Comps - Medieval

Front 1

Augustine, The Teacher

Back 1

1. Nothing can be taught without signs
A. All speech is signs, even prepositions.
B. We speak for sake of teaching (arg by example with Adeodatus)
C. Pointing as ostensive teaching
D. Walking

2. Nothing can be learned by signs
A. Perception only by senses and reason
1. Senses - we must recognize something before we can know the meaning of words signifying it
A) Signs have sound and signification
2. We do not learn intellectual truth by words either, for we judge them.
B. Meno (knowability) paradox analog argument
C. We always judge a teacher by truth, so we don't receive truth from him
D. Truth made known by God

3. Conditions of learning - Matt 23:9-10 We should not call anyone teacher on earth...God must illumine

4. Sign's role in teaching - Signs only direct to destination, they are not our destination

Hint 1

1. Nothing can be taught without signs
2. Nothing can be learned by means of signs
3. Condition of learning
4. What role do signs ultimately play in teaching and learning

Front 2

Augustine on Freedom and Foreknowledge

Back 2

1. Definitions and Solutions

Will - within our power.
Free - is not coerced.
Free Will - lack of external constraint because necessity removes freedom.

Argument that our will is in our power

1)Our will must be in our power if it is to be a will.
2)If it is in our power, we are free with respect to it.
3)Therefore, if we have a will, then we are free with respect to our will.
4)God foreknows that we have a will that is in our power.
5)Therefore, our will is in our power.
6)Therefore, our will is free.


Argument that our will is not coerced

1) The order of things is just
2) Therefore, the lower cannot,
3) the equal and higher will not coerce;
4) therefore, the will is not coerced

2. Human Foreknowledge - Evodious foreknowledge of others argument

3. God's Foreknowledge - God's foreknowledge of own actions


A) God's foreknowledge does not cause future free actions but is because of it.

B) However, God’s foreknowledge of our future free actions is mediated by his knowledge of their causes

4. Strengths (NRG)
A) Necessity removes freedom
B) Responsibility retained
C) God's power maintained

5. Weaknesses (DiP)
A) Defines problem away - is lack of constraint sufficient?
B) PAP in Adam, but not post fall, leaves responsibility open

Hint 2

Definitions and Solution (will, free, fw)

Argument that our will is in our power and
that the will is not coerced
1. Definition of will
2. Order of things

Human Foreknowledge

God's Foreknowledge

Strengths and Weaknesses (NRG DiP)

Front 3

Boethius on Freedom and Foreknowledge

Back 3

Rejects Augustine - claiming compatibility because God's knowledge does not cause free action is insufficient

It is still the case that we cannot do otherwise.

Solution - Timelessness
God is not spread over time, but exists as a whole over all time.

Problems
1. Soft facts threaten divine immutability

2. Providence unexplained

A. Present Action uninformed by future knowledge
B. No middle knowledge to judge best world

Hint 3

Criticism of Augustine
Divine Timelessness
Problems

Front 4

Boethius on False Goods

Back 4

False Goods (false means and ends)
1. Wealth - desire for self-sufficiency (means)
2. Status/honors - desire for respect (end)
3. Power - desire for power (means)
4. Fame - desire for glory; pursues arts of war/peace (end)
5. Pleasure - the more the better (means or end)

Cause of Unhappiness - divided ends when happiness has no parts
(1) Happiness is the perfection of all good things & contains all that is good
(2) All men naturally desire happiness
(3) In seeking happiness via different paths, men are lead astray and are unhappy due to ignorance/error

Recognize True Happiness in God - the good is one and undivided; it contains all "goods" of above

(1) Happiness is found in perfect goodness (The finite goods above participate in a limited sense in the good)
(2) God is good
(3) God’s goodness is perfect
(4) Therefore, happiness is found in God.

Hint 4

1. Identify False Goods and Detach
2. Explain Cause of Unhappiness - divided ends
3. Recognize True Happiness - God

Front 5

Augustine on Evil

Back 5

Inordinate Desire and neglecting eternal
Free Choice

Hint 5

libido/ blameworthy cupiditas = inordinate love of things that one can lose against one's will

Front 6

Aquinas on Existence and Essence

Back 6

Real Distinction - three kinds
1. Logical - less general notion participating in more general notion - NOT
2. Matter in form - not fundamental enough; even a matter-form composite must participate in esse to exist.
3. Real Distinction between subject and that in which it participates; like an effect in its cause.

