Biography Duns Scotus

Duns Scotus (Johannes Dunsius Scotus) (1260 (1274) – 1308) – nicknamed Doctor subtilis, as Dr Marianus) – Last, and most original representative of the golden age of medieval scholasticism, and in some respects a forerunner of a worldview born. Likely to PM Duns (in yuzhn. Scotland), on the other assumptions – in Northumberland and in Ireland; evidence on the year born. fluctuate between 1260 and 1274 years. For information about the life of J. Scott have half a legendary character. There is no doubt that he was a great success taught theology at Oxford, and then in Parizhe.Zdes in 1305 he defended his doctoral dissertation, which defended (against the Dominican-Thomist), the original purity of the Blessed. Virgo (Immaculata Conceptio). According to legend, in this debate was a miracle in favor of D. Scott: a marble statue of the Virgin approvingly nodded his head. " Historically, certain that the Parisian department acknowledged the arguments of D. Scott is so convincing that then decided to continue to demand from all who seek degree, oath of confession of faith in the Immaculate Conception (five and a half centuries before the proclamation of the dogma of Pope Pius IX).

Summoned to Cologne for Ecclesiastical Affairs, D. Scott died there from a stroke, is believed to be in 1308 – According to legend, D. Scott seemed in his early youth is extremely stupid, and only after a mysterious vision began to discover its rich spiritual strength. In addition to theology and philosophy, he has gained extensive attention in linguistics, mathematics, optics, and astrology. In his life he briefly wrote a lot, his collected works (published Vaddinga, Lyon, 1639) contains 12 volumes in folio. Top of his Op. – Commentary on Aristotle, Porphyry and especially on Peter Lombard. – What was Thomas Aquinas for the Dominicans (Order of preference as a teacher), the same became D. Scott for the Franciscans believe, therefore, that he himself was a monk of St. Francis, but it is not proven, a significant contrast to his teachings Thomism sufficiently explains the commitment to the Franciscans. It is admitted, the total range of scholastic outlook, D. Scott was an empiricist and individualist firm in religious practice the principles and truths of a skeptic on a purely speculative (as you can see one of the first manifestation of a British national). He did not have, nor thought it possible to have a harmonious and comprehensive system bogoslovskofilosofskih knowledge, in which the private truth would be a priori deduced from general principles of reason.

From the standpoint of D. Scott, all that is real is known only empirically, through its effect, elicits knowing. External things affect us in sense-perception, and our knowledge of the reality of its content depends on the object, and not from the subject, but on the other hand, it can not depend entirely on the subject, because in this case, the simple perception of an object or its presence in our minds was to have perfect knowledge, whereas in fact we see that the perfection of knowledge is achieved by the efforts of mind, traded on the subject. Our mind is not a carrier willing to ideas or passive tabula rasa; it is a potency conceivable forms (species intelligibiles), through which he transforms the individual data of sensory perception in the general knowledge. That way is known or thought in mind things supersensory data has no real existence apart from individual things, but it is not also our subjective thought only, but is inherent in the subject of formal properties, or differences, as well as differences by themselves without discriminating mind, unthinkable, it means that an objective, independent of our minds the existence of these formal properties of things is possible only because they initially distinguishes between different mind, it is the mind divine. How in the real (actual) knowledge of the formal properties of things (not limited to single events) coincide with the formal ideas of the mind, and where the warrant such a coincidence – the question of the nature of cognition and the criterion of truth, we do not find D. Scott, as As for the rest. Scholastics, clear answer. More sharply the other Scholastics distinguishing belief from knowledge, D. Scott emphatically denied a subordinate relation to the science of theology. Theology, according to D.Cattle, not a science speculative or theoretical, it is not an invention to avoid ignorance, with its broad scope, it could contain much more knowledge than is now contained in it, but it's not the problem, but the fact that, through frequent repetition the same practical truths to encourage students to perform prescribed. Theology is the healing of the spirit (medicina mentis); it is based on a belief that has its direct object is not the nature of the Godhead, and God's will.

