The Misattribution of Ockhamist Views to Oresme at the University of Vienna in the 15th Century
While Oresme and Ockham had significantly different perspectives on the ontological status of the extension (quantitas or magnitudo) of substances and accidents, as well as on local motion, evidence of the misattribution of Ockham’s views on quantitas to Oresme can be found in 21 texts from the 15th...
Na minha lista:
| Publicado no: | URI:https://journals.openedition.org/methodos, |
|---|---|
| Autor principal: | |
| Formato: | Article ou chapitre numérique |
| Idioma: | Anglais |
| Publicado em: |
Methodos
2025
|
| Assuntos: | |
| Acesso em linha: | Accès Université d'Orléans et IFPM Accès Université d'Orléans et IFPM |
| Resumo: | While Oresme and Ockham had significantly different perspectives on the ontological status of the extension (quantitas or magnitudo) of substances and accidents, as well as on local motion, evidence of the misattribution of Ockham’s views on quantitas to Oresme can be found in 21 texts from the 15th century produced at the University of Vienna. These include 20 commentaries on Aristotle’s Physics and Platerberger’s “Philosophicae veritatis compendium.” In these texts, Oresme is mentioned either independently or alongside Ockham.Regarding local motion, the Ockhamist view was initially attributed solely to Ockham. However, by the 1450s, this view became exclusively associated with Oresme, and eventually, the Ockhamist interpretation of local motion was attributed to both philosophers. The misattribution of Ockhamist views to Oresme subsequently spread from Vienna to the University of Ingolstadt by the late 15th century.In terms of the personal preferences of the respective authors, Ockhamist perspectives on the ontological status of quantitas or magnitudo remained influential at the University of Vienna until the 1470s. During the first half of the 15th century, the Ockhamist interpretation of local motion was predominant, but from the mid-15th century onward, there appears to be a lack of clear advocates for the Ockhamist view on local motion. This trend extended to interpretations of quantitas or magnitudo by the century’s end, with Buridanist views gaining preference.Buridan’s Physics commentary (ult. lect.) undoubtedly served as a key reference for lectures on Aristotle’s Physics, influencing the sequence and titles of the Quaestiones, as well as the discourse surrounding his views, which were frequently cited, regardless of whether they were accepted. Consequently, the Ockhamist counterarguments to Buridan’s views on quantitas, magnitudo, and motus localis do not seem to stem from direct engagement with Ockham’s writings but appear to be strategic responses to Buridan’s theories. Conversely, the shift toward non-Ockhamist views in the latter half of the 15th century does not necessarily indicate that Buridan’s arguments were regarded as more persuasive than before. For instance, in texts adopting a Buridanist or non-Ockhamist position on the ontological status of quantitas or magnitudo, Buridan’s crucial argument for the independent existence of quantitas or magnitudo is notably absent. Instead, reliance on classical authorities such as Aristotle and Averroes was often considered sufficient to support a non-Ockhamist viewpoint. This context should also be understood against the backdrop of a general flattening of medieval disputational culture. |
|---|