|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7|
|This article has been mentioned by a media organisation:|
- 1 What is this sentence trying to mean?
- 2 Dating
- 3 Request for expansion
- 4 Nominalism vs Realism
- 5 Lead sentence
- 6 DNB fork
- 7 Johannes Scotus Eriugena
- 8 Premature Burial
- 9 Awful Quality
- 10 His first name?
- 11 Categories
- 12 Ambiguity
- 13 East does not hold Immaculate Conception to be heresy
- 14 Recent edits
What is this sentence trying to mean?
"For Scotus, the axiom stating that only the individual exists is a dominating principle of the understanding of reality." What on earth does this mean? What point is the author trying to express? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 07:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
A source I have, which is extremely consistent with approximation of dates whether they are 'circa' or not, places John Duns Scotus' life as "1270-1308" not "c. 1266-" as is currently on the page. Nagelfar 07:19, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- 1266 seems to be the most common date listed in the Internet (which may be due to this article). The Catholic Encyclopedia, like your source, cites 1270. "Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche" cites 1265, as does the official biography of the German church for his feast day. Mpolo 09:34, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
- There is one certain date - 17 March 1291 when he is ordained. Ordination was usually conducted, when person was at least 25 years of age. Assuming everything was done correctly, Duns Scotus must have been born no later than 1266, 17 March. (cf Richard Cross, Duns Scotus, Oxford University Press 1999). -- Aethralis 13:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
We should probably put the Cross information in, since it explains the conjectual status of the dating well. 1265-1266 is what the Cambridge Companion to Duns Scotus says. Evan Donovan 01:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Request for expansion
I think we need more on his philosophy and its influence on later philosophers and theologians (incl. Calvin). The German Wikipedia seems to have quite a lot, if anyone who reads this can translate that language. French looked good as well. (I'm just going by relative length.) Evan Donovan 01:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC) (sorry forget sig - always do that)
- Recently, the current Pope made some interesting remarks on Scotus that perhaps should be included in any expansion:
- "In all honesty, one must observe that in the late Middle Ages we find trends in theology which would sunder this synthesis between the Greek spirit and the Christian spirit. In contrast with the so-called intellectualism of Augustine and Thomas, there arose with Duns Scotus a voluntarism which ultimately led to the claim that we can only know God's "voluntas ordinata." Beyond this is the realm of God's freedom, in virtue of which he could have done the opposite of everything he has actually done.
- This gives rise to positions which clearly approach those of Ibn Hazn and might even lead to the image of a capricious God, who is not even bound to truth and goodness. God's transcendence and otherness are so exalted that our reason, our sense of the true and good, are no longer an authentic mirror of God, whose deepest possibilities remain eternally unattainable and hidden behind his actual decisions.
- As opposed to this, the faith of the Church has always insisted that between God and us, between his eternal Creator Spirit and our created reason there exists a real analogy, in which unlikeness remains infinitely greater than likeness, yet not to the point of abolishing analogy and its language (cf. Lateran IV).
- God does not become more divine when we push him away from us in a sheer, impenetrable voluntarism; rather, the truly divine God is the God who has revealed himself as logos and, as logos, has acted and continues to act lovingly on our behalf. Certainly, love "transcends" knowledge and is thereby capable of perceiving more than thought alone (cf. Ephesians 3:19); nonetheless it continues to be love of the God who is logos. Consequently, Christian worship is "logic latreía" -- worship in harmony with the eternal Word and with our reason (cf. Romans 12:1)." (Papal Address at University of Regensburg, "Three Stages in the Program of De-Hellenization", REGENSBURG, Germany, SEPT. 12, 2006)
- The Pope is indicating that Scotus has gone too far in his 'voluntarism' and that has, perhaps inadvertently, led to 'irrationalism' in theology. Perhaps this is why he was never declared a Saint by the Church? Pomonomo2003 07:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I would like to know why the word dunce has come to mean fool. All the article says right now is "later philosophers weren't complimentary" of him. Why not?
- According to Websters II: New Riverside University Dictionary, the followers ofJohn Duns Scotus were known for their resistance to new ideas and theology. The meaning of the term "dunce", during the course of the 16th century, change from "an un-scolarly person" to "stupid". (talk) 18:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Nominalism vs Realism
"Duns Scotus is a realist (as opposed to nominalist), in that his metaphysics deals with things rather than with concepts."
It's a shame to find such a thing written in Wikipedia! Realism in that sense deals with concepts. Nominalism, with "things"...