Faith, as a condition of permanence, as well as most acts of faith, and, finally, late in the faith "vision" are the state and acts are not speculative but practical. Theoretical knowledge of the Divine, we have only so far as is necessary for our spiritual well-being, while the Divine is known by us through empirically ispytyvanie His actions, in part to the physical world, part of the historical revelation. God, we can not understand, but only perceive his actions. Accordingly, D. Scott rejected a priori ontological proof of God's existence, allowing only the cosmological and teleological. Considering the world and the life of the world in their positive and negative properties, the mind perceives the Divine as a perfect root cause, it is useful work, but about their own personal reality of God we can have only a vague knowledge. Internal definition of a deity (the trinity and so on.) Reported in the Christian creed, may not be withdrawn or proven by reason and they do not have the character self-evident truths and accepted only by virtue of the authority of their info. However, the data of revelation, being more than inform the person who then becomes the subject of rational thought, profit by the systematic knowledge of things divine.

On this basis, and D. Scott betrayed speculation about the subjects of faith, initially inaccessible to reason. Although God himself is a creature absolutely simple (simpliciter simplex), an inexpressible in any concept, and therefore his attributes or perfection can not have it specifically reality, however, they differ formally. The first such distinction – the mind and will. The wisdom of God is clear from His perfect causality, ie from the universal order or communication of the universe, will prove his chance of individual phenomena. For if these phenomena in their real essence of not only the consequences of general rational order, and are beyond his own reason, which however is subject to God as first cause, then. hence, the very first reason, in addition to its reasonable action has yet another, arbitrary, or there is a will. But there is an absolute, or perfect in itself, God can not have in mind will only relative to another, creaturely existence. Within it there are two eternal internal processiones: intelligent and strong-willed – and keeping love, and the first born the divine Word or Son, and the second is granted Holy Spirit, but one principle of both is God the Father. All things are in the mind of God as an idea, ie, by its knowability, or as objects of inquiry, for such a being is not present or perfect, because by the D. The cattle ideality less than reality. To make this reality to the ideas of the mind (divine) should privhodit free will of God, which is the final cause of all being, not allowing for further study. In the philosophical metaphysics D. Scott characterized his views on the matter and his understanding of individual existence (principium individuationis).

D. Scott understood the universality of the negative – not as a complete all definitions, but rather, as their absence: the most common being for it is very vague, empty, as such, he recognizes the matter is in itself (materia prima). He did
not share any Platonov view according to which matter is not existent (to mh on), or Aristotle, for whom it is only a potential existence (to dunmei on): D. The cattle on the matter actually stands out from nothing and have a valid limits of creation. All existing (except God) is composed of matter and form. The existence of matter, or its reality in whatever form, is determined only by the quality of material existence. The various units of matter, distinguished by D. cattle express only various degrees of certainty, that the matter receives from its connection with the form, she herself always and everywhere the same. Thus the concept of matter in D.Scott coincides with the notion of universal substance, a single real substratum of all things. Not surprisingly, therefore, that, despite all the scholastic authorities, D. Scott attributed the materiality of human souls and angels.

It is remarkable the following argument: as some form of sophisticated, so it is valid (current), and more relevant than it is, the more it takes root in the matter, and firmly connects it with him, but the form of an angel and a rational soul are perfect and timely, and, therefore fully connect with her material, and therefore not subject to quantitative disintegration, as have property unifying force. Putting in the foundation of all existence in the world of a single uncertain matter or substance, and realizing the perfection of form as fully mastered matter and define it, Scott D. imagined the universe as a gradual ascent from the general to the individual, from the fused to the separate, from indefinite to definite, from the imperfect to perfect. I could not help connecting the scholastic notions with ancient images of Norse mythology, he compares the universe with a huge tree, whose root – the first matter, the barrel – the visible matter, the branches – the physical body, the leaves – organisms, flowers – the human soul, and fruits – the angels. D. Scott first became a philosopher of the Christian world in cosmology in terms of genetic, clearly and strongly expressed the idea of gradual evolution (upward), which in all its one-sidedness has been developed in our day his compatriot Herbert Spencer. Presentation of the universe as an independent, evolving from a whole, there is a philosopher. merit D. Scott, although he failed to connect this idea with the basic truths of theology, who sincerely believed.

