Byzantine

[5.1.0] John Italos on Universals

A. L. Komáromi1 Comment

John Italos (c. 1025-1082) elaborated on a three-tiered model of universals:

Universals are:

  • Universal In The Particulars;
  • Universal Before Many Particulars;
  • Universal After The Particulars

The following OntoUML diagram shows the main classes in this model:

Italos on universals

CLASSDESCRIPTIONRELATIONS
Universal“Italos talks about the same three types of universals in the same order, but a certain detail of his account proves to be important. Italos, too, regards the universals before the many particulars the causes (aitia/prtourga ) and paradigms (paradeigm ata) of perceptible individuals, which hence cannot be predicated of them, are separable from them (christa ), and in God’s mind (para/en t the), perfectly accommodating in this way the requirements of Christian Dogma (p p . 7.15-19 ; 29-32); but, then, he presents the distinction between the universals in the particulars and the universals after the particulars in a different manner.”
UniversalBeforeTheParticulars“the universals before the many particulars (pro t n poll n ), which are generally identified with the Platonic Ideas”subkind of Universal; characterizes UniversalBeforeManyParticulars
UniversalInTheParticulars“the universals in the particulars (en tois pollo is), which represent Aristotle’s notion of immanent forms”subkind of the UniversalBeforeMany particulars; characterizes UniversalInTheParticulars
UniversalAfterTheParticulars“the universals after the particulars (epi tois pollo is), which concepts or thoughts.”subkind of UniversalInTheParticulars
Intelligible“On the other hand, the universal after the particulars are intelligible in a certain way, most probably because they are acquired by our mind by abstraction and they also are perceptible in a certain way, most probably because they are acquired by abstraction of the common characteristics of perceptible individuals.”
Later-born; Be-predicated; Inseparable; Acquired-by-mind“Italos claims (p . 8.1-14) that both the universals in the particulars and the universals after the particulars differ from the universals before the particulars, because they both are later-born than the perceptible individuals (husterogen), can be predicted of them (kat goroumena), are inseparable from them (achrista ), and are acquired by our mind by abstraction (k at ’ aph airesin ).”
ParticularA particular thingcharacterizes Particular
PerceptiblePerceptible

Related posts in theory of Universals: [1.2.2], [1.3.1], [1.3.2], [2.5], [2.7.3], [4.3.1], [4.3.2], [4.4.1], [4.5.2], [4.9.8], [4.11], [4.15.6], [4.18.8]

Sources

First published: 1/9/2022

[5.0.4] John Philoponus on Monophysitism

A. L. KomáromiLeave a comment

John Philoponus (490-570 AD) worked on the theory of consubstantial nature and properties:

  • Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have properties
  • These properties are the components of God.

The following OntoUML diagram shows the main classes in this model:

John Philoponus on monophisite theology
CLASSDESCRIPTIONRELATIONS
GodChristan God
“Against Sabellian or modalist notions being advanced at Alexandria by a Monophysite named Themistius (a deacon who led a group called Agnoetae opposed the patriarch Theodosius), and at Constantinople by the Chalcedonian John Scholasticus, Philoponus wrote his book On the Trinity to argue his case. The nature shared in common has no reality apart from the existents or hypostases. We must anathematise three deities, three natures, but also deny that there is an actual Godhead distinguishable even in thought from Father, Son and Spirit. Father, Son and Spirit are consubstantial in nature and substance, but not in their properties; there distinct. We do not say that the Father or the Spirit became incarnate.
Divine unity is an intellectual abstraction, and the Trinity consists substances, three natures, considered in an individual rather”
FathersPropertyFather’s property “Father […] are consubstantial in nature and substance, but not in their properties; there distinct. We do not say that the Father or the Spirit became incarnate”subkind of property; componen of
SonsPropertySons’ property: “Son […] are consubstantial in nature and substance, but not in their properties; there distinct. We do not say that the Father or the Spirit became incarnate”subkind of property; componen of
HolySpirits PropertyHoly Spirit property “Spirit Holy […] consubstantial in nature and substance, but not in their properties; there distinct.”subkind of property; componen of
HumanPropertyHuman property is consubstantial (homooúsios) with us humans subkind of property;
componen of
ConsubstantialHuman property is consubstantial (homooúsios) with us humans
PropertyProperty

Sources

  • HENRY CHADWICK: PHILOPONUS THE CHRISTIAN THEOLOGIAN IN SORABJI, RICHARD: “HILOPONUS AND THE REJECTION OF ARISTOTELIAN SCIENCE”, EDITED BY RICHARD SORABJI INSTITUTE OF CLASSICAL STUDIES SCHOOL OF ADVANCED STUDY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON 2010

First published: 27/8/2022