In Boethius’s second commentary on Porphyry’s Isagoge he discusses and attempts to answer some of the questions Porphyry poses in his work. These questions have according to Boethius “been attempted by learned men, but have not been solved by many of them” (20). The questions were whether or not Universals are subsistent or only in understanding, if they are subsistent are they corporeal or incorporeal in nature, and finally if they are separate from or component in the objects they classify. In order to solve this set of questions which is often referred to as the problem of universals Boethius states the problem as “Genera and Species [and all other universals] either exist and subsist or are formed by the understanding and by thought alone”
…show more content…
If it does not fit any one of those criteria, then it would seem as if Boethius would not view it as a universal. The most concise way to state Boethius’s solution would be to say that Genera and species exist in the world as singulars but in the mind they exist as universals or in his words “and so [genera and species] exist in singulars, but are thought of as universals” (25) This allows him to give answers to all the different problems associated with universals. But the question still remains is Boethius a realist or a conceptualist. …show more content…
Boethius very clearly does believe that genera and species are only universal as concepts and not in reality so that would seem to support the view that he is a conceptualist. The problem that arises from this position on Boethius is that medieval philosophers, Boethius included, were very concerned with the exact phrasing of questions and ideas given how teaching was done during this time so would be odd if Boethius phased a question that he himself was going to solve in a way that did not accurately reflect the point he was attempting to portray. {para}
While it was somewhat ambiguous if Boethius would be more properly classified as a realist or a conceptualist by looking at the problem and analyzing what exactly is being said by Boethius. We know that Boethius choose his wording very careful, as was the norm, so by looking at how he phrases the Problem we can be informed to the answer of our search. Most counter claims to realism are not based on the wording used by Boethius so are likely to fully encapsulate his
If it does not fit any one of those criteria, then it would seem as if Boethius would not view it as a universal. The most concise way to state Boethius’s solution would be to say that Genera and species exist in the world as singulars but in the mind they exist as universals or in his words “and so [genera and species] exist in singulars, but are thought of as universals” (25) This allows him to give answers to all the different problems associated with universals. But the question still remains is Boethius a realist or a conceptualist. …show more content…
Boethius very clearly does believe that genera and species are only universal as concepts and not in reality so that would seem to support the view that he is a conceptualist. The problem that arises from this position on Boethius is that medieval philosophers, Boethius included, were very concerned with the exact phrasing of questions and ideas given how teaching was done during this time so would be odd if Boethius phased a question that he himself was going to solve in a way that did not accurately reflect the point he was attempting to portray. {para}
While it was somewhat ambiguous if Boethius would be more properly classified as a realist or a conceptualist by looking at the problem and analyzing what exactly is being said by Boethius. We know that Boethius choose his wording very careful, as was the norm, so by looking at how he phrases the Problem we can be informed to the answer of our search. Most counter claims to realism are not based on the wording used by Boethius so are likely to fully encapsulate his