In respect of any real form of natural life are relevant to the ideas of the divine mind? And further: if the idea of the divine mind are real things through privhozhdenie to them acts of divine will, on the other hand, the basis of any real existence in the world is the universal substance, or first matter, the question arises: in what respect one another are the two ultimate beginning of every reality? Satisfactory, in a philosophical sense, the decision of both of these interrogations, we do not find D. Scott. Otozhestvlyaya universal with the uncertainty in their materia prima, and seeing it as the lower stage, minimum of existence, D. Scott of course recognize the positive pole of life, maximum reality of the existence of a unit or individual as representing the highest degree of certainty. Contrary to the majority of his predecessors and contemporaries in the philosophy of J. Scott understood individuality, not as something to loose (accidens) to the essence, but as something essential by itself (entitas). The set of properties that characterize Socrates and respond to the question that is Socrates – referred to. in scholastic quidditas – does not constitute individual merits of Socrates, as the person for the whole set of conceivable properties could belong to several actors in so do not have a real personality of the subject, has declined somewhat. This last is not something qualitatively definable, it could not be expressed as anything, but only listed as this. That ineffable essence of the individual is neither matter nor form, nor the complex of both, and the utter reality of all beings (ultima realitas entis). Pupils D. Scott invented for his principium individuationis name haecceitas in contrast with quidditas.

In anthropology D. Scott particularly remarkable following provisions: man is a perfect union of perfect form with perfect matter. Showers were happening direct acts of God's will. The immortality of the soul could not be proved by reason and is accepted only by faith. The soul does not really differ from their strength and abilities, and they – not assidentia spiritual substance, and the soul, in certain states and actions, or in a certain respect for anything. Between the famous thinkers, not just medieval, but of all time, J. Scott – the only one that is quite strongly and clearly recognize the freedom of will, with the exception of any determinism (the lesser-known predecessor, the Scholastics of his determinism was William of Auvergne (d. 1249), which owns definition: voluntas sui juris suaeque potestatis est). The will is the cause, which may itself determine.By virtue of its self-will is a sufficient or complete cause of any of his act. Therefore, it is not subject to any coercion on the part of the object.

No substantive benefit does not cause the need for consent will, but will free (from myself) agreed on one thing or another benefit, and thus is free to settle for less, as in the greater good. We will not only have a real reason for our actions, but the only reason for themselves desires. If you would like in this case one or the other, then this is no other reason except that the will is the will as to ensure that the heat warms, there is no other reason except that the heat is heat, remarkable for its perfect accuracy The following short formula "subtle doctor": none other than, as she will, there is a full (or whole) reason for wanting something in the will (nihil aliud a voluntate est causa totalis volitionis in voluntate). Since the doctrine of free will is closely linked to the doctrine of primacy (primacy) will over the intellect. Will is the power of self-determination unit and samozakonnaya, she may want and not want to, and it depends on her own, while the mind is determined by its action (thinking and knowing) with three different ways need to: 1) his character, by virtue of which he is only thinking ability I was not in his power to think or not think, and 2) the data of sensory perception, defining the initial content of thinking, and 3) acts of will, drawing the attention of mind on this or other object and thus further defining the content and nature of thinking. According to this, D. Scott distinguishes first understanding the thinking and determined the nature of mind and original thematic data (intellectio s. cogitatio prima), and second, determined by the will (is from. Secunda).

