Simone Guidi

This paper delves into a pivotal issue of scholastic angelology, the problem of angelic self-knowledge. It compares positions ranging from Thomas Aquinas’s to João Poinsot’s. I stress in particular what I dub ‘the problem of immanent knowledge in presence’, i.e. the problem of the actual, immanent and presential interplay between the angelic intellect and the angelic substance, which Aquinas sees as the rationale for angelic self-knowledge. I then discuss the perspectives of Cajetan and Vázquez, which revolve around the identity between the angelic intellect and the angelic substance, and how they should interact so to enable self-knowledge in the angelic intellect. I finally deal with Poinsot’s account of the problem and its strong rebuttal to Vázquez. Poinsot’s view champions Aquinas’s original doctrine and is grounded upon the notions of “radical intellect” and “intelligible identity”.

​Rintracciare con esattezza, nelle Meditazioni, la presenza di specifiche fonti letterarie è un'impresa audace e per certi versi poco utile. Considerata la riluttanza di Descartes a sottomettere il proprio pensiero a ogni genealogia e preso atto dello straordinario eclettismo che anima il Barocco (categoria culturale oltretutto sfuggente per definizione), sembra vano un tentativo di fissare definitivamente i richiami e le atmosfere che attraversano l'opera. Il rischio è anzitutto quello di mantenere indistinto ciò che è nell'autore da quanto è nel suo tempo o è la tentazione contraria, forse più grave, di smembrare il pensiero cartesiano in una sequenza di rimandi semplicemente possibili. Non si può negare legittimità alla questione, tuttavia, laddove il campo di indagine sia ristretto all'eventualità di una funzione – narrativa, scenica, simbolica – assegnata da Descartes ad alcuni aspetti della visione barocca del mondo, che sembrano proporre, in decisivi punti di snodo delle Meditazioni, momenti di autentico teatro. Questa impostazione della ricerca ci spinge a considerare il capolavoro cartesiano ancor prima che una dissertazione di metafisica – e difficilmente questa definizione ne esaurisce l'essenza – come un vero e proprio elaborato filosofico-letterario, non privo di peculiarità narrative e stilistiche tipicamente barocche, quali l'uso strategico della “dissimulazione” e una certa vena ermetica.

Il corso sulla Storia dell'idea di tempo, tenuto al Collège de France nel 1902-1903, per la prima volta tradotto interamente in italiano, è dedicato al concetto di tempo nella storia della filosofia antica e moderna. In queste straordinarie lezioni Bergson si confronta con Platone, Aristotele, Plotino, Galileo, Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Newton e Kant. Nel cuore della metafisica occidentale il filosofo francese intravede una fondamentale negazione del tempo, impropriamente considerato come imitazione e riduzione di un’originaria eternità, inattingibile nell’immediato e esperibile solo per il tramite di un apparato simbolico. Alla luce di questa paradossale “falsa partenza” del pensiero occidentale, Bergson indica nella storia della metafisica la costante riproposizione dei suoi errori fondativi; ma vi intravede anche l’inesorabile cammino concettuale che, progressivamente, riconduce il tempo alla sua natura psicologica, quella della durata.

According to one of the most influential definitions, formulated by Michel Foucault in his Les anormaux, the monster is, since the Middle Ages, a violation of a “bio-juridical” order. In critically discussing the historical plausibility of this claim this article explores medical and philosophical conceptions of monsters between medieval and early modern period, addressing in particular the matter of the relationships between first and second causes in nature's errors. The main authors dealt with are Thomas Aquinas, Ambroise Paré, Francisco Toledo and Fortunio Liceti. What emerges is that up to the 17 th century monsters were always conceived as products – and not as real contradictions – of a nature ordered by God's will, goodness and perfection, without a real “bio-juridical” order (as Foucault thinks).

