Bøker i Ancient and Medieval Philosophy-Series 1-serien

First critical edition of Petrus Thomae¿s theory of non-causal dependence. This work of Scotist metaphysics is an investigation into the ultimate constitution of things. In the course of this treatise, Petrus Thomae examines whether the essences of things ultimately depend on being thought of by God for their very intelligibility or whether they have it of themselves. Defending in detail the second option, Peter argues that creatures exist independently of the divine intellect in the divine essence. They enjoy real, eternal being in the divine essence and objective being in the divine mind. Aware that these views conflicted with his belief in the Christian doctrine of creation, Peter laboured to alleviate the conflict with a theory of non-causal dependence, according to which even if God did not cause creatures to be in the divine essence, nevertheless they are necessary correlatives of the divine essence.

The most influential question-commentary on the Politics in the Middle Ages

Contemporary scholarship on Bonaventure has characterized him as the Neo-platonic foil to the Aristotelianism of his day. The present book, however, shows a Bonaventure who is highly enthusiastic about utilizing the philosophy of Aristotle and who centers much of his philosophical project around interpreting and understanding the texts of Aristotle. Two goals are central to this book. The first is to shed light on Bonaventure's greatly understudied ontology and theory of forms, demonstrating how his philosophical system is an important and unique alternative to other medieval Aristotelian systems. The second is to establish, more broadly, how Bonaventure's interpretation of Aristotle is a resource which should be mined for contemporary efforts in thinking about and reading Aristotle himself.Franziska van Buren is a post-doctoral researcher in ancient philosophy at KU Leuven.Van Buren's work makes an impressive contribution to Bonaventure scholarship, which could really reset the whole debate and narrative. It will challenge the historical norms for many a reader and interpreter of Bonaventure-perhaps, also of Aristotle! Indeed, this work will upend some deeply entrenched historical narratives that have proven a major obstacle for understanding Bonaventure as a philosopher. Christopher M. Cullen, Fordham University