Duns Scotus - Medieval Philosophy (History of Philosophy)

Peter Adamson discusses the thought of the famous 13th century medieval philosopher, Duns Scotus. First he discusses Duns Scotus on Being, particularly his attacks on the proposal of Aquinas and Henry of Ghent that Being is subject to analogy. Next he discusses Scotus' development of a novel theory of free will and his rethinking of the notions of necessity and possibility. Then he discusses Scotus on ethics, particularly his argument that morality is a matter of freely choosing to follow God's freely issued commands. Finally, he discusses Scotus on universals, his explanation of how things can share a nature in common while being unique individuals.
00:00 Scotus on Being
20:09 Scotus on Freedom
39:42 Scotus on Ethics
1:00:40 Scotus on Universals & Individuals
This comes from Peter Adamson's podcast, the History of Philosophy without any Gaps, back in 2016. The podcast can be found here: historyofphilosophy.net
#philosophy #metaphysics

[@alf2540]

Best podcast ever.

[@zavalajoseraul]

Hi, do you recommend any books forms scotus? Just the Ordinatio? I'm looking for him talking about the will

[@jeffreykalb9752]

The esse/essentia distinction can be found in Augustine as well.

[@alwaysgreatusa223]

Platonism holds that only essences or forms (such as triangles) actually exist. What doesn't truly exist, except as kind of shadow or imitation of real existence, is the triangle drawn by the child -- or one drawn by anyone else, for that matter.

[@mgm6076]

Does anyone knows the music?

[@CollinRoche]

Still early in this video…does this video address the gigantic case of special pleading that pops up almost immediately here?

[@kenwatanabe2864]

Hello, the person behind Philosophy Overdose. I have a question. Is there any videos related to philosophy that you cannot upload due to copyright issue? If so, what is it about?

[@jonathanthompson4734]

There's plenty. I believe this channel is a re-creation of an older, now deleted one. It was deleted by KZbin for too many copyright infringements.

[@Philosophy_Overdose]

There are literally hundreds of things that I want to upload but can't. Why do you ask?

[@kenwatanabe2864]

@@Philosophy_Overdose Just wondering if there are any "hidden gems" we might be missing out is all :)

[@Eta_Carinae__]

@@Philosophy_Overdose speaking of: I remember listening to a lecture by Sellars; it might've been on the myth of the given, I can't quite remember. One day I decided I wanted to revisit it, and I couldn't find it anywhere. If you remember it, was that video one of them? To clarify this was some years ago, before the channel got nuked.

[@Israel2.3.2]

@@Philosophy_Overdose I vote for a backup channel named "Pedagogy of the Opulent" which hosts copyrighted content, a channel which rises from the dead like a head of Hydra whenever it is inevitably taken down.

[@quantumfineartsandfossils2152]

35:20+ "Gods freedom" YES!! YES!! YES!! YES!!GENIUS!!YES!!BRILLIANT!!YES!!

[@cheri238]

BRAVO!!! ❤Now, let's take Scrotus arguments beginning with American history on all sides, not just the Clinton's administration, not the imperialism of kings and queens, lords ,barons , serfs. Philosophy unfolds, it is never stagnant, as the lies of histories and sciences unfold wars and religious divisions starting 5000 yesrs before Christ , the Gilgamesh Epic and traveling cultures, languages mixing. Heraclitus stated that one can not step in the same rivers twice. Human nature101. Thank you again 💓

[@lkgreenwell]

If John the Scot *ain’t* superinfluencer, there *should* be a revolution!

[@tumbleweedjoe]

Thanks very much for this! I've always been a sort of Thomist, but have recently run into Scotus views on univocity, being, and infinite being (very attractive). His views on natural law are...concerning.

[@alwaysgreatusa223]

Existence neither has a property nor is it a property. Of course, this is the problem with attempting to understand the nature of existence. For by what concept (or concepts) can we limit, define, contrast, compare, and understand the most fundamental concept of them all? Non-existence ? But what is the concept of non-existence except the logical contrary to the concept of existence, and since we do not understand the concept of existence in the first-place, neither do we understand what is logically contrary to it.

