Festr.. · 10-Авг-19 13:18(5 лет 4 месяца назад, ред. 21-Янв-20 21:13)
God and Creatures. The Quodlibetal Questions / Бог и твари. Кводлибетальные вопросы Год издания: 1975 Автор: John Duns Scotus / Иоанн Дунс Скот Переводчик: Felix Alluntis, Allan B. Wolter (Феликс Аллюнтис, Аллан Б. Уолтер) Жанр или тематика: теология, схоластика Издательство: Princeton University Press ISBN: 0-691-07195-0 Язык: Английский Формат: DjVu Качество: Отсканированные страницы + слой распознанного текста Интерактивное оглавление: Да Количество страниц: XXXIV, 549 (576) Описание: Это первая значительная работа известного средневекового схоластического богослова Джона Дунса Скотуса, полностью переведенная на английский язык. Скот, один из выдающихся интеллектуальных деятелей своего времени, долгое время оказывал на западную философию влияние, сравнимое только с Фомой Аквинским. Вопросы, обсуждаемые Скотом на тему «Бог и твари», были первоначально представлены ему в ходе кводлибетального спора, публичной дискуссии, популярной в тринадцатом и четырнадцатом веках. Пересматривая вопросы для публикации, Скот вплетал большую часть своей основной философии и теологии, делая эту работу одной из опор, от которой зависит его репутация как мыслителя. Текст английского перевода основан на самой авторитетной версии оригинального латинского текста. Обширная аннотация и глоссарий технических терминов позволяют рассматривать каждый вопрос как самостоятельный трактат. Оригинал: This is the first major work of the famous mediaeval scholastic theologian John Duns Scotus to be translated into English in its entirety. One of the towering intellectual figures of his age, Scotus has had a lasting influence on Western philosophy comparable only to that of Thomas Aquinas. The questions Scotus discusses on the subject "God and Creatures" were originally presented to him in the course of a quodlibetal dispute, a public debate popular in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. In revising the questions for publication, Scotus wove in much of his basic philosophy and theology, making this work one of the mainstays on which his reputation as a thinker depends. The text of the English translation is based on the most authoritative version of the original Latin text. The extensive annotation and a glossary of technical terms permit each question to be read as an integral treatise in its own right. Примечание: Жанр публичных дискуссий Quodlibet, т. е. «Каких угодно вопросов» или «Вопросов о чем угодно», отличается тем, что тема вопросов определялась не ведущим ее магистром, но «кем угодно» (a quolibet или ad voluntatem cuiuslibet) из присутствующей публики, и этой темой могло быть «все, что угодно» (quodlibet). Любая тема, которая интересовала публику, могла быть заявлена для обсуждения, отсюда огромное количество разнообразных вопросов, содержащихся в записанных студентами или изданных магистрами сессиях диспутаций Quodlibet, – темы могли относиться к любой области теологии, философии, права, церковной, политической, экономической жизни.
Примеры страниц
Оглавление
Contents v
Abbreviations xiv
Acknowledgments xv
Introduction xvii Prologue 3 Question One: IN DIVINE THINGS, IS IT THE ESSENTIAL OR THE NOTIONAL THAT IS MORE IMMEDIATE TO THE DIVINE ESSENCE?
Arguments Pro and Con 5
Body of the Question 6
Article I Preliminary Remarks 6
1. The Meaning of “Essence” 6
2. The Meaning of “Essential” and “Notional” 9
3. The Meaning of “More Immediate” 19
Article II Solution of the Question 20
Article III Reply to various Objections 23
Reply to the Initial Argument 29 Question Two: COULD THERE BE SEVERAL PRODUCTIONS OF THE SAME TYPE IN GOD?
Arguments Pro and Con 31
Body of the Question 32
Article I An Evaluation of the Reasons for the Negative Conclusion 32
Article II Solution of the Question 44
1. Indirect Argument or the Reductio ad impossibile 44
2. The Positive Proof 46
3. Confirmation from the Philosopher 48
Article III Objections and their Solutions 50 Question Three: ARE THESE TWO COMPATIBLE: A RELATION RELATED TO ITS OPPOSITE IS A REAL THING; AND, AS RELATED TO THE ESSENCE, IT IS ONLY AN ASPECT?