Argument for Existence/Essence distinction in creatures:
i) if there is not a real distinction between essence and existence, then they are identical.
ii) They are identical only in God.
iii) So they are distinct in creatures.

Metaphysical Role

1. Explains angels

2. Explains metaphysics as science of existence, since all existing things have something in common despite various forms – they all participate in existence with God as the source.

3. Shows distinction and dependence of creation on God

4. Divine simplicity

Hint 6

Definitions
Real Distinction
Metaphysical Role

Front 7

Aquinas on Simplicity (negative method)

Back 7

1. No Corporeal parts: Only corporeal things have corporeal parts. God is not corporeal.

A) Unmoved Arg: Bodies are movable. The 1st mover is unmovable. The 1st mover is not a body.

B) Potentiality Arg: All bodies are potentiality. 1st m over is pure actuality. 1st mover is not a body.

C) Nobility Arg: First Being is most noble. Animate bodies greater inanimate. Animating force greater than bodies. First Being cannot be body.

2. No Matter/form composition

A) Potentiality Arg: Matter exists in potentiality (it can be acted upon). God is pure actuality. Therefore.

3. No Existence and essence distinction

A) Uncaused Arg: If distinct, then actual existence must be added to essence. This addition requires a cause. God is uncaused First cause. Therefore.

B) Potentiality Arg: If distinct, essence represents potentiality and existence represents actuality. God has no potentiality/actuality distinction. Therefore.

C) Noble existence Arg: If distinct, God’s actual existence would depend on something prior, pure absolute existence. God doesn't depend on anything. Therefore.

Hint 7

God Not Composed of

1. corporeal parts
2. matter/form
3. distinct existence/essence

4. subject/essence
5. species in a genus
6. accidents distinct from essence

Front 8

Aquinas on Simplicity (affirmative method)

Back 8

(1) A thing is said to be perfect in proportion to its actuality
(this is because we call that perfect which lacks nothing of the mode of its perfection)
(2) God as First Being is pure actuality
(3) God is most perfect

‘perfect’ signifies whatever is not wanting in an actual being.

Hint 8

Affirm positive attributes of God

God is perfect

Front 9

What are Universals?

Back 9

What - universals are kind terms predicated of multiple particulars (e.g. humanity, goodness, animal)

Where -

1. Realism - extramental existence in realm of Forms or mental existence in God's mind and inhere in particulars; cause universal concepts in mind

2. Nominalism - entirely mental

Why Realism?

1. Human knowledge - how to know a rose is sweet?
2. Objective Ethics - goodness and/or humanity needed

Worries

1. Realism - pagan metaphysics that violate God's freedom, power and parsimony

2. Nominalism - rift between world and thought in epistemology, ethics and theology

Connection - The relation of divine freedom and power versus the extent of human knowledge is the mirror-image of the freedom-foreknowledge problem.

History - The medieval problem of universals is a logical, and historical, continuation of the ancient problem generated by Plato's (428-348 B.C.) theory of Ideas or Forms. Nearly all medieval thinkers agreed on the existence of universals before things in the form of divine ideas existing in the divine mind, but all of them denied their existence in the form of mind-independent eternal entities originally posited by Plato.

Hint 9

What?
Where?
Why Realism?
Worries with both
Connections and History

Front 10

Aquinas on Universals

Back 10

Moderate Realism - Denies universals are separate ideas in realm of forms.

Distinctions - divine ideas and inherence
1. Universalia ante rem - universals exist in the mind of God. This explains imago dei (Q.86.15).
2. Univeralia in re - universals exist in individual things because we cognize the universal through abstracting from particular thing
3. Universalia post rem – forming a concept of it in our mind.

