One of the members of the commission was Henry of Ghent, as he himself testifies in his Quodlibet II. It is unknown when these masters met, but it must have been after Henry of Ghent had become a regent master in theology, a position that he obtained in The identity of these other wise men is unknown.
Since, however, they are so clearly distinguished from the theologians, they have to be sought among the prelates. In addition, mention should be made of the possible role of the inquisitor of France, Simon du Val. Of interest to historians of philosophy is the list of censured propositions. It is unknown what method Tempier and his advisers used to draw up their syllabus of errors.
Shortly after the extremely long list of prohibited views was reorganized, possibly to facilitate its use in the academic community. A very helpful summary of the condemned propositions has been provided by John F. The first seven of the philosophical propositions bear on the nature and excellence of philosophy.
Propositions 8 through 12 in the numbering of Mandonnet have a bearing on the knowability and nature of God. Propositions 13—15 concern divine knowledge, and 16 through 26 divine omnipotence. Many of the articles, notably 34—61 regard the separate intelligences angels. Another interesting group of articles is 67— Among the theological articles, themes that appear are theology as a science — , the doctrine of the Eucharist — , Christian morality — , and human immortality and reward and punishment in the life to come — Articles 25— can be divided into sub-sections which respectively touch upon the topics of God, angels, the world, the soul, the intellect, the will, philosophy, the will again due to the misplacement of a rubric , and ethics.
The same global order is also present in articles 1— The final articles, —, seem to be a miscellaneous collection. As was mentioned above, Tempier did not identify the targets of his condemnation, but merely indicated that it was directed against unspecified members of the arts faculty in Paris. Yet, their identification should be qualified, as becomes clear from the results, or should one say lack of results, of the ground-breaking study by Roland Hissette.
He tried to identify the proximate background of the condemned theses. As his point of departure, Hissette took known works by Siger and Boethius and three anonymous writings from the arts faculty that were available in a modern edition at the time that he wrote his study.
Of the propositions, only 79 can be identified, with various degrees of probability, in the works of Siger of Brabant, Boethius of Dacia, or the three anonymous writings. Of 72 propositions the attribution is uncertain, whereas 68 propositions could not be identified at all.
The introductory letter, however, seems to contradict this assumption. There, Tempier draws an important distinction, which has not been duly recognized in the scholarly literature, between propagators and views. He accuses the members of the arts faculty of disseminating tractare et disputare manifest and damned errors manifesti et exsecrabiles errores. The errors are specified in the roll or leaves connected to the introductory letter in rotulo seu cedulis, praesentibus hiis annexo seu annexis.
They are the censured propositions. Tempier does not state, however, that the members of the arts faculty are the authors of these errors. In his introductory letter Tempier separates the censured errors from their propagators.
Only the propagators have to be sought in the arts faculty in Paris: on pain of excommunication, they are prohibited to dogmatize, disseminate, or sustain in any way dogmatizare, aut defendere seu sustinere quoquo modo the propositions collected by Tempier. The origin of these propositions, however, is not stated in the introductory letter. In other words, Tempier indicates that those artistae who were castigated for disseminating false teachings were not necessarily disseminating their own views.
When drawing up the syllabus, Tempier and his advisers relied on more sources, written or oral, than those that were used by Hissette. The directions that such research should take are indicated, either implicitly or explicitly, by Roland Hissette, and by other scholars such as John Wippel and Calvin Normore. Today it is generally agreed that a considerable number of the censured propositions have a bearing on the reintroduction of pagan philosophy into the arts faculty, and on the ensuing crisis over the relation of faith and reason.
Some members of the arts faculty were rebuked not only for teaching suspect philosophical views but also for teaching suspect theological views. Another, complementary, line of inquiry has been suggested by Malcolm De Mowbray.
According to him, many of the theses may have originated from students during disputations in the schools. Given the oral character of these exercises, it is only natural that they are difficult to trace in extant works from masters of arts. His interpretation has been contested by Luca Bianchi. Yet, the doctrinal significance of the condemnation has received very diverse assessments.
The so-called theory of double truth has been the source of much confusion. Nowadays, scholars agree that there were no medieval authors who entertained the philosophically absurd theory that two contradictory propositions — one derived from philosophical investigation, the other from Christian revelation--can both be true at the same time. In reality, however, medieval scholars generally supposed that in cases of conflict between reason and faith, the truth was always on the side of the faith.
In the historiography of medieval science, the views of Pierre Duhem, have proven to be extremely influential. Especially articles 39 and 49 played a pivotal role in his eyes. Yet, at the same time, no one in the field any longer endorses his view that modern science started in In any case, it is clear that the condemnation did have an impact on scholars at the university.