Arguments Pro and Con 60
Body of the Question 60
Article I Is the Relation of Origin a Thing and, if so, What Kind of Thing? 61
Article II As Related to the Essence, is the Relation a Thing and What Kind of Thing? 64
1. The Relation as Related to the Essence is a Thing 64
2. Logical Consideration of the Statement “The relation as related to the essence is a thing.” 66
3. Solution of the Principal Question 68
Article III Resolution of various Doubts 69
Reply to the Initial Argument 78 Question Four: COULD THE FIRST DIVINE PERSON REMAIN CONSTITUTED AS A PERSON, DISTINCT FROM THE OTHER PERSONS, APART FROM THE RELATIONSHIP OF ORIGIN?
Arguments Pro and Con 80
Body of the Question 80
Article I Is it Repugnant that the First Person be Constituted by a Relation? 81
Article II By What Relation could the First Person be Constituted? 83
Article III What is the Interrelation of those Relations Admittedly Present in the First Person? 98
1. Is there some Distinction of Properties in the First Person? 99
2. From What Considerations could One Prescind and still have the First Person? 103
Reply to the Initial Argument 105 Question Five: IS THE RELATION OF ORIGIN FORMALLY INFINITE?
Arguments Pro and Con 108
Body of the Question 108
Article I The Meaning of the Question 108
Article II Solution of the Question: Paternity is not Infinite 114
1. The First Principal Reason 114
2. The Second Principal Reason 118
3. The Third Principal Reason 120
Article III Objections and Answers 123
Reply to the Initial Argument 128 Question Six: IS “EQUALITY” IN THE DIVINE A REAL RELATION?
Arguments Pro and Con 130
Body of the Question 130
Article I Is there a Real Foundation for Equality in the Divine? 130
1. The Foundation for Equality in General 131
2. The Foundation of Equality in God 132
3. Is Each of these Foundations for Equality Real? 133
1) First question: Is magnitude in God something extramental? 133
2) Second question: Is eternity a real or extramental basis for equality? 141
3) Third question: Is power a real basis for equality? 143
Article II Are the Terms Related really Distinct? 145
Article III Is Equality in the Persons according to an Extramental Foundation? 154
Reply to the Initial Arguments 157 Question Seven: CAN IT BE DEMONSTRATED BY NATURAL AND NECESSARY REASON THAT GOD IS OMNIPOTENT?
Arguments Pro and Con 159
Body of the Question 160
Article I The Necessary Distinctions 160
1. Demonstration of Simple Fact and of the Reasoned Fact 160
2. Two Meanings of Omnipotence 161
Article II Solution of the Question 162
1. Concerning the First Conclusion 164
2. Concerning the Second Conclusion 165
3. Concerning the Third Conclusion 169
4. Concerning the Fourth Conclusion 172
5. Concerning the Fifth Conclusion 181
Reply to the Initial Arguments 182
1. Reply to the Argument about Infinite Power 182
2. Reply to the Argument about the Generation of the Son 185
3. Reply to the Argument about the Creation of the Angels 188 Question Eight: DOES THE DIVINE WORD HAVE SOME CAUSALITY OF HIS OWN AS REGARDS CREATURES?
Arguments Pro and Con 198
Body of the Question 199
Article I Is there some Formal Aspect of Causation Proper to the Word? 199
1. Negative Answer: Three Proofs 199
2. Objection to these Proofs 203
3. Answer to the Objection 204
Article II Is some Mode or Order in Causing Proper to the Word? 210
Article III Is some Relationship of Causality or any Relationship of His to a Creature Included per se in the Word’s Constitutive Property? 212
Reply to the Initial Argument 216 Question Nine: CAN GOD BRING IT ABOUT THAT AN ANGEL INFORM MATTER?
Arguments Pro and Con 218
Body of the Question 219
Article I The Meaning of the Question 219
Article II Answer to the Question 219
Article III Some Objections and their Solutions 228
Reply to the Initial Argument 235 Question Ten: CAN GOD CONVERT THE EUCHARISTIC SPECIES INTO SOMETHING PREVIOUSLY EXISTING?
Arguments Pro and Con 236
Body of the Question 237
Article I The terminus a quo or the Separated Quantity 237
Article II The terminus ad quem or What Preexists 242
Article III About the Conversion Itself 251
Reply to the Initial Arguments 255 Question Eleven: IF BOTH BODY AND PLACE REMAIN, CAN GOD CAUSE THE BODY NOT TO HAVE UBIETY?
Arguments Pro and Con 257
Body of the Question 258
Article I Given Place in General, is it Repugnant for a Body in General to Lack Ubiety? 258
Article II Given Body in General, is it Repugnant to Place in General that no Ubiety Exist? 260
Article III Given this Body, this Place, but this Body not Present in this Place, is it Possible that this Body should Lack this Ubiety? 263
Article IV If this Body and Place Exist and this Body is Present in this Place, can it still Lack this Ubiety? 265
Reply to the Initial Argument 270 Question Twelve: IS THE RELATION OF A CREATURE TO GOD AS CREATOR THE SAME AS THE RELATION TO GOD AS CONSERVER?