Hint 10

Moderate Realism
Distinctions - ante, in, post

Front 11

Scotus on Universals

Back 11

Definition: A universal is a thing
(a) outside the soul,
(b) formally but not really distinct from these individuals, and
(c) really multiplied in individuals

Three Terms

Numerical unity – strict unity; if A strict = B, then they are the same in every possible way; opposed to the unity that exists between horses sharing horsiness.

Formal distinction – there are two things, but not even God could separate them

Real distinction – there are two things that can be separated (at least by God)

Five Part View

1. NATURE IS COMMON AND NOT NUMERICALLY ONE: The nature of something is common in reality, but does not have a numerical unity.

2. HAECCEITY IS NUMERICALLY ONE: The individuating principle (haecceity) is numerically one and particular and cannot be common to numerically distinct particulars.

3. NEITHER NATURE NOR HAECCEITY EXIST APART FROM PARTICULR: Neither the nature nor the haecceity can exist in reality except as a constituent of a particular.

4. NATURE AND HAECCEITY ARE FORMALLY, NOT REALLY, DISTINCT: The nature and the haecceity are not really distinct, but formally distinct.

5. THE HAECCESITY-NATURE COMBO IS NUMERICALLY ONE: The common nature is “really multiplied” in the many things that share the nature.

Answers Objection to Realism - This means that we can distinguish between Socrates’ humanity and Plato’s humanity: these are literally two different things, each having its own numerical unity.

Hint 11

Three-part Definition

Three Terms

Five Parts of View

Answers Objection to Realism

Front 12

Ockham on Universals

Back 12

Criticism of Scotus' Realism
1. Predication objection
i) a predicate is the only thing that can be predicated of something. (Df. a predicate is a concept or idea in the mind.)
ii) universals are predicated of things.
iii) therefore, universals are concepts or ideas in the mind.

2. Formal Distinction objection - either a haeccity and the nature it contracts are distinct or they are not. God is omnipotent and there is no combination of things that he could not separate.

3. Natures Less-Than-Numerical Unity objection: Things specifically different are also numerically different. If numerically different, each is numerically one. The nature of a man and the nature of a donkey are specifically different. Therefore they are numerically different. Therefore these natures are numerically one


Ockham's View - Universals do not exist outside the soul.

Hint 12

Criticism of Realism
1. Extreme Realism
2. Scotus' Realism

Ockham's View Defended

Objections

Front 13

Anselm's Ontological Argument

Back 13

THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
 DEFINITION: God is “that than which nothing greater can be thought (TNG).”
 (Contemporary translation: greatest possible being.)
 not “the greatest thing that can be thought,” since Anselm does not claim that he can be thought
 nor is he “that which is greater than everything else,” since that is not enough to get the argument off the ground, since it presupposes that the thing is actual.
 ARGUMENT:
 Premise #1: That than which nothing greater can be thought exists in the understanding.
• (Contemporary translation: God’s existence is possible.)
 Support for premise #1: even the fool understands the concept of “that than which nothing greater can be thought” when he hears the words; therefore, it exists in his understanding.
• (Contemporary translation: conceivability is a guide to possibility; God’s existence is conceivable; therefore it is possible.)
 Premise #2: If TNG exists in the understanding, then it exists in reality as well.
• (Contemporary translation: if God’s existence is possible, then it is actual.)
 First argument in support of #2 (chap. 2): NON-EXISTENCE REDUCTIO
• (i) To exist is greater than to not exist;
• (ii) therefore, if TNG does not exist, I can conceive of a greater thing (a thing with all the same characteristics which actually does exist).
• (iii) But then TNG would not be TNG – a contradiction.
• So, TNG exists in reality if it exists in the understanding.
(Commonly thought Anselm uses the underlying principle: existence is a perfection, a great-making property. Spade challenges this. Rather, something like it is better for g to exist than not exist)
 Second argument in support of #2 (chap. 3): THOUGHT NOT TO EXIST REDUCTIO
• (i) A thing that cannot be thought not to exist is greater than a thing which can be thought not to exist.
• (ii)So if TNG could be thought not to exist, it would not be TNG (I could think of the same thing plus the property of not being able to be thought of as not existing) – a contradiction.
• So, TNG cannot be thought not to exist. If it can be thought at all, then, it must exist.
(Underlying principle: necessary existence is a perfection, a great-making property. Ditto above)
 Conclusion: TNG exists in reality (1, 2, modus ponens).

