Title

Analogy of Disjunction: John Duns Scotus vs. Hervaeus Natalis on the Univocity or Analogy of Being

Document Type

Article

Publication Date

2020

Published In / Presented At

Studia Neoaristotelica

Abstract

At the beginning of his influential De Nominum Analogia, Thomas de Vio Cajetan (1469–1534) mentions three mistaken positions on analogy. He does not attach names to these positions, but each one was held by distinguished Thomists of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Furthermore, their proponents were responding to the same set of challenges from John Duns Scotus that set the agenda for the De Nominum Analogia. In this paper, I would like to do something that Cajetan did not do, and that is, directly consider the merits of the first position in his list of mistaken accounts of analogy; namely, the position that analogy is constituted by (in)disjunction. More specifically, this paper investigates the polemical use for which Hervaeus Natalis (1260–1323) deployed analogy of disjunction; the reply of John Duns Scotus; and the implications of this back and forth for understanding the Thomist-Scotist dispute over the concept of being.

Rights

Copyright 2020 All Author

Comments

Originally Published in Studia Neoaristotelica, Vol. 17, Issue 1, 2020.

https://www.pdcnet.org/studneoar/content/studneoar_2020_0017_0001_0007_0033?fbclid=IwAR3vhDWLMHDd7hf_Ylskfgwl7OusV5_2yjX3Y1i1A_0W8-uP9faMhHcZTWw&utm_source=delivra&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=In%20A%20Glance%20September%2021%2C%202020&utm_id=2417509

DOI

https://doi.org/10.5840/studneoar20201711

This document is currently not available here.

Share

COinS