The act of the mind must be the will of the authorities, so that it could alienate the mind from the one conceived and convert it to another, for otherwise the mind would remain forever in the knowledge of one subject, originally given to him. Um (the "first thought") will only offer the possible combinations of ideas, from which she selects the desired leading to it and sends it to the mind for real and distinct knowledge. Thus, if the mind is the cause of volition, then the only cause of performance on the will of (causa subserviens voluntati). All of their psychological reasoning D. Scott tries to justify empirically, referring to the inner experience as the highest court. "That this is so – he says – it is clear from the authentic experience, as everyone can experience in itself. Recognition of the primacy of will over intellect much prejudice and ethical teachings of J. Scott. Foundation of morality (and religion) is our desire for happiness. This desire is satisfied not in the theoretical and the practical realm of spirit. The ultimate aim of moral life and the supreme good (summum bonum) is not in the contemplation of absolute truth or God, as I thought Thomas, with the majority of the Scholastics and the famous fit of passion will, it is in the pe
rfect love of God, we really connecting with him. Morality is the only God's will, requires us to work laws, both natural and religious-positive. Righteousness consists in implementing the law, sin is the functional disorders of righteousness, and not any significant distortion of our soul. Nothing but God has no self-esteem, and receives a positive or negative solely on the will of God, which is D. Scott understood as an absolute outrage.

God wants something, not because it is good, but on the contrary, it is good only because God wants it, every law is righteous only because it takes a divine will. The only thing on proizvoleniya God depended on to put the condition of our salvation and the incarnation of Christ crucified, we could be saved in other ways. In his Christology D. Scott, if they wanted to be faithful, instinctively inclined to the Nestorian and adoptianskomu view: in his presentation of Christ, born as a perfect man church. Virgin (which is about. By D. Cattle, despite his immaculate conception, was not in the true sense of the Virgin), achieves a perfect union with the divine Logos and becomes the Son of God. Only skeptical reservations about the D. Scott impotence of reason in matters of faith does not allow him to become a formal heretic.

Incidentally, regarding faith, he admits doubt, denying the only question is the winner. Study D.Scott has a positive value, raising it above the general level of medieval scholasticism. These include: its reasonable empiricism, not permissive show the concrete reality of general principles, and his disagreement with the motto Scholastics: philosophia theologiae ancilla; it more realistic understanding of the substance in general and spiritual things in particular, his view of the world as a whole is immanent in the developing recognition of independence and the unconditional value for the individual being, and finally, it more faithful to the spirit of Christ, rather than the spirit of the Aristotelian, the conviction that true life is not confined to the thinking mind and that love is higher contemplation. But all these important advantages can not redeem the indigenous sin Skotovoy systems – its absolute voluntarism, which cause "subtle doctor" to conclusions absurd and confusing his philosophy in hopeless contradictions. Clearly, the fact that unconditional samoprichinnost human will is incompatible with that same cause of God's will, that moral indifference and absolute tyranny, attributed to God, contrary to the notion of God as the Supreme Mind, and perfect love, and finally, that the principle of pure arbitrariness on the part of the human and by God totally destroys any notion of expedient world system and the genetic natural evolution of the universe. Pupils D. Scott: Johannes a Landuno (bring together the views of his teacher's ideas of Averroes), Franciscus de Mayronis (dr. illuminatus, or magister acutus abstractionum), Antonius Andreae (doctor dulcifluus), Johannes Bassolius, Walter Berlacus (doctor planus et perspicuus) , Nicolaus de Lyra, Petus de Aquila (doctor ornatissimus). Nothing important to the teachings of J. Scott, these writers are not added. Literature. Numerous biographies of J. Scott (Matthaeus Beglensis, Wadding, Ferchi, Guzman, Janssen, Colganus) belong to the XVII century. and irrelevant to reliable sources. On the teaching of D. Scott: Albergoni, "Resolutio doctrenae Scoticae" (1643); Hieron. de Fortino, "Summa theologica ex Scoti operibus"; Johann. de Rada, "Controversiae theol. enter Thom. et Sc." (Ven., 1599); Bonaventura Baro, "JDS defensus" (1664); Ferrari, "Philosophia rationibus JDS" (Ven., 1746). In the recent literature only K. Werner, "JDS" (Vienna, 1881), and Pluzanski, "Essai sur la philosophie de Duns Scot" (Par., 1887).