Hint 13

Definition of God: TNG

Argument

Premise 1: TNG exists in the understanding
Premise 2: If TNG exists in the understanding, then it exists in reality.
Conclusion: TNG exist in reality.

Front 14

Guanilo's Objections

Back 14

CHALLENGES TO PREMISE #1

1. “I Can Understand False Things” I often have false things in my understanding, so the mere fact that I have the idea of TNG in my understanding is not sufficient.
 TNG must be shown not to exist in my thought like when I think about false things, rather it must exist in my understanding such that I understand that it exists in reality as well.
 This objection shows Gaunilo’s insecurity with the MindReality move. Gaunilo wants it established that TNG exists in the mind in such a way that it corresponds to “genuine knowledge that it exists.” This, is what Gaunilo takes understanding to be in the strict sense. This conception of understanding (or existing in the mind) is the foundation of the majority of Gaunilo’s objections.
 Anselm’s reply (42-43): At this point I was merely trying to show the TNG can exist in the understanding in some way or another (not in the strict sense). The rest of my argument will show it exists in reality, or simply in the understanding like a false thing (the words that were said were understood, i.e. a round square) .
 Moreover, if false things can exist in the understanding (in the “I understand what was said” way), TNG most certainly can. Also, you argument involves a contradiction. You claim (initially) (a) that false things are understood in some sense. But you also claim (later) (b) that to exist in your understanding is to understand that x exists in reality as well.
 Therefore, you can’t criticize me for saying TNG exists in the understanding before being certain it exists in reality. (Which is Gaunilo’s big problem).
• This emphasizes Anselm’s position that TNG can exist in the mind prior to any sort of “genuine knowledge that it exists.” Existing in the mind, or understanding, is not about verification. It is about possibility. And, TNG is all about possibility. TNG is that than which no greater can possibly be thought of. It is greater than any possible being, existing or non-existent. (Gaunilo get’s this part wrong too, which we’ll see later)

2. *“I Can’t Understand God” Since God is so utterly unique, I cannot actually form an idea of him from other things I am acquainted with. I can only think of him on the basis of the word signifying him, and so the nature of God does not actually exist in my understanding in the sense that Anselm needs.
 Anselm’s reply: (p. 44-5): first, we can in fact infer greater goods from lesser goods; second, even if we could not, we can still understand what the words mean and some of what is involved in using them; third (p. 36), he appeals to Gaunilo’s faith that he must have some conception of God.

CHALLENGES TO PREMISE #2

1. “I Don’t Accept that it Exists" (objection to A:1 for P#2) even if greater than any imagined thing; don’t accept greater than any real thing. Therefore, it must first be proved that it actually exists before I accept the principle that underlies the inference to its existence.
 Key quotes: “greater than everything else” & “greater than any real thing”
 Anselm’s reply (esp. p. 41): chastises Gaunilo’s misinterpretation of argument. “greater than everything else (GE)” ≠ TNG
 “the two don’t have the same forcing in proving that the thing spoken of exists in reality”
• To illustrate, he emphasizes 2nd argument
• (it may look like Anselm is using 2nd to defend 1st, which would be problematic, but rather, I think Anselm is using the 2nd to show Gaunilo how he’s messed up on the 1st)
 Anselm interprets Gaunilo as doing the following: (1) admitting that he understands “GE”, but he’s not certain it exits in reality, (i.e. he’s thinking GE is capable of not existing). (2) claiming that if you prove GE does exist, then I’ll be able to evaluate it and realize GE really is greater than everything else.
 Anselm claims (not in these words; but by repeating argument #2): “once you’re convinced GE exists, you may realize that GE is greater than every existing thing. But the very fact you could think of GE as not existing illustrates it is not TNG. (you could have been thinking of Spano, who dominates, but is not a necessary being) The 2nd argument illustrates this. Your objection fails, Gaunilo, because you were not thinking of TNG. such objections don’t work for TNG because it is impossible to think of TNG as not existing.

