las severas criticas a la iglesia expresadas en el Speculum uite humane por Rodrigo Sanchez de arevalo, encaminadas quizas a una reforma interna de la institucion, fueron interpretadas, sin duda contra la voluntad del autor, como precedentes del luteranismo en Europa.

las severas criticas a la iglesia expresadas en el Speculum uite humane por Rodrigo Sanchez de arevalo, encaminadas quizas a una reforma interna de la institucion, fueron interpretadas, sin duda contra la voluntad del autor, como precedentes del luteranismo en Europa.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:“Garrulus sum et loquax et expedire nescio. Diu te tenui in istis, sed de cetero procedam.” These are the words of Richard Rufus of Cornwall, a thirteenth-century Scholastic and lecturer at the Universities of Paris and Oxford. Rufus is apologizing to his readers: “I am garrulous and loquacious, and I don’t know how to be efficient. I have detained you with these things a long while, but let me (...) now proceed to another topic.” This apology introduces the third part of the Speculum animae, a preliminary modern edition of which we publish here. In this short treatise, Rufus presents a unique Aristotelian theory of perception, describes what is and is not intelligible, and finally proves to his own satisfaction the immortality of the rational soul. To us this would hardly seem the place to apologize for being long-winded; indeed, we might wonder how Rufus could accomplish such an ambitious task in such a short treatise. We would certainly not accuse him of excessive verbosity. But Rufus was a man of exceptional humility, who once referred to himself as the least of the lesser thinkers of his time.1Despite Rufus’s humility, he was no minor figure in the development of Scholastic philosophy. A teacher at the Universities of Paris and Oxford ,2 he is the author of the earliest known, surviving lectures on several of Aristotle’s major texts, including the Metaphysics, the Physics, De generatione et corruptione, and De anima3 . In fact, Rufus was one of the very first lecturers to teach the libri naturales at Paris after a ban on such instruction was effectively lifted in 1231 A.D. His works were influential not only among his contemporaries, but also among later authors, particularly John Duns Scotus. Roger Bacon, though a harsh critic of Rufus, acknowledged Rufus’s influence and fame decades after his death, albeit among what Bacon termed the “vulgar multitude.”4The Speculum animae is one of Rufus’s later works. He begins the treatise by posing the following question: “In what way is the soul all things?” This refers, of course, to a familiar doctrine Aristotle establishes in the De anima—that the soul is, in some way, all things —and Rufus is here seeking to clarify it. But this is, in fact, only the first of five questions addressed in the Speculum. The five questions Rufus posits and answers in this treatise are, in order:1. In what manner is the soul all things?2. In what manner do a sensible and the sense, or an intelligible and the possible intellect, become one?3. What is predicated and of what is it predicated?4. What is intelligible?5. What is the cause of the immortality of the soul?In this short work, therefore, Rufus addresses apparently diverse topics including perception, understanding, logic, and the nature of the soul. But, in fact, the Speculum is principally a summary of Rufus’s theory of human perception and understanding. Like other medieval theories of perception and understanding, Rufus’s theory centers around the notion of species, a kind of form that is received in the soul when a person senses something or grasps something intellectually.5 In this, and in other aspects of the theory, Rufus was heavily dependent on Aristotle and St. Augustine. Rufus was working in a philosophical tradition based on Aristotle’s categories that had been accepted for centuries in the West. But in his lifetime, the Aristotelian corpus was enlarged to include Aristotle’s psychology and more generally his natural philosophy and metaphysics, together with the commentaries of Averroës . As is well known, this philosophical tradition was respected and continued not just by Rufus but by many authors after his time.So what makes Rufus’s theory.. (shrink)

Amsterdam University Press is a leading publisher of academic books, journals and textbooks in the Humanities and Social Sciences. Our aim is to make current research available to scholars, students, innovators, and the general public. AUP stands for scholarly excellence, global presence, and engagement with the international academic community.