Arguments Pro and Con 271
Body of the Question 272
Article I Is the Real Relation of the Creature to God as Creator and as Conserver the Same? 272
Article II Can a Thing be Said to be at once Created and Conserved? 275
Article III Can Something be Created without being Conserved after the Instant of Creation? 277
Reply to the Initial Arguments 282 Question Thirteen: ARE THE ACTS OF KNOWING AND APPETITION ESSENTIALLY ABSOLUTE OR ESSENTIALLY RELATIVE?
Arguments Pro and Con 284
Body of the Question 284
Article I There is some Absolute Entity Involved in Every Operation including Intellection 285
Article II How this Absolute Entity is Related to the Object Connected with It 288
1. The Operation, Some Claim, must Involve a Real Relationship to the Object 288
2. How are We to Understand the Claim that the Operation Implies a Relation? 290
3. Analysis of the Arguments in the First Section 296
Article III Is a Relationship to the Object Essential to the Act of Knowing or Appetition? 302
Article IV The Question Understood as Referring to the Subject 312
Reply to the Initial Argument 312 Question Fourteen: CAN THE SOUL LEFT TO ITS NATURAL PERFECTION KNOW THE TRINITY OF PERSONS IN GOD?
Arguments Pro and Con 315
Body of the Question 316
Article I Imperfect Knowledge 317
1. Knowledge of the Terms “God” and “Trinity” 317
2. Knowledge of the Proposition “God is a Trinity” 319
Article II Perfect Immediate Knowledge 324
Article III Mediate Knowledge 336 Question Fifteen: IS THE POSSIBLE INTELLECT ACTIVE OR PASSIVE AS REGARDS THE CONCEPT OF A CREATURE?
Arguments Pro and Con 344
Body of the Question 345
Article I Formation of the Word according to the Manner in Which We Understand in the Present Life 345
1. In the Intellective Part of the Soul there is an Active Principle of Intellection 345
2. Which Factor is Active in Intellection? 350
3. Is it the Agent or the Possible Intellect That is Active in Intellection? 355
Article II How the Notion or Word is Formed in the Intellect of the Blessed in Heaven 363
Reply to the Initial Arguments 366 Question Sixteen: ARE FREEDOM OF WILL AND NATURAL NECESSITY COMPATIBLE AS REGARDS THE SAME ACT AND OBJECT?
Arguments Pro and Con 369
Body of the Question 370
Article I Is there Necessity in any Act of the Will? 370
Article II Can Freedom and Necessity Coexist in the Will? 377
Article III Can Natural Necessity ever Coexist with Freedom? 380
Reply to the Initial Argument 385 Question Seventeen: ARE ACTS OF NATURAL LOVE AND MERITORIOUS LOVE SPECIFICALLY THE SAME?
Arguments Pro and Con 388
Body of the Question 388
Article I The Meaning of Natural Dilection or Love 388
Article II The Meaning of Meritorious Love or Dilection 389
Article III Solution of the Question 391
Reply to the Initial Argument 397 Question Eighteen: DOES THE EXTERIOR ACT ADD SOME GOODNESS OR BADNESS TO THE INTERIOR ACT?
Arguments Pro and Con 399
Body of the Question 399
Article I The Source of Moral Goodness or Badness 400
Article II The Source of Laudability and Culpability 406
Article III Is the Goodness or Laudability of the External Action Distinct from That of the Interior Act? 408
1. The Exterior Act has Its Own Moral Goodness 408
2. The External Act is Imputable 416
Reply to the Initial Argument 416 Question Nineteen: IS THE UNITY IN CHRIST OF THE HUMAN NATURE WITH THE WORD MERELY THE ASSUMED NATURE’S DEPENDENCE UPON THE WORD?
Arguments Pro and Con 418
Body of the Question 418
Article I The Type of Unity to be Posited Here 418
Article II The Possibility of Such a Union on the Part of the Assuming Person 421
1. First Proof 421
2. Second Proof 427
3. Proofs Proposed by Others 430
4. Objection to the Conclusion of this Article 431
Article III The Possibility of Such a Union on the Part of the Assumed Nature 432
1. What Constitutes Created Personality? 432
2. Can a Human Nature Depend upon an Extrinsic Person? 436
Reply to the Initial Argument 442 Question Twenty: DOES A PRIEST WHO IS OBLIGED TO SAY A MASS FOR EACH OF TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE SATISFY HIS OBLIGATION BY SAYING ONE MASS FOR BOTH?
