Scholars have known that a variety of medieval theories on relation existed, but no full-length systematic study has been attempted until now. With this book Henninger fills an important gap in our knowledge of medieval philosophy. Dealing with such varied thinkers as Aquinas, Henry of Ghent, Richard of Mediavilla, John Duns Scotus, Henry of Harclay, William of Ockham, and Peter Aureoli, the book will interest anyone concerned with late medieval philosophy and the transition to the early modern period.

This study investigates whether the host personality and the primary alterpersonality of a woman with multiple personality disorder are controlled by the left and right hemispheres, respectively. Results support the hypothesis. Behavioral and preference measures indicate that Pe is strongly right handed and Pa is left handed. Verbal and musical dichotic tests show significantly greater accuracy for stimuli presented to the left ear for Pa and to the right ear for Pe. It is concluded that shifts in hemisphericity involve redistribution (...) of attentional resources and callosal suppression. “Conditional handedness” is proposed as a handedness subtype, characterizing persons who alternate personalities and consistently display alternate hand preferences linked to specific personality characteristics. (shrink)

This volume is a continuation of Robert Greystones on the Freedom of the Will: Selections from His Commentary on the Sentences. From this, five of the most relevant questions were selected for editing and translation in this timely volume. This edition should prompt not just a footnote to, but a re-writing of the history of philosophy.

This chapter contains sections titled: Ontology: universals and relations Morality: the virtues and the will Conclusion.

A complete critical edition of the later work of the medieval philosopher and theologian Henry of Harclay is here published for the first time, together with an English translation prepared in collaboration with Raymond Edwards. The Quaestiones Ordinariae introduce students to the key problems of medieval philosophy, as well as enabling scholars to deepen their knowledge of the debates of this period. A further volume will publish Questions 15-29.

Laurent Henninger intervenant sur les « révolutions militaires » (notion située au carrefour du débat historique lancé dans les années 1980 par Geoffrey Parker – en polémique avec Jeremy Black – et du débat stratégique américain dans les années 1990) souligne que les avancées dans l’art de la guerre ont été depuis cinq siècles une des composantes majeures de la barbarisation et du totalitarisme. La notion de « révolution militaire » est aujourd’hui contestée par ceux qui y voient un outil (...) interprétatif de trop longue durée et lui préfèrent l’idée de « mutations militaires » (selon laquelle l’accumulation de changements millimétriques sur la longue durée débouche sur des ruptures). Après avoir passé en revue la première révolution militaire – XVe-XVIIe siècles – fondée sur la mise à distance de la cavalerie grâce à l’infanterie nouvelle, à l’artillerie du champ de bataille, Henninger s’interroge sur le critère discriminant pour qualifier les nouvelles guerres de la Renaissance (l’hyperviolence n’en est pas un à ses yeux) et voit dans les armes à feu la vraie rupture car elles influent de façon radicale sur la peur et le courage des combattants et sont source d’une véritable « inhumanité » dans la mesure où leur feu est « imparable ». Il insiste sur l’émergence d’un nouveau type de courage guerrier non archaïque et plus « stoïcien » marqué par l’acceptation de la mort. Dans cette perspective, l’« inhumanisation » technique porterait en elle la possibilité de la barbarisation. L. Henninger développe ensuite cette thèse à partir de l’examen des guerres mécanisées de la période 1860-1950 en s’attardant sur la guerre de Sécession puis sur la Grande Guerre. Il relie aussi la question du totalitarisme à la réflexion sur les « bombardements stratégiques massifs » et les débuts de la dissuasion nucléaire (terme qui ne s’impose que vers 1960). Il conclut en insistant sur le fait que, selon lui, la brutalisation des conflits naît toujours d’un retard de la pensée de la guerre et sur le paradoxe d’une culture occidentale qui produit en même temps barbarie de la guerre et codes qui tentent de l’enrayer. (shrink)

In this article, the problem of the ontological status of real relations is first examined as it was generally formulated by the scholastics of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, that is, within a solid and defining Aristotelian substance/attribute framework. I then examine John Duns Scotus’s strong realism on relations, giving his key arguments for his teaching, as also his arguments against the rival non-realist, conceptualist view. This latter view was championed most strongly and extensively by Peter Auriol, and I examine (...) both his arguments for his novel conceptualist theory of relations, along with his counter-arguments to Scotus’s criticisms. I conclude by showing how some early fourteenth- century thinkers were beginning to reject key traditional assumptions of the scholastic debate. (shrink)

What is human freedom? By addressing a number of theological 'limit situations', Robert Greystones, while at Oxford University in the 1320s, developed his own philosophical theory. This volume is the first Latin critical edition, with a clear English translation. There is an extensive introduction describing his life and teaching on human freedom.

As with the problem of universals, late medieval thinkers were very concerned with the ontological status of relations, for they were central to numerous theological and philosophical problems. These relations were of various types: relations of identity, qualitative similarity, quantitative equality, causal relations, and intentional relations, such as those between knower and the object known. Each of these relations was taken to be an Aristotelian accident. Does it differ from the substance which is related? Broadly speaking, I have discovered four (...) alternative theories: as sentence of the form "a is related by a real relation R to b" is true only if the relation R is an extra-mental thing really distinct from a and b ; R only exists as a concept in a mind ; a and b exist in a certain real way ; the term "R" is connotative, signifying a directly and connoting b . Using printed sources and my critical edition of various codices, I ask the following thinkers whether a real relation is distinct from that which is related: Thomas Aquinas, Giles of Rome, Henry of Ghent, Richard of Middleton, John Duns Scotus, Henry of Harclay, Hervaeus Natalis, and Peter Aurioli. (shrink)

Traditional scientific views of the conscious self and world we live in are challenged by an unprecedented outburst of emerging new paradigms, theories of consciousness, perceptions of reality, new sciences, new philosophies, epistemologies, and a host of other transformative approaches. This still expanding outburst can be traced, on both logical and chronologic grounds, not to chaos theory, ecology, the new physics, or dozens of other currently ascribed sources, but rather to the cognitive (consciousness) revolution that immediately preceded. These new approaches (...) all share one key feature in common, namely, they all depend, directly or indirectly, upon a refutation and successful overthrow of the long dominant materialist paradigm. This is what was required to shift consciousness from an acausal or "eliminable" status to a functionally indispensable role. Traditional "bottom‐up" micro‐determinism had to be supplemented by a reciprocal, "top‐down" control exerted by mental emergents over lower‐level components. This does not dispose of behaviorism or reductionism, as methodology, but simply incorporates these within a more comprehensive explanatory framework. With the long reign of materialist constraints finally broken, other antireductive views have proliferated but with little regard for what the new paradigm allows. (shrink)