This volume sets out to chart a path at the intersection between the histories of medicine and philosophy concerning a topic that is prominent in contemporary debates, i.e. the translation of physiology, and accordingly pathology, into numerical terms. In particular, the book discusses and contextualizes issues that are simultaneous of medical and philosophical import, such as the quantification of temperaments and complexions, the quantification of life processes and physiology, the quantification of embryology, the impact of quantified reasoning on the notions of virtue, vice, health, illness, personhood, certainty, as well as the various ways in which philosophers have rejected the reduction of life to a quantitative and numerical approach. This introduction offers an overview on the epistemological challenge of quantification in classical philosophy. It also provides a historical account of the practices and conceptualizations of quantification as applied to the domains of biology, physiology, and pathology.

This article deals with the concept of “mechanism” from a historical point of view, focusing on its relationship with the evolution of hylomorphism in the 17th century. I try to address the following questions: is mechanism structurally bound to materialism or does it rather represent a form of complete determinism, reconcilable with an “updated” version of hylomorphism? In the first part of the essay, I make the point that the very notion of “mechanism” must be clarified by means of a distinction between Boylean experimental mechanism and what Daniel Garber has called the “pre-history of the Mechanical Philosophy”. My aim is to highlight how the deterministic (and nominalistic) hylomorphism developed in the 17th Century came quite close to mechanism. In this framework, I present the ‘strange case’ of Marin Cureau de La Chambre (1594-1669), which represents a characteristic compromise – based on the possibility of a not bodily extension – between a deterministic mechanization of the lower functions of the vegetative and sensitive soul and Campanella’s panpsychism.

Twenty years before Suárez’s Metaphysicae disputationes, Pedro da Fonseca offered one of the most impressive modern attempts to reorder Aristotle’s Metaphysics. In the present chapter, I will endeavour to show how insightful Fonseca’s effort truly was, by dealing with his ousiology. I will focus especially on the Jesuit’s account of three pivotal concepts in the scholastic theory of substance, i.e. Divine Substance, created substance and prime substance, or supposit. These notions are primarily metaphysical, but — according to a long-standing scholastic framework — are also deeply indebted to Patristic Trinitarianism. As I shall argue, this is especially true for Fonseca, who welcomes and defends the idea of a conceptual unity between ontology, ousiology and Trinitarism he received from a centuries-long tradition

​Al principio della Meditatio Sexta, tappa conclusiva del capolavoro di Descartes, si schiude una frattura fondamentale. È quella tra intelletto e immaginazione, autentica premessa per la dimostrazione – a cui l’opera cartesiana punta sin dal titolo – della distinzione reale di mente e corpo. Come d’altra parte Descartes sottolinea già nella Synopsis (sconfessando alcune interpretazioni odierne), la reciproca alterità ontologica tra le due res non viene garantita a seguito dell’approdo al punto archimedeo del cogito della Meditatio Secunda, ma solamente a seguito di un complesso iter di abductio e subductio dei contenuti della mens che culmina nel capitolo conclusivo. Qui la mens, avendo già stabilito l’esistenza, la perfezione e la veracità di Dio, fa finalmente i conti con sé stessa, mettendo mano all’analisi dei disparati elementi che hanno composto, sino a quel momento, una definizione quasi fenomenologica dell’ego cogitans come un quid «dubitans, intelligens, affirmans, negans, volens, nolens, imaginans quoque, et sentiens»

The issue addresses the relationship between cosmology and ratio, or the dialectical and structural connection which links the same definition of “world” as a uniform, homogeneous, coherent and possible system with the very logical and narrative (and then uniform, homogeneous, coherent and possible) character of our rational description of it. Otherwise, every ratio mundi – understood both in a metaphysical or in an epistemological or in a phenomenological way – amounts, really because it is a ratio, as an explication and an articulation of an object formerly pre-understood and, so to speak, invented, cum discursu, or rather into specific logic and descriptive categories. Because of this structural co-belonging of the concept of “cosmos” to his own narrative dimension, we may can reduce the history of cosmology to a long sequence of depictions, but overall of creations and re-creations of the world, that allow us to distinguish in a only partial way a physical and naturalistic discussion from a theological, a metaphysical or a linguistical-imaginative one.

