Titles
Subjects
Languages
Search
Contact
Set Language
volume
collection
Export a Citation
Print View
hide main text
show main text
just this volume
show all volumes
Edition Information
Ordinatio. Prologue.
Ordinatio. Book 1. Distinctions 1 and 2.
Ordinatio. Book 1. Distinction 3.
Ordinatio. Book 1. Distinctions 4 to 10.
Ordinatio. Book 1. Distinctions 11 to 25.
Ordinatio. Book 1. Distinctions 26 to 48.
Ordinatio. Book 2. Distinctions 1 - 3.
Ordinatio. Book 2. Distinctions 4 to 44.
Collapse All
|
Expand All
frontmatter
titlepage
translator's preface
contents
book two. distinctions 4 - 44
fourth and fifth distinctions
question one. whether between the creation and blessedness of the good angel there was any interval
question two. whether the angel merited blessedness before receiving it
I. to the second question
a. the opinion held by peter lombard
b. the common opinion and scotus’ opinion
C. to the principal arguments
II. to the first question
a. how many intervals must be posited for the angels
1. the possibility of several intervals
2. what should be thought
b. what these intervals were
C. to the principal arguments
D. to the reason for the opinion positing only two intervals
sixth distinction
question one. whether the bad angel could have desired equality with god
I. to the question
a. the opinion of others
b. scotus’ own opinion
C. to the arguments for the opinion of others
II. to the principal argument
question two. whether the first sin of the angel was formally pride
I. to the question
a. what the malice was in the first angel sinning
1. on ordered and disordered acts of the will
2. on the first disorder in the ‘willing of friendship’
3. on the first disorder in the ‘willing of concupiscence’
a) on the concupiscence of blessedness
b) on the concupiscence of excellence
b. to what class of sin the malice in the first angel sinning belonged.
II. to the principal arguments
III. to the arguments for the opposite
seventh distinction
single question. whether the bad angel necessarily wills badly
I. to the question
a. the opinions of others
b. rejection of the opinions together
C. rejection of the first opinion in particular
D. rejection of the second opinion in particular
II. scotus’ own response
a. on the degrees of goodness and malice
b. on goodness and malice in the bad angel
1. on goodness in genus
2. on meritorious goodness
a) on real potency which is a principle
b) on real potency which is a difference of being
c) on logical potency
3. on goodness of virtue or of circumstances
III. to the principal arguments
eighth distinction
single question. whether an angel can assume a body in which he may exercise works of life
I. to the question
a. what it is for an angel to assume a body
b. what sort of body an angel assumes
C. what works of life an angel can exercise in an assumed body
II. to the principal arguments
ninth distinction
question one. whether a superior angel can illumine an inferior angel
question two. whether one angel can intellectually speak to a second
I. to the second question
a. the opinion of henry of ghent
1. how the angel who speaks knows singulars
2. how knowledge of a singular escapes another angel
3. how knowledge of a singular is made clear to another angel
4. how one angel illumines another
b. rejection of the opinion
C. scotus’ own response
1. on an angel’s mode of speaking
a) first reason
b) second reason
2. further clarification of the question
a) what is caused in the intellect of the hearing angel
b) how an angel speaks to one angel and not to another
II. to the first question
III. to the principal arguments of the first question
IV. to the principal arguments of the second question
V. to the arguments for henry’s opinion
tenth distinction
single question. whether all angels are sent
I. to the question
II. to the principal argument for each side
eleventh distinction
single question. whether a guardian angel can effectively cause something in the intellect of the man whose guardian he is
I. to the question
a. the opinion of avicenna
b. scotus’ own opinion
1. an angel cannot effectively cause anything in the intellect of the man whose guardian he is
2. what an angel can do in the intellect of the man whose guardian he is
II. to the principal arguments
thirteenth distinction
single question. whether light generates illuming as its proper sensible species a
I. to the question
a. what light is
b. what illumining is
C. how illuming is generated by light
II. to the principal arguments
fourteenth distinction
question one. whether a celestial body is a simple essence
I. according to the philosophers
II. according to the theologians
III. scotus’ opinion
question two. whether there is any movable heaven other than the starry heaven
I. to the question
a. all astronomers agree that there are at least nine heavens
b. astronomers disagree whether there are more than nine heavens
II. to the principal arguments
twenty sixth distinction
single question. whether grace is in the essence or in a power of the soul
I. to the question
a. the opinion of others
b. rejection of the opinion
C. scotus’ own opinion
II. to the principal arguments
twenty seventh distinction
single question. whether grace is a virtue
I. to the question
a. first opinion
b. scotus’ own opinion, already proposed by others
II. to the principal argument
twenty eighth distinction
single question. whether man’s free choice without grace can guard against all mortal sin
I. to the question
a. the opinion of others, proposed in two versions
b. rejection of the opinion
1. against the conclusion in itself
2. against the two versions of the argument in particular
C. scotus’ own response
II. to the principal arguments
twenty ninth distinction
single question. whether original justice in adam must be set down as a supernatural gift
I. to the question
a. the opinion of henry of ghent
b. scotus’ own opinion
II. to the principal arguments
III. to certain statements of henry of ghent
thirtieth to thirty second distinctions
question one. whether anyone propagated according to the common law from adam contracts original sin
question two. whether original sin is lack of original justice
