Jack Boczar

Recent scholarship in classical Islamic philosophy has shown that the tradition has much to offer when it comes to the metaphysics of causality. The present article seeks to add to the scholarship by providing a new interpretation of one aspect of Avicenna’s account of causality known as the “Rule of One” (henceforth, RO). Seeming to originate with Avicenna, the RO states that “From that which is one, only one can proceed.” The aim of this brief article is to examine Avicenna’s argument in Metaphysics IX.4. The reconstruction of the argument adds to a growing body of English literature on the topic of Avicenna’s contribution to causality and provides a necessary exegetical understanding of his work that enables a deeper understanding of the Islamic tradition. By focusing on Avicenna’s argument in Metaphysics IX.4 the present article seeks to pick up where other commentators have left off, explaining why Avicenna holds to the RO when it comes to his cosmology.

The present article examines Contra Academicos 2.5 in which Augustine seems to detail the influence of the libri Platonicorum on his conversion. In the first part of the paper, I argue that Michael P. Foley is correct to interpret Augustine’s phrase “libri quidam pleni” as a reference to the libri Platonicorum. I advance the further claim that Augustine primarily has in mind Ennead I.6. This is in contrast to the argument alluded to by Pierre Courcelle and formally given by John J. O’Meara where such a reading of Contra Academicos misconstrues the relationship between Augustine and Plotinus. In response to O’Meara, I advance a threefold argument, a corollary of which is a novel reading of a Latin phrase (bonas res Arabicas) that has perplexed scholars. In the second part of the paper, I use my reading of Contra Academicos along with two considerations from Ennead I.6 to motivate a deeper understanding of Augustine’s conversion. The present study develops recent lines of thought in Augustine scholarship and seeks to open new avenues for understanding the libri Platonicorum and their influence on Augustine’s conversion.

In recent years, a considerable amount of interest has arisen in the topic of existential inertia (henceforth EIT) and its relation to the natural theology of Thomas Aquinas. While contemporary Thomists have engaged with proponents of EIT, strangely enough, no literature has focused on Aquinas’s own response to the objection(s) from an EIT-like position. The intention of this article is to (1) lay out the basic thrust of EIT and then (2) articulate how Aquinas’s own metaphysical commitments dissolve the problems that EIT raises. After formulating an argument based on Aqunias’s own texts and paying attention to the metaphysical commitments it involves, I then level three objections and respond to them.

This present article examines an argument in Aquinas’s De potentia, q. 3, a. 9, in which Aquinas argues that the human soul must be created by God. After introducing the relevance of the problem and discussing the state of the literature, I lay out Aquinas’s argument and defend it by appealing to his broader metaphysical commitments. I then turn to two difficulties raised in the literature by B.C. Bazan and Lawrence Joseph Kaiser. Bazan argues that Aquinas’s claim that the human soul must be created by God leads to internal inconsistencies within Aquinas’s metaphysical system. While not explicitly criticizing Aquinas, Kaiser’s account of the eduction of forms from matter also raises a few problems for the consistency of Aquinas’s claim. In response to Bazan and Kaiser, I argue that a firm grasp of Aquinas’s semantics dissolves the criticisms.