intelligit (pp. Quod intellectus omnium hominum est unus et idem numero (pp. 513-514)ĭe XV Problematibus, in Alberti Magni Opera Omnia (Munster, 1975), 17. Utrum unus intellectus in numero sit in omnibus (pp. eds, Trois Commentaires anonymes dur le traité de l’âme d’Aristote (Louvain–Paris, 1971), pp. Bernard Bazán, ‘Un commentaire anti-averroïste du traité de l’âme’, in Maurice Giele et al. Utrum intellectus sit idem numero in omnibus hominibus (pp. Fernand van Steenberghen, ‘Un commentaire semi-averroïste du traité de l’âme’, in Maurice Giele et al. Quaestiones in libros Aristotelis De anima, ed. Below are examples from the late 13 th and early 14 th centuries. Scholastic treatments of the issue commonly take the form of quaestiones in commentaries on Aristotle’s On the Soul they also appear in quodlibetal quaestiones, and occasionally in commentaries on Peter Lombard’s Sentences. It was generally Averroes’s theory that was targeted in late 13 th -century debate and the Condemnations of 1277. Scholastic discussion of the Unicity of the Intellect evolved over the 13 th century, initially concerning Avicenna’s theory of the unified active/agent intellect, and later, with the absorption of Latin translations of Averroes, focusing on Averroes’s theory of the unified passive/potential intellect. The philosophers of the High Middle Ages offered analyses of cognition whose details, meant to flesh out Aristotle's account, were elaborated in their debates over the role of the agent intellect, the need for species in perception and in thought, the reliability of the cognitive apparatus for induction, the nature and function of memory, and so on.Image credits Scholastic Quaestiones and Discussions on the Unicity of the Intellect Mediaeval philosophers who read Aristotle's text generally followed his lead, to the point where Robert Kilwardby, around the middle of the thirteenth century, begins his explanation of the origin of the sciences by simply giving a close paraphrase of Metaphysics A.1 ( De ortu scientiarum 1.8–11). Aristotle explains this process in terms of cognitive capacities and their objects: sense, memory, and imagination give rise to experience, which is directed to particulars reason gives rise to art and science, each directed to universals, the former being the exercise of practical reason and the latter of speculative reason. The very first remarks in First Philosophy describe how humans, after repeated exposure to the world, come to have art and then science through experience: hominibus autem scientia et ars per experientiam evenit (981a2–3: apobainei d'epistêmê kai technê dia tês empeirias tois anthropois). The canonical text relating experience to knowledge for the philosophers of the High Middle Ages was Aristotle's Metaphysics A.1.
0 kommentar(er)