This paper addresses Suárez’s understanding of imagination and phantasy, dealing with it in the general Aristotelian debate on the internal senses. Paragraph 1 sketches Aristotle’s, Avicenna’s and Aquinas’s accounts of imagination, examining especially the boundary between human and animal cognition. Paragraph 2 addresses especially the Jesuits’ understanding of the topology of the internal senses, linking it with the Jesuit strategy for the demonstration of the soul’s immateriality and immortality. Paragraphs 3 and 4 deal with Suárez’s simplification of the internal senses, aimed at establishing a direct opposition between intellection (in men) and a general lower cognitive activity founded in the use of sensory representations (shared by men and animals). Paragraphs 5 and 6 focus on the role of phantasy in Suárez’s account of the illumination of phantasms, on Suárez’s use of Scotus’ concepts of ‘sympathy’, and ‘concomitance’ and the relevance of such a model in the demonstration of the soul’s immortality.

What does Descartes's embryology look, if related to the Scholastic theories of his time? In order to reply to this question, the present chapter aims at sketching a portrait of the embryological epigenetics Descartes could find in his recognized Scholastic sources (the Commentaries on Aristotle by Toledo, the Coimbra Jesuits, Suárez, and Rubio, as well as the Summae by Eustachius a Sancto Paulo and Abra de Raçonis), a tradition that received and incorporated in the Aristotelian-Galenic body many novelties from Renaissance medicine, especially Fernel, Paré, and Vallès. It being impossible to deal extensively with the whole of the contents of these works, I picked up three issues in particular, corresponding to the first three paragraphs of this paper: 1) the nature of the semen, and the action of the vis formativa, as well as its relationship with vital heat and temperaments; 2) the problem of the real and/or rational distinction(s) between the generative, the nutritive, and the augmentative powers; 3) the epigenetic order of generation of vital organs, i.e. the right sequence over which the fundamental organs of a living body are generated and then ensouled. In the last paragraph I integrate these reconstructions with some conclusions about Descartes' own theory.

The essay deals with Aquinas’theory of person, focusing especially on the relevance of this qualification in Saint Thomas’ theory of the «spiritual substances», on his rejection of Platonism and on his peculiar use of the Neoplatonic hierarchy of the intellecitve substances. We especially stress that Aquinas’functionalist theory of person places the concept of «dignity» as the ultimate foundation of rationality, understanding the latter as a specific assignement and a specific responsibility in the order of Creation.

"Lezioni di metafisica" presenta tradotti per la prima volta in italiano due cicli di lezioni tenuti da Henri Bergson presso la classe di khâgne del Lycée Henri-IV, tra il 1893 e il 1894. Per la loro collocazione temporale, a cavallo tra gli anni del "Saggio sui dati immediati della coscienza" (1889) e "Materia e memoria" (1896), queste lezioni risultano di straordinario interesse per gli studi sul filosofo francese, che vi sviluppa un serrato confronto con la storia della metafisica moderna e della psicologia. Aristotele, Descartes, Malebranche, Spinoza, Leibniz, Kant, Spencer sono presentati e discussi da Bergson, che riflette – con loro e attraverso di loro – sui grandi temi dello spazio, del tempo, della materia, della memoria e dell’individualità. Tra i banchi dell’Henri-IV Bergson mette a punto un vero e proprio studio preparatorio per la sua originale critica al pensiero classico.

Why do we remember? And, for that matter, what is remembering? Placed between body and mind, the phenomenon of memory simultaneously involves biological, psychological, semiotic, and metaphysical elements. Memory’s place at the heart of our understanding of ourselves is why many of the greatest philosophers of all the time have dealt with the problem – or, better, have had to deal with it. Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Descartes, Locke, Kant, Hegel, Bergson, Russell, and Wittgenstein, are just a few among many who have proffered explanations. While all such proposals have been deficient in their own ways, each has advanced our understanding of the myriad phenomena associated with memory. With recent developments in phenomenology, analytic philosophy, and the empirical sciences interest in memory has intensified. In the 20th century, philosophers were particularly interested in identifying its causes, the ontology of mnemonic traces, the mechanisms of recall, and its epistemic characteristics. Moreover, as philosophy has directed its sight towards social objects and structures, questions involving memory have developed political and social dimensions as well – extending the debate to collective memory. What are the mechanisms of intersubjective memorization and recall of information, ideas, and representations? What are the ethical dimensions and consequences of public memory?