Von den Sachen und vom Widerspruch. Der eigene Gegenstand der Geisteswissenschaften -- Steinzeit. Das Erwachen der Vernunft. Judaismus -- Ockhams Willkürgott in der Schleuse des Widerspruchsprinzips. Miniaturen -- Ockham in der Geschichte. Wissenschaftstheorie und Bewusstsein -- Mythos und Evidenz. Ockhams Rekalzitranz -- Kausalität und Affektbezug. Die Annäherung an Gott -- Die Subtilität in den Materien der Philosophie. Gott, wir und die Welt -- Die Brücke vom Diesseits zum Jenseits, oder, Der Abstand der Neuzeit zum Mittelalter -- Der Sinn bei Begriffen (...) und Schlüssen. Der Scharfsinnige und der mehr als Scharfsinnige -- Satz und Satzgefüge. Der Beweis ohne Gegenständlichkeit -- Am Torweg. Der nicht unabänderliche Wille Gottes. (shrink)

References to mirrors were frequent in medieval texts both theological and literary, and their meanings have been abundantly studied, especially recently. Medieval writers were primarily inspired by St. Paul's famous metaphor in his First Letter to the Corinthians 13.12–13: “Now we see only puzzling reflections in a mirror, but then we shall see face to face. My knowledge now is partial; then it will be whole, like God's knowledge of me. In a word, there are three things that last forever: (...) faith, hope, and love; but the greatest of them all is love.” Mirrors were also likened to art in many texts; and so they have functioned mightily in investigations of visuality. To cite just one medieval text among many, on Mallorca in 1276, Inghetto Contardo defended pictures against a Jew's alleged attack by asserting that “the holy mother Church sets images out as a kind of mirror, so that seeing them with corporal eyes they see them with the eyes of the mind.” The claim here was that physical images, made possible by Christ's incarnation, were available to human senses and could be formed into a complete picture when they were assimilated with a memory of God's true nature. Hildegard of Bingen had already summed up the idea succinctly: “That [faith] Adam had when he saw with bodily eyes the invisible light of God … but after his disobedience, neither Adam nor any other man could have this vision; for that reason, the faithful can gaze at God only with the interior vision of the soul, in the mirror of faith, and trust to be able to be saved with him who can do all things.” Inghetto was also assimilating the ancient trope to new theories of vision being promulgated at the time by Roger Bacon, Robert Grosseteste, and Witelo and in such popular works as Peter of Limoges's Tractatus moralis de oculo, a preacher's manual composed exactly at the time of the Mallorca debate and very widely circulated afterward. In these, the site of seeing was literally a mirror, namely, the “crystalline humor” where God's light, located in the anterior part of the brain, is unified with rays from the eyes into a double vision. (shrink)

According to common sense cultural history is propelled by grand ideas. Contrary to this view a material history will be defended. Artists have always taken the lead in the exploration of new technologies that mediate human perception. The modern worldview has been instigated by the artistic domestication of the camera obscura and its successors: the photocamera and tv. These technologies produced the spectator who was enthroned by Descartes as the modern autonomous subject. Contemporary digital technologies call for the overthrow of (...) the obsolete paradigm of autonomy. Art paves the way for new subject-productions. (shrink)

Are there limits on how human beings can legitimately treat non-human animals? Or can we treat them just any way we please? If there are limits, what are they? Are they sufficiently strong, as some people supp ose, to lead us to be vegetarians and to seriously curtail, if not eliminate, our use of non-human animals in `scientific' experiments designed to benefit us? To fully appreciate this question let me contrast it with two different ones: Are there limits on how (...) we can legitimately treat rocks? And: are there limits on how we can legitima tely treat other human beings? The an swer to th e first ques tion is pre suma bly `No.' Well, that's not q uite right. There are som e limits on what w e can le gitimate ly do with or to rocks. If Paula has a pet rock, then Susan can't justifiably take it away or smash it with a sledge hammer. After all it is Paula's rock. (shrink)

Human actions can be identified by species, such as murder, theft, or almsgiving. But how does one determine to which kind an action belongs? Joseph Pilsner explores Thomas Aquinas's answer to this philosophical question.

R. G. Collingwood's philosophical work is marked both by its compelling critique of scientific experience and by an unresolved tension between the claims of philosophy and the claims of history. The three works under consideration here, Speculum Mentis, Essay on Philosophical Method, and Essay on Metaphysics, comprise a systematic expression of the character of human understanding in terms of its open-ended, dialectical character, and a sustained critique of the scientific conception of human knowledge as a denial of that character.