Guido Alt

O presente artigo investiga a conexão entre modalidade e tempo em dois mestres de artes Parisienses ativos na primeira metade do século 14, João Buridan (c.1290-c.1361) e João de Jandun (c.1286-c.1328). Busca-se elucidar a abordagem de ambos acerca da natureza dessa relação em um conjunto de textos pouco explorados nos debates sobre a interpretação de modalidades medievais, a saber, os comentários ao fim do primeiro livro do De Caelo de Aristóteles. A interpretação da relação entre o ‘necessário’ e o que ‘sempre é’ nesse texto recebera interpretações divergentes sobre a controversa assimilação de necessidade e omnitemporalidade em concepções pré-modernas das modalidades. Por meio da análise do debate em torno das passagens Aristotélicas do De Caelo, posto por ambos os filósofos pertencentes ao milieu da Faculdade de Artes em Paris, o artigo demonstra que tal assimilação não era consensual. Através do contraste entre as análises de Jandun e Buridan, conclui-se que, embora Buridan acomode a necessidade temporal pressuposta no De Caelo enquanto necessidade condicional, ele desenvolve uma crítica da validade geral dos argumentos de Aristóteles no que tange a modalidades absolutas.

This dissertation is a study of John Buridan's (c.1300-c.1361) conception of modalities. Modal concepts - concepts of necessity, possibility, impossibility, and contingency - describe the ways in which things could and could not be otherwise. These concepts became notoriously central for philosophical discourse in the late Middle Ages. In recent years, Buridan's philosophy and modal theory have received sophisticated scholarly attention. The main contribution of the dissertation is to show new ways in which Buridan's modal theory is embedded in its contextual practical aims, as providing methods for argumentation schemes and analysis used in his natural philosophy and metaphysics. The dissertation is divided into two parts. In Part I, I conduct a detailed analysis of Buridan's account of varieties of modality in logical contexts. In Chapter 2, I show that Buridan distinguishes between broad and restricted forms of necessity in his treatment of logical consequence. Moreover, I show how the distinction between these forms of necessity underpins his modal syllogistics. I argue in Chapter 3 that Buridan acknowledged a variety of modal concepts that are distinguished as a matter of degree. I identify the main modal concepts Buridan's theory reckons with, show how he motivates the distinctions among them, and clarify how they are logically related. Part II turns to applications of Buridan's modal analyses to natural philosophy. In Chapter 4, I address the relationship between necessity with sempiternal truth in Buridan's commentary on Aristotle's De Caelo and compare Buridan's treatment of a key passage in that commentary with the treatment by John of Jandun (c. 1285-1328), a near-contemporary master of arts at Paris. Chapter 5 focuses on Buridan's account of the relationship between power-based concepts of modality and his modal semantics. Chapter 6 describes Buridan's account of contingency in the Physics, and sets Buridan's account of the relationship between forms of contingency and chance against the background of a received debate between Avicenna's and Averroes' views on the subject. Finally, in Chapter 7, I analyse some important applications of Buridan's distinction between logical and metaphysical possibility in physical contexts. I conclude this section by showing how Buridan considered merely conceivable possibilities useful in natural philosophy, and draw further conclusions for investigating the connections between logic and natural philosophy in the later Middle Ages.

In his natural philosophy, John Buridan reinterprets Aristotelian conceptions of necessity using a framework derived from his logical writings. After a discussion of Buridan’s account of varieties of necessity, in this paper I shall approach some interpretative uses of that account where two natural philosophical concerns are involved. The first is connected with the relationship of modality and time in a question from the first book of his commentary to De Generatione et Corruptione addressing a consequence from possibilities of alteration to possibilities of generation. The content of that question hinges on the metaphysical connection between alteration and substantial changes. In the third section, I shall explore a quasi-definition of causal necessity and contingency Buridan discusses in the second book of his commentary to the Physics. Buridan’s discussion of alternative descriptions of causal necessity and contingency in that context reveals competing pictures of the role of essences in causal explanation associated with Avicenna and Averroes respectively.