[@jonathanthompson4734]

"Univocity of being is poo and Scotus smells" - Milbank & gang

[@PP266]

In 20 years nobody will know who John Milbank was (probably there will be a picture in the dictionary - "radical boredom"), but people will know of Duns Scotus :)

[@jonathanthompson4734]

@@PP266 have a sense of humour :)

[@derpfaddesweisen]

​@@PP266 I think, Milbank will have an impact, he isn't that bad. He isn't another Scotus either tho. I think (and hope) David Bentley Hart will probably be the one with the most lasting influence.

[@PP266]

@@derpfaddesweisen I had to translate him and I didn't know for whom it was (a friend asked do you need money, I need it badly). Later I found out it was for a PhD candidat who couldn't grasp him in English, so he payed for translation. After a few dozen of pages, I simply quit, it wasn't worth the money. And trust me, I wasn't the only one. I cannot understand how can anyone write such bad teology in 21st century.

[@brysonstevens1431]

Aquinas does not say that being is equivocal as that would be absurd for his metaphysical system but rather that being is analogical.

[@hawkeleven]

This was the most confusing and non structured philosophical video that i watched in my life. It was really hard to go along with it.

[@moppt6495]

Duns scotus’ philosophy is hard to grasp sometimes.

[@tumbleweedjoe]

I don't really see why God's absolute freedom to create or not create this or that entails any possible state of affairs being moral just because God says so. If God decides, in total freedom, to create a being, then that being has a nature. Having a nature, then, some actions will tend to perfect it, while others will act against its perfection. The logic of right and wrong is then built-in (at least for a rational being) by virtue of having been created. God commanding the contrary of what perfects the being he has chosen to create would then involve a double "repugnancy" in Scotus' phrasing, since God cannot contradict himself, nor can the creature act toward the Good (which is its own perfection) by acting against the same Good. I don't see why Scotus radical view of God's freedom cannot be cleanly combined with Thomas/Aristotle's view of ethics having a necessary structure, since God, once having chosen to make X, and to sustain X, has necessarily committed himself to X's good. As a sci fi writer, I can invent a race of beings with three sexes, Snarlgrubs, who marry and copulate in threes. In their case, such an arrangement would be ethically good, because it follows from their nature. Certain other things might also follow as necessities, such as that all Snarlgrub children should grow up in a healthy, three parent home, and so on. Created essences fix the good along a trajectory of possible actions, depending on what sort of action tends to perfect a being with that nature. Human beings have some moral duties that Angels do not, and vice versa. For that matter, even human moral duties (or angelic duties) may differ according to office and station. I don't see how any of these this would require saying that God can command just anything and call it good.

[@alwaysgreatusa223]

To say that essences do not inform us of existence necessarily presupposes a criterion for existence that would exclude merely being an essence or having an essence. The essence of a triangle is neutral with regard to existence? Where is the proof of that ? But surely someone will say there is an essence of a 'unicorn', yet no unicorns are anywhere in existence.. therefore, there is your proof that essences do not reveal existence. What this necessarily presupposes is that we already know what does and does not exist... at least, in some cases. For example, it is supposed that we know that unicorns do not exist, and it is this 'knowledge' of the non-existence of such 'imaginary things' as unicorns that is used to conclude the mere essence of a thing never informs of whether the thing actually exists or not. Unfortunately, when we are asked what is the criterion by which we 'know' that unicorns do not exist, we can only honestly answer that we have never experienced an actual unicorn. This is hardly a reliable criterion, however, for unicorns might now exist on some distant earth-like planet on the other side of the universe. Therefore, the whole supposition that essences do not inform us of existence is insignificant, because neither does any experience by which we commonly judge things to exist. In other words, an experience by itself does not inform you of existence -- as it might only be an illusion or a dream that you are experiencing (see Descartes). Yes, we commonly use our own experiences as criteria for judging what things actually exist, but a thorough philosophical analysis undermines experience as a true criterion -- at least as much as it does essence.

[@2msvalkyrie529]

This " lecture " could serve as the Archetype example of the utter meaningless drivel that is " Philosophy ". !

[@carlmurphy2416]

idiot

[@nunciosidereo4070]

4:52 as a deutsch student I burst out laughing in the bus.