0003 The following 2016 essay comments on a recent book on baroque scholasticism by Daniel Novotny, a Professor of Philosophy at the University of South Bohemia in the Czech Republic. The title of the work is Ens rationis from Suarez to Caramuel: A Study in the Scholasticism of the Baroque Era (Fordham University, 2013).
These comments and Novotny’s book may be used as an independent home school or college course of study. Student instructions are colored in burgundy.
Please have this book at hand for the full story.
0003 This commentary is not a close reading. Rather, it is a curious association of postmodern and semiotic diagramsto Novotny’s writing. These models come from Razie Mah’s foundational works, including How to Define the Word “Religion” as well as An Archaeology of the Fall.
I regard Novotny’s work as both insightful and prophetic. By “insightful”, I mean seeing through the highly nuanced Latin text in order to grasp the core. He plainly condenses each nuanced argument into one or two sentences. By ‘prophetic’, I mean that he quests for truth. In chapter 9, paragraph 3, Novotny admits that his initial aim was to show that, even today, Baroque scholastic culture could produce philosophical illumination.
As the following comments will show, he is on target, but not in the way he expected.
0004 Why consider baroque scholasticism?
John Deely (1942-2017 AD) writes the first postmodern survey of the history of philosophy, from the ancient Greeks to the 21st. His book is entitled, Four Ages of Understanding (2001, University of Toronto Press).
0005 Deely locates Baroque scholasticism (1600 to 1680 AD) at the start of the Age of Ideas and the end of the Latin Age. He focuses on this time – right around the promulgation of the Peace of Westphalia (1648 AD) – as paradigmatic. Two figures stand out.
0006 In France, Rene Descartes (1596-1650) wrestles with the philosophical implications of the new mechanical philosophy. Note, the word “philosophy” appears twice. On one had, philosophy trends to modernism and postmodernism. On the other hand, philosophy spawns science.
0007 In Spain, John Poinsot (1589-1644) arrives at the definition of a sign. A sign is a triadic relation. The relation was classified as ‘a being of reason’ (ens rationis) by Suarez, the first philosopher covered by Novotny. Almost 300 years after Francisco Suarez ,(1548-1617) the sign as a triadic relation is independently discovered by Charles Sanders Peirce. Peirce marks a new turning. He is the first philosopher of the upcoming Age of Semiotics.
0008 Both John Deely and Daniel Novotny seek to understand the critical juncture where the Latin Age gave way to our current Age of Ideas.
The origin of the Age of Ideas is wrapped in modern mythology. Descartes is lionized. Poinsot is ignored. The Age of Ideas reigns in the shining castles of modern universities. To me, state-supported multiversities look like palaces. Mechanical philosophy is taught to some. Analytic philosophy is taught to others. Propaganda and technique covers the rest.
Outside the palaces of big government (il)liberalism lays a moat of resentment, filled with materialistic philosophies, political theologies and television. Even further away, the forgotten remnants of the Latin Age slowly convert an apparently dead civilization into a living soil. For centuries, moderns were warned about going into the dark forest of scholasticism.
Yet, that is where John Deely and Daniel Novotny wander.
0009 A crucial difference arises between Deely and Novotny. Deely has Peirce’s definition of the sign to guide him. He has a lantern. Novotny does not have the advantage of a postmodern source of light. Novotny only has his own intuition.
John Kronen, of the University of St. Thomas, captures Novotny’s lack of an illuminated path in his review, writing, “If one agrees with Aristotle that opposites are treated in the same science (e.g. medicine treats both health and sickness) … then one should agree that metaphysics (the study of being) ought to study nonbeing”.
Indeed, Novotny bravely says, “OK, I will look into this nonbeing stuff. I will go into the dark forest of scholasticism and see what happens.”
0010 From these labors, he comes up with the insights and the prophecy that I place before you.
Here, the student should read chapters 1 and 2 of Novotny’s work.
0011 What about this nonbeing stuff?
During the Latin Age, the term “beings of reason” appears in various scholastic discussions. In 1597 AD, the Spanish Jesuit Francisco Suarez writes the first comprehensive treatment on the topic (Chapter 9:Paragraph 1). This marks the start of Baroque scholasticism (Chapter 1: Sections A-D).
At this point, the student should read Novotny’s treatment of Suarez’s Disputation 54 (chapters 3, 4 and 5).
0012 Why are ‘beings of reason’ needed?
Suarez proposes three reasons (Chapter 3: Section C: Point 3). These are distilled by Novotny into claim SN8:
Beings of reason are needed (1) to know nonbeing, (2) to know things comparatively and (3) to explain why humans can think of self-contradictory beings.
Over the previous centuries of inquiry in Aristotle’s tradition, schoolmen routinely use the term “beings of reason” on three occasions. These occasions suggest reasons for inquiring into the nature of the term. They are (1) negations, (2) privations and (3) relations. Self-contradictions (4) are also implicated.
So, at the beginning, Suarez asks: What is the ontological status of the term ‘beings of reason’?
0013 Now, let me turn to my own methods.
What do I have that makes my comments more than a curiosity?
Just as Deely holds the lantern of Peirce’s semiotics, I hold the flashlight of the category-based nested form. You can be the judge of the power of this source of illumination.
Please note the prerequisites at point 0003.
Here is the category-based nested form in a nutshell:
0014 The nested form is depicted as follows:
normal context3( actuality2( possibility or potential of something1))
The numerical subscripts denote Peirce’s categories. The parentheses denote precission.
This depiction breaks down into four statements:
Actuality2 emerges from the possibility of something1.
Actuality2 situates the potential of something1.
A normal context3 contextualizes actuality2(something1).A normal context3 brings actuality2 into relation with the possibilities inherent in something1.
