Comments on: Williams Contra Wolter on the Affectio Iusititiae as a Pure Perfection http://percaritatem.com/2007/09/23/williams-contra-wolter-on-the-affectio-iusititiae-as-a-pure-perfection/ Non intratur in veritatem nisi per caritatem. St. Augustine Mon, 14 May 2012 13:53:59 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: Lee Faber http://percaritatem.com/2007/09/23/williams-contra-wolter-on-the-affectio-iusititiae-as-a-pure-perfection/comment-page-1/#comment-1417 Lee Faber Sun, 30 Sep 2007 03:37:46 +0000 http://percaritatem.com/2007/09/23/williams-contra-wolter-on-the-affectio-iusititiae-as-a-pure-perfection/#comment-1417 Cynthia, My library seems to have lost the Medioevo volume. apparently there are a number of scotistae running about. So all I can say is Medioevo 2005. it is an issue dedicated to scotus and also has pini's intersting article of qq. in met. IV.1. Dumont's is an unpublished conference paper, though he may give a version of it at the upcoming st. Bonaventure conference (coming?), or so goes the rumour; he's listed as giving a paper on the de anima qq.. I find William's interesting, but sometimes uncharitible in his representation and treatment of contrary opinions (I almost feel bad for Catherine Pickstock even though she deserves every bit of it), by not giving the best version, etc. Ingham argues against him, so I suppose it depends if you think she's correct in thinking Scotus goes through substantial modification in his views on the will. ingham analyzes qq. in met. ix.15, lectura 2.12, ord. 2.6, and rep. A 2.12. here she's going against Dumont's theses in the "after the condemnations of 1277" volume that Scotus did not change his mind on the will, only in his estimation of an opinion of henry. But I don't know what dumont says about rep. II.12, nor have I read it myself. So, in other words, I don't know. I haven't sat down and read all this literature with these issues in mind; just skimmed a few articles for exams, and taken a class. Cynthia,
My library seems to have lost the Medioevo volume. apparently there are a number of scotistae running about. So all I can say is Medioevo 2005. it is an issue dedicated to scotus and also has pini’s intersting article of qq. in met. IV.1. Dumont’s is an unpublished conference paper, though he may give a version of it at the upcoming st. Bonaventure conference (coming?), or so goes the rumour; he’s listed as giving a paper on the de anima qq..

I find William’s interesting, but sometimes uncharitible in his representation and treatment of contrary opinions (I almost feel bad for Catherine Pickstock even though she deserves every bit of it), by not giving the best version, etc. Ingham argues against him, so I suppose it depends if you think she’s correct in thinking Scotus goes through substantial modification in his views on the will. ingham analyzes qq. in met. ix.15, lectura 2.12, ord. 2.6, and rep. A 2.12. here she’s going against Dumont’s theses in the “after the condemnations of 1277″ volume that Scotus did not change his mind on the will, only in his estimation of an opinion of henry. But I don’t know what dumont says about rep. II.12, nor have I read it myself. So, in other words, I don’t know. I haven’t sat down and read all this literature with these issues in mind; just skimmed a few articles for exams, and taken a class.

]]> By: Cynthia R. Nielsen http://percaritatem.com/2007/09/23/williams-contra-wolter-on-the-affectio-iusititiae-as-a-pure-perfection/comment-page-1/#comment-1391 Cynthia R. Nielsen Tue, 25 Sep 2007 13:29:37 +0000 http://percaritatem.com/2007/09/23/williams-contra-wolter-on-the-affectio-iusititiae-as-a-pure-perfection/#comment-1391 Hi Lee, Do you happen to have the (exact) names of the Ingham and Dumont papers, as I would love to read those. What do you think about Williams' conclusions? Best wishes, Cynthia Hi Lee,

Do you happen to have the (exact) names of the Ingham and Dumont papers, as I would love to read those.

What do you think about Williams’ conclusions?

Best wishes,
Cynthia

]]> By: Lee Faber http://percaritatem.com/2007/09/23/williams-contra-wolter-on-the-affectio-iusititiae-as-a-pure-perfection/comment-page-1/#comment-1385 Lee Faber Mon, 24 Sep 2007 21:44:24 +0000 http://percaritatem.com/2007/09/23/williams-contra-wolter-on-the-affectio-iusititiae-as-a-pure-perfection/#comment-1385 Mary Beth Ingham has an article touching on this in Medioevo 20-something (2005) where she argues against Williams (without taking sides with wolter)...Dumont gave a paper criticizing both back in january, I believe (summarized in the latest bpm). The gist of it was he thought wolter too thomist, williams had little explicit textual support for his positions. so the via media. Mary Beth Ingham has an article touching on this in Medioevo 20-something (2005) where she argues against Williams (without taking sides with wolter)…Dumont gave a paper criticizing both back in january, I believe (summarized in the latest bpm). The gist of it was he thought wolter too thomist, williams had little explicit textual support for his positions. so the via media.

]]>