Michael Jordan

This dissertation examines the doctrine of the formal distinction as it was developed in the writings of Duns Scotus. After an initial examination of some influential predecessors of Scotus, a study is made of the formal distinction in Scotus' works. Through a careful study of Scotus' language, and the examples he uses to illustrate the formal distinction, the conclusion is reached that Scotus' work on the formal distinction constitutes a continual process of linguistic revision and refinement which leaves him with an increasingly more technical and precise vocabulary with which to express the doctrine. It is denied that these revisions constitute different doctrines in Scotus. ;A philosophical application of the doctrine is then examined. Here it is shown that the formal distinction allowed Scotus to make novel and significant contributions to the solution of the problems of the natures of, and relationships between, universals and particulars. ;Reactions to the formal distinction on the part of Ockham and selected twentieth-century commentators are then presented. An analysis of Ockham's objections shows that they are not germane. A study of the twentieth-century commentators reveals both the strengths and weaknesses of their interpretations. ;Finally, the dissertation ends with a brief note on certain applications of the formal distinction in contemporary philosophy. This serves to demonstrate not only a link to the past, but also the continuing importance of the formal distinction in our times

This paper examines Ockham's development of the formal distinction, especially in contrast to Scotus's presentation of the formal distinction. The claim is that the major differences between the two presentations can be accounted for largely from the different uses to which Scotus and Ockhan employ the distinction. Whereas Scotus develops the distinction in an attempt to make comprehensible what appears to be incomprehensible (e.g. the Trinity), Ockham uses the distinction to establish the fundamental incomprehensibility of the same issues (e.g. the Trinity)