JOHN DUNS SCOTUS
"UNIVERSALS AND INDIVIDUATION"
"i understand a nature to have a real unity less than numerical unity."
after abelard, universals cease to be a metaphysical problem the way it was for
boethius, william of champeaux, etc
with abelard it turns into a problem of semantics
after abelard no one is a realist anymore.
when we get to aquinas, he is trying to integrate aristotle with christianity
aquinas is deeply informed by aristotle's metaphysics
NOW WE WILL LOOK AT UNIVERSALS NOT LIKE BOETHIUS AND NOT AS SEMANTIC, BUT AS
HOW DO YOU GO FROM A UNIVERSAL TO A PARTICULAR?
not what is a universal, does it exist, is it real?
with aquinas we go from UNIVERSAL to PARTICULAR.
so how do we go from human to socrates, or horse/ass to browny
since aquinas is really into physics and de anima, the way the earlier figures could
not be influenced... for aristotle everything is composed of FORM and MATTER. 1ST
ACTUALITY, POTENTIALITY, 2ND ACTUALITY.
socrates has a different set of potentialities than a chair
the kind of actuality you have determines those potentialities.
aristotle takes this into an analysis of life itself
FORM > ACTUALITY > SOUL
MATTER > POTENTIALITY > BODY
that means body and soul are really one thing, as opposed to platonic understanding
where there are two things, a soul thing and a body thing.
so HUMAN is a form. HORSE is a form. how do you go metaphysically from human to
socrates or horse to browny.
how is it PARTICULARIZED? by its MATTER.
what makes us different individually? it shifts fro