The second doctrinal inquiry was aimed against Thomas Aquinas. According to Robert Wielockx, the inquiry against Thomas Aquinas was never completed. Basing his conclusions on evidence provided in a letter by John Pecham, Wielockx claimed that during the vacancy of the Apostolic See, sometime between May 20 and November 25, , Tempier received orders from the curia to stop his investigation.
However, recently the historical evidence has been reexamined and his interpretation been questioned by John Wippel and Hans Thijssen, the latter in the context of a substantially revised account of the juridical procedures against Giles of Rome. The events leading up to March 7, 2. What was condemned? Who was condemned on March 7, ? Bibliography Editions and translations Anzulewicz, Henryk. Denifle, H. Flasch, Kurt.
My translation. He thought that the will follows the intellect. And if we act wrongly, which, as human beings, unfortunately we are bound to do, then this is because the intellect has misjudged the possible course of action, or has erred in its conclusions on what is good for the person. Angels, obviously, have no body, and therefore no matter; they are pure forms. On the other hand, there was the old world view, which gave absolute authority to the church, its traditions and its representatives, the proponents of a traditional Christian world view.
It merely excluded the Roman Catholic Church from the debate about faith and science. In the days of Bishop Tempier, however, such a condemnation had to be respected, especially as it was not an isolated event. It is recognised that Pope John XXI intended to back the condemnation, which, however, he could not do due to his accidental death on May 20 of that year. However, the terms of the theological discourse changed, and theologians as well as philosophers would take note of the condemned theses and avoid teaching them.
However, this did not return the debate to the neo-Platonic Augustinian theology of Henry of Ghent, Bonaventure and others. Instead, it moved the debate forward, into previously uncharted waters. Certain developments — we cannot know which — may have taken place regardless.
Others may not have taken place. However, we will also see that he did not return to the Augustinian and neo- Platonic theology of the opponents of the new thinking, but moved forward into previously uncharted regions.
With regard to the freedom of God, theologians ater the condemnation of emphasised the distinction between the absolute power of God potentia dei absoluta and the ordained power of God potentia dei ordinata much more than their predecessors.
God can do absolutely everything God wills. Consequently, the hypothesis of an alternative order, although notionally kept up, was really merely an empty construct. God was totally reliable and committed to the present order. He suggested that God is omnipotent and can do everything that does not lead to a contradiction. Tamar Rudavsky; Dordrecht: Reidel, , In the same way, when the thesis was condemned that God cannot create multiple worlds Art.
Here, Scotus, in line with Art. Schwann, , We recall that for homas Aquinas, the will followed the intellect. William of Ockham would take another important step in the direction that Duns Scotus showed.
Because God is the giver of these laws, God is also in a position to act independently of them, just as, in late mediaeval political theory, the king, who is the 39 Seeberg, Die heologie des Johannes Duns Scotus, — Instead, God sets new law.
So if God acted against the established order, and God could do this if God wanted to, then God would change this order. Finally, Duns Scotus would also incorporate the articles on individuation in his thinking. We recall that homas Aquinas, among others, suggested that the individuating factor was matter materia. Consequently, he had to assume that immaterial beings, such as angels, were not individuals of a species, because, as they are immaterial, they lack the individuating principle.
Consequently, homas had to assume that each angel is its own species. We also saw that this solution, which provided a simple and coherent answer to the problem, was not only criticised and rejected, but also explicitly condemned in Haecceity denotes a substantial attribute that makes something an individual. At the same time, it has something that individuates it, i. Obviously, for a material being like a horse, matter is also part of this particular horse, but it does not constitute its thisness.
With regard to angels, each angel is an individual within a species. We have already seen above that Duns Scotus emphasises divine omnipotence by giving the absolute power of God a new, prominent status in his theology.
As a consequence, both the reliability of God and the established order are called into question. For William of Ockham, the absolute power of God does not constitute a separate realm of action from the ordained, as it does for Scotus. For example, Ockham thought that in the transition from the old covenant to the new, God changed the order of salvation. First, physics and theology became separated.
According to the old way, God and world were essentially linked. For science this meant that it was impossible to understand God without the world and the world without God. All they can study is divine revelation. At the same time, natural philosophers and mathematicians can study the world without reference to God, for God is not essentially involved in the world any longer. Older scholarship assumed that the Nominalist understanding of the distinction of powers would lead to a whimsical and thus completely unreliable God.
See Heiko A. Robert M.
0コメント