2. *“Lost Island” (objection to A: 1 for P #2) I can give a parallel proof for an island greater than any other, which is absurd.
• Most interpret this as attempting to show Anselm “proves too much”
• Gaunilo uses it as an example of why you must prove the existence of TNG first
 Key quote: “you cannot doubt this island, Greater than all others on earth, truly exists in reality”
• Indicates Gaunilo is using “greater than everything else” not “that than which no greater can be thought”
 Anselm’s reply (39 & 41-2): is rather dismissive, perhaps because Gaunilo does not describe this island as a “greater than which cannot be conceived” but only “as greater than all others”– which Anselm criticizes him for (pp. 41-2).
 “the two don’t have the same forcing in proving that the thing spoken of exists in reality”
• (i.e. the argument only works for TNG, not for Islands) X could be > than everything else, but not a necessary being.
 *”Objection to 2nd argument for 2nd premise” before you can show me that the greatest being cannot be thought not to exist, you must show me that he actually exists and exists to the degree that he cannot be thought to fail to exist.
 this demand for proving existence first seem to illustrate that the 2nd argument is dependent on the 1st.
 After voicing the Fool’s objection, Gaunilo suggests it would be better to claim “TNG cannot be understood not to exist, rather than thought not to exist. This is because false things cannot (strictly) be understood, but they can be thought. Presumably, the use of understood by Anselm would indicate the actual existence of TNG
 Anselm’s Reply: only directly addresses the understood suggestion (ties into final objection below).
 Claims nothing that exists can be understood as not existing. I can think of myself as not existing (because I have a beginning and end) but I can’t understand that I don’t exist, because clearly I do. TNG, on the other hand, has no beginning or end, so it can’t be thought or understood not to exist. (Here he uses Gaunilo’s understanding in the “strict sense”)

3. “Can’t Think of Myself as Not Existing” I know with absolute certainty that I exist, and so cannot think myself as not existing. So God is not the only being I cannot think of as not existing.
 Anselm’s reply: two kinds of “thinking,” judging and imagining (read: epistemic possibility vs. metaphysical possibility). I cannot think myself as not existing in the first sense, but I can in the second sense (but not God).

Hint 14

Objections to Premise 1
1. I Can Understand False Things
2. Can't Understand God

Objections to Premise 2
1. I Don't Accept That It Exists
2. Lost Island
3. I Can't Think of Myself as Not Existing

Front 15

Anselm Natural Theology

Back 15

Two-Steps

1) Ingenious a priori argument that, if sound, immediately yields the existence of an absolutely perfect being, and

2) a systematic deduction and explanation of various attributes such a being must have.

Hint 15

Two-Step Natural Theology

Front 16

Aquinas Natural Theology

Back 16

Rejects Anselm's a priori argument.

Three-Steps

1) an a posteriori argument for the existence of a first efficient cause or unmoved mover, that is, a being that acts but is not itself caused or acted upon (Five Ways);

2) the via remotionis, in which he argues that a first efficient cause lacks various limitations characteristic of entities that we do have simple natural-kind concepts of, with the result that a first efficient cause must be an absolutely perfect being (Simplicity); and

3) the via affirmationis, in which he argues that several pure positive perfections, suitably abstracted from the restrictive conditions under which they occur in other entities, are to be attributed literally, though analogically, to this perfect being.

Hint 16

Three-Step Natural Theology

Front 17

Scotus Natural Theology

Back 17

1) a three-pronged proof for
the existence of an entity with the relational properties of being
a) first in the order of efficient causality,
b) first in the order of final causality and
c) first in the order of perfection.

2) an argument showing that exactly one being has all three of these preeminent relational properties;

3) a series of arguments showing that the possessor of this "triple primacy" is an infinite being with intensively infinite power, knowledge, goodness, and overall perfection.

Hint 17

Three-Stage Natural Theology

Front 18

Ockham's Natural Theology

Back 18

can demonstrate there is a begin such that no being is prior to or more prefect than it, but not that there is one such being (contra Unicity)

Hint 18

Critical - By faith rather than reason