question three. whether the soul contracts original sin from infected flesh, sown in concupiscence
question four. whether original sin is remitted in baptism
I. to all the questions at once
a. the opinion of others
1. exposition of the opinion
2. doubts against the opinion
b. scotus’ own opinion, which is taken from anselm
1. what original sin is
2. whether original sin is in everyone propagated in the common way
3. how original sin is contracted
4. how original sin is remitted by baptism
II. to the principal arguments
a. to the arguments of the first question
b. to the arguments on both sides of the second question
C. to the arguments on both sides of the third question
D. to the argument of the fourth question
thirty third distinction
single question. whether only the lack of the divine vision is due as punishment for original sin
I. to the question
II. to the principal arguments
thirty fourth to thirty seventh distinctions
question one. whether sin comes from good as from a cause
question two. whether sin is per se a corruption of good
question three. whether sin is a punishment for sin
question four. whether sin can be from god
I. to the second question
a. sin is formally the privation of good
b. of which good sin is formally the privation
1. opinions of others
2. rejection of the opinions
3. scotus’ own solution
4. four queries about sin and their solution
a. to the first query
b. to the second query
c. to the third query
d. to the fourth query
C. to the principal arguments
II. to the first and fourth questions
a. to the first question
1. sin is from good
2. how sin is from good as from its cause
a. opinions of others
b. possible solution
question five. whether the created will is the total and immediate cause with respect to its willing, such that god does not have, with respect to that willing, any immediate efficient causality but only a mediate one
α. opinion of others
β. the response to the fourth question that falls out from the aforesaid opinion of others
γ. instances against the opinion of others and solutions to them
δ. rejection of the opinion
3. how sin is from the created will
b. to the fourth question
1. the opinion of others
2. objections to the reasons for the opinion of others
3. scotus’ own opinion and solution of the objections
C. to the principal arguments of the first question
D. to the principal arguments of the fourth question
1. to the arguments of the first part
2. to the arguments of the second part
III. to the third question
a. solution
b. to the principal arguments
thirty eighth distinction
single question. whether intention is an act of will only
I. to the question
II. to the principal arguments
thirty ninth distinction
question one. whether synderesis is in the will
question two. whether conscience is in the will
I. to both questions
a. opinion of henry of ghent
1. statement of the opinion
2. rejection of the opinion
b. scotus’ own response
II. to the principal arguments of the first question
III. to the principal arguments of the second question
fortieth distinction
single question. whether every act gets goodness from the end
I. to the question
II. to the principal arguments
forty first distinction
single question. whether any act of ours can be indifferent
I. to the question
a. opinion of others
II. scotus’ own opinion
II. to the principal arguments
forty second distinction
single question. whether there is a distinction of sins into capital sins
forty third distinction
single question. whether a created will can sin from malice
I. opinion of others
a. statement of the opinion
b. rejection of the opinion
II. scotus’ own opinion
forty fourth distinction.
single question. whether the power to sin is from god
I. to the question
II. to the principal argument
appendix. [from antonius andreas, one of scotus’ most faithful students]. twelfth distinction
first question. whether there is in generable and corruptible things any positive substantial entity really distinct from the form
second question. whether matter can, by any power, exist without form
[appendix] fifteenth distinction
single question. whether the elements remain in a mixed body in their substance
[appendix] sixteenth distinction
single question. whether the image of the trinity consists in three powers of the rational soul really distinct
[appendix] seventeenth distinction
first question. whether adam’s soul was created in the body
second question. whether paradise is a suitable place for human habitation
[appendix] eighteenth distinction
single question. whether there are seminal reasons in matter
[appendix] nineteenth distinction
single question. whether in the state of innocence we would have had immortal bodies
[appendix] twentieth distinction
question one. whether in the state of innocence procreated sons would at once have been confirmed in justice
question two. whether in the state of innocence only those would have been born who are now the elect.
[appendix] twenty first distinction
single question. whether adam’s sin was the gravest sin
[appendix] twenty second distinction
single question. whether the sin of the first man came from ignorance
[appendix] twenty third distinction
single question. whether god could make the will of a rational creature to be naturally incapable of sin
[appendix] twenty fourth distinction
single question. whether the higher part of the intellect is a power distinct from the inferior power
[appendix] twenty fifth distinction
single question. whether anything other than the will is the effective cause of an act of willing in the will
endmatter
footnotes
Ordinatio. Book 3. Distinctions 1 - 17.
Ordinatio. Book 3. Distinctions 26 - 40.
Ordinatio. Book 4. Distinctions 1 - 7
Ordinatio. Book 4. Distinctions 8 - 13.
Ordinatio. Book 4. Distinctions 14 - 42.
Ordinatio. Book 4. Distinctions 43 - 49.
SUBSCRIBER:
past masters commons
Annotation Guide:
All Collections
>
The Ordinatio of John Duns Scotus
>
Ordinatio. Book 2. Distinctions 4 to 44.
The Ordinatio of John Duns Scotus
Ordinatio. Book 2. Distinctions 4 to 44.
hide table of contents
show table of contents
Go to next volume
Go to next volume