While Anselm is not mentioned, the discussion of Augustine and especially of the conflict between Scotus's Aristoteleanism and the Platonism of Henry BOOK REVIEWS 303 of Ghent could not be more illuminating (no pun intended). Similarly, their treatment of Scotus's theory of knowledge goes out of its way to place the issue in its historical context.
While Frank and Wolter do not consider the connection to Anselm's arguments for the existence of God in the Monologion, their development of Scotus's notion of infinity demonstrates his appreciation and appropriation of Anselm's famous Proslogionproof.
Given my own interest in Anselm, it is not surprising that I would appreciate the depth and detail of both of these discussions. I would only underscore the impressive treatment of its central questions: of the existence of God and of Scotus's theory of knowledge. I can say, however, that its unity and clarity obviously derive from a lifetime-or, indeed, two-dedicated to the study of Scotus. I cannot here retrace the road that is followed to weave these various texts and topics together. The work concludes with a short fifth chapter that discusses two metaphysical questions: of individuation and, finally, of the will. The initial selections are short and to the point, as they reserve the more extensive readings for the heart of the book: its concentration in chapter three on the Parisian proof for the existence of God and in chapter four on Scotus's theory of knowledge.
#Metadoctor review series#
As Frank and Wolter have organized it (and not all books in the series are organized in the same way), each chapter begins with a reading upon which they then comment. After a brief introduction to his life and works, the text proper begins with Scotus's doctrine of transcendentals. Moreover, the commentary is always lucid and never fails to be helpful, in which case, when the original text gets thick, the reader can always look forward to an explanation just a few pages away. As is to be expected, they are at times difficult, but they are kept to a length that even an undergraduate could bear. The selections from the Subtle Doctor are well-chosen, well-organized and well-translated. For Scotus is notoriously dense, and yet the ease of their commentary renders such potentially off-putting thinking available even to the introductory reader. In this respect, Frank and Wolter do an admirable job of making the difficult look easy. The aim, then, is to produce a book that could be of use in a class or seminar in which one is expected to teach at a rather high level something in which one may not be a specialist. For that series aims to produce a specific kind of book, its own sort of Studienausgabe:one that is organized around the original text of a historical author (which is included with the translation) and that provides an extensive commentary, presumably relevant both to those who are experts in the field as well as to those who are not. I mention this neither as a plug nor to reveal from the start any possible conflict of interest, but to make it clear that I am not an expert in Duns Scotus, and that this makes me an ideal reviewer for a work in the Purdue University Press Series in the History of Philosophy. In fact, my book on Anselm is advertised on the back of the paperback edition of the work under review. I know, because I have written one, and for the same series. Books such as this are not easy to write. DunsScotus,Metaphysician.West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press, 1995.
In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:ģ02 JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY 35:2 APRIL ~997 William A.
0 kommentar(er)