Arguments Pro and Con 443
Body of the Question 443
Article I The Value of the Mass in virtue of the Celebrant’s Personal Merit 444
Article II The Value of the Mass by reason of the Merit of the Universal Church 453
1. Can the Priest Apply the Merit due in virtue of the Sacrifice? 453
2. Can the Priest Apply Such a Good at Will? 455
3. One Mass does not Benefit Each of Several as Much as it Would if Offered for One Alone 458
Article III Does the Priest Satisfy his Obligation to Both by One Offering? 461
Reply to the Initial Argument 468 Question Twenty-One: CAN ONE WHO ADMITS THAT THE WORLD IS ETERNAL DEFEND THE POSITION THAT ANYONE COULD ALWAYS BE FORTUNATE?
Arguments Pro and Con 469
Body of the Question 470
Article I The View that Someone is Fortunate 470
1. The Existence and Nature of Good Fortune 470
The Reportatio Version: Can Those Who Admit the World is Eternal also Admit that a Man is Fortunate 473
Body of the Question 474
1. The View that Someone can be Fortunate 475
2. About Aristotle’s View that the World is Eternal 482 Appendix
Addition 1.11 485
Addition 1.38 485
Addition 7.38 486
Addition 9.53 487
Addition 11.15 488
Addition 12.28 488
Addition 13.56 488
Addition 14.25 489
Addition 15.79 489
Addition 18.23 490
Addition 20.49 491
Glossary 493
Index of Authors 541
Index of Subjects 544
Мерси! Дополнительные подробности: "Кводлибетальные вопросы" являются одним из последних текстов Дунса: вскоре после завершения этого семинара он, при загадочных обстоятельствах, был внезапно переведён из Парижа в Кёльн, где скоропостижно (всего через год) скончался (тоже не совсем понятно, по какой причине, 42 года даже для средневековья рановато ). В Кёльне он успел лишь дописать отдельные части своего огромного Ordinatio (как известно, незаконченного), так что "Кводлибета" по многим вопросам выражает его окончательную точку зрения. Как известно всякому, кто хоть немного интересовался Дунсом, добыть его тексты, даже в английском переводе - весьма нетривиальная задача: их очень мало в принципе, а те что есть - труднодоступны. Т.н. "скотистская комиссия" в Риме, взявшаяся издать полное критическое собрание сочинений (на латыни), уже больше полувека тянет кота за хвост - вышла едва половина томов. Впрочем, их можно понять, текстология Дунса чудовищно запутана. Многие произведения, столетиями носившие его имя, при ближайшем рассмотрении оказались либо подделками, либо работами поздних учеников. Сам Дунс, в отличие от Фомы, не был систематическим мыслителем - его философия состоит из сотен (тысяч?) разрозненных исследований, где одна и та же проблема может решаться с прямо противоположных сторон и по совершенно несовместимым поводам. Всё это делает его очень тяжелым и для чтения, и для понимания. Но зато, по сравнению с "гладким" и "лёгким" Аквинатом, Дунс копает гораздо глубже и приходит порой к выводам совершенно неожиданным, больше напоминающим современную философию, чем схоластику. За что, собственно, и любим (на словах, по крайней мере*) столь многими небезызвестными людьми. * (Что Лейбниц или Пирс читали его в оригинале, я не сомневаюсь. А вот насчёт Делёза меня терзают смутные подозрения!) Кароч, если интерес к великому "Тонкачу" будет проявлен, то появление его материалов продолжится.
Нутк, после того, как я выдрал из закрытого для скачивания источника постраничные сканы, а Festr.. превратил их в книгу, всё стало доступно и легко. Ясен пень! Особенно если напрячь свои анализаторы и всмотреться в дату появления этого файла на либгене. А потом угадать с 8-ми попыток, кто его туда залил.
). В Кёльне он успел лишь дописать отдельные части своего огромного Ordinatio (как известно, незаконченного), так что "Кводлибета" по многим вопросам выражает его окончательную точку зрения.
Но зато, по сравнению с "гладким" и "лёгким" Аквинатом, Дунс копает гораздо глубже и приходит порой к выводам совершенно неожиданным, больше напоминающим современную философию, чем схоластику. За что, собственно, и любим (на словах, по крайней мере*) столь многими небезызвестными людьми. 