In this chapter I argue that the general category of 'iatromechanics' conceals different views about how mathematics and mathematical physics should be applied in medicine, and thereby about how physiology should be quantified and mathematized. Mechanism, quantification and mathematization are indeed different, albeit interrelated, notions, which overlap without ever coming to be identical, and all of which depend upon the overall epistemological debate over the method for finding truth in science. This chapter compares the epistemological thought of the Newtonians Archibald Pitcairne (1652-1713), James Keill (1673-1719) and the rationalists Yvo Gaukes (ca. 1660-1738) and Friedrich Hoffman (1660-1742). It contends that, still in the early eighteenth-century, contrasting understandings and uses of quantification in medicine related to different conceptions of the epistemological status of mathematics and its connection with experience especially. The chapter then focuses on how the experimental quantitative approach introduced in physiology by Santorio Santorio (1561-1636) is understood in these different scenarios. I argue that contrasting understandings and uses of quantification in medicine correspond not only to different conceptions about the epistemological status of mathematics, but also of its conjunction with experience.

Did Descartes ever develop a political thought of his own? This question, still open in the field of cartesian studies, is maybe doomed to remain without a definitive answer, mainly because of the lack of a specific work dedicated by him to politics. Nevertheless, we have a long letter to Princess Elisabeth in which the French philosopher, starting from his reading of Machiavelli's masterpiece, Il Principe, discusses political matters, and especially the political instruments that a good prince should use in order to guarantee stability to his reign. The present essay deals with it, exploring the possibility that Descartes might have been trying to outline in that text the main features of a political anthropology, founding it on the universal anthropology of passions that he was developing in those years.

Suárez’s primary attempt to rethink angelology can be found in the De Angelis. This work is a mighty commentary on the prima pars of Aquinas’ Summa Theologiae (qq. 50-64) which Suárez left to his colleagues after his years in Coimbra (1597-1607), and which was published posthumously in Lyon in 1620. The composition of the text is somewhat stratified and it includes many references to the Disputationes Metaphysicae, but Suárez most likely already started writing it during his years of teaching in Spain and Italy (1575-1597), before 1597. Because of its Thomistic inspiration, the De angelis is a fundamentally theological and doctrinal work, the metaphysical core of which is independently treated in the DM 35, entitled De immateriali substantia creata. In this passage, which is eminently theoretical, Suárez grapples with the most important quaestiones concerning angels under a metaphysical point of view, therein offering one of the most interesting overviews of early modern angelology. In this paper, I will refer especially to the DM 35, a more synthetic and peculiar work, with some reference to De Angelis as well. I will focus especially on sections 1-3 of DM 35, and try to reconstruct Suárez’s views on the following points: a) the cosmological necessity of angels, their rational demonstrability and the possibility of man’s knowing them (sections 1-2); b) the immaterial essence of angels (section 3).

This article addresses the Aristotelian debate in the 17th century on the incorporeality of light and its extension, focusing especially on the Iberian and Italian contexts. The aim of the essay is to show that, while late Aristotelianism unitedly rejected light’s corporeity, many differences arose regarding the way in which this incorporeality should be understood. Relevant perspectives in all of their discussions were Scotus’ teaching of the intentional nature of light, and the Neoplatonics’ claim of its metaphysical provenance. In the Iberian environment, Jesuit scholars/theologians (the school of Toledo, the Conimbricenses, Francisco Suárez, and Antonio Rubio) were especially characterized by their attempt to save Aristotle’s original explanation in De Anima, although theoretical discrepancies on many significant points divide them. Italian intellectuals such as Zabarella, Dandini, Lagalla and Liceti were instead more willing to seek a reconciliation between Aristotle’s statement and the explanation of light posited by Scotus and the Neoplatonists, and more receptive to the need for a new theory of matter.