- As for that, neither is true, the entire quarell is just an symptom of the general ignorance of the authors. Scotus is realist in the matter of universals, that is, he believes that the content of universal concepts is realised within things. He is also an epistemic realist, that is, he believes that we can know things directly.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk • contribs) 14 January 2012
Dunce cap Does anyone know anything definite about this dunce cap business? It looks like an urban legend as presented here. I have this to say agianst it: the conical shape of the cap suggests catholic penitential garb; precisely the same type of cap was used for the same reason insschools in France called the Ans (Donkey) cap.22.214.171.124 19:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Its not an urban legend. Persons incapable of learning are often called "Dunces". As in the famous book "A Confederacy of Dunces", which title is based on the quote "When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.". From Jonathan Swifts Thoughts on Various Subjects, Moral and Diverting. Mahjongg 10:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
"The others being Aquinas, Ockham and Bonaventura"? Really, just those three? Not Abelard or Averroës or Bacon, just off the top of my head? Unless we can find an _extremely_ reliable source that puts Scotus, Aquinas, Ockham and Bonaventura into some special category, I think that this sentence should go. Tevildo (talk) 15:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- No comments in the previous two weeks - I've removed the sentence. Tevildo (talk) 22:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I have redirected Joannes Scotus Duns here which was recently created from the 1888 Dictionary of National Biography entry. If someone finds useful material there you could merge it, but keep in mind that scholarship in this area has progressed a lot since then. It would be very inappropriate for instance to do something like that at Roger Bacon. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 09:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Johannes Scotus Eriugena
"Not to be confused with the earlier Irish theologian and philosopher Johannes Scotus Eriugena."
Does this sentence (fragment) really belong at the end of the introduction? I think it would be better suited as part of the disambiguation text instead. Kristephanie (talk) 00:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
All I know this guy for is premature burial, he's even listed in the article. No mention of it here, what gives? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 07:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree, someone should defiantly at least mention it. I came to this page specifically so I could find more information about his premature death. I find it a bit upsetting that it isn't even mentioned, not even in passing. Lil mail (talk) 21:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I also agree, the article says that the story of his premature burial is probably a myth, but this needs more detail. Why is the account of him being exhumed a myth? If "Historia vitae et mortis" is in error, then who's the source that it is in error? Walterego (talk) 10:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
The article is full of misinformations and grave errors. I have not time to correct them all, but clearly it need a thorough revision by someone who at least knows what "nominalism" and "realism" means.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk • contribs) 14 January 2012
His first name?
The article says: "There is also a formal distinction between the divine attributes and the powers of the soul."
I think it should say: "There is also a formal distinction between the divine attributes and between the powers of the soul."
"for the whole totality of dependent things is cause, and not on anything belonging to that totality."
East does not hold Immaculate Conception to be heresy
I edited out a comment that said that the East regards the Immaculate Conception to be heresy. There is no controlling authority that has declared the Immaculate Conception a heresy, and such a label is deeply confusing. It would be better to say that such terminology is alien to the Eastern Churches:
The Eastern Churches hold that the Blessed Virgin Mary was without the guilt of sin. Never having defined original sin along the lines of St. Augustine, whose sainthood is recognized in the East, but whose writings were largely unknown in the East for many centuries, however, they also do not recognize the guiltlessness of Mary as something which distinguishes her from the rest of humanity. Augustine taught that all mankind shares in the guilt of original sin; In the East, this teaching is neither considered heretical, but neither is it recognized as a premise on which to base further syllogisms.
When an editor removes 1/3 of an article with his first edit, he should not be surprised to be reverted and stay reverted. If you want to introduce changes on that scale, I suggest you propose them in broad outline here, and then work section by section. Johnbod (talk) 18:37, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- The problem is that the whole page has turned into a blatant hoax, and you are helping the page retaind all of its false content. Why don't you open your eyes and look at the edit history. The whole page was the subject of attacks and defacement for months, and nobody has ever done anything, except for banned user Ed who got banned again for trying to help. Shame on you. Brutdaven (talk) 19:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, I've looked at the history, & I note that your version is essentially a rvt to the last version by Quisquilae (aka Peter Damien/Dr Ed) before he got banned. I've also glanced at the great chunks of stuff removed, & though it's certainly not my field they don't look like "hoax" material to me. You need to make your case. Johnbod (talk) 20:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- I don't need to discuss anything. Look at the page and fix it, otherwise it will remain full of incorrect facts. Or call an expert of philosophy (like your friend you called Ed) and let him examine the page, so he can correct it for you. Just because we can't see anything to be incorrect in the page, it doesn't mean that the page is right. Brutdaven (talk) 21:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)