Sydney Penner

Despite vigorous disagreements on a variety of questions about relations, most medieval philosophers agree that relations should not be construed as polyadic properties on the general principle that no accidents can have more than one subject. Modern philosophers who are accustomed to thinking of relations as polyadic properties might well wonder why such properties found so little favour among medieval philosophers. The answer is not obvious, since medieval philosophers tend to simply assume the rejection of polyadic properties without bothering to defend their assumption. In this chapter, some reasons for rejecting polyadic properties that can be gleaned from ancient and medieval accounts are examined.

Francisco Suárez (1548–1617), one of the most important early modern scholastic philosophers, had considerable influence not only on canonical early modern philosophers such as Descartes and Leibniz, but even more so on subsequent scholastic philosophers and theologians. His _Metaphysical Disputations_ of 1597 was intended to provide the reader with a complete grounding in metaphysics and is one of the most detailed, comprehensive elaborations of an Aristotelian metaphysics ever published. This Critical Guide offers fourteen new essays on a wide range of topics in the _Metaphysical Disputations_, including Suárez's metaphysics of modality, his nominalism, and his accounts of the categories, prime matter, falsity, time, and causation. The volume will be valuable for scholars and students of early modern scholasticism, and also for those researching later thinkers whose work was influenced by Suárez.

Thanks to Barbeyrac, Pufendorf and others, there is a long-familiar picture of Grotius as offering a groundbreaking account of natural law. By now there is also a familiar observation that there is no agreement what makes Grotius’s account innovative. Sometimes this leads to skepticism about how innovative Grotius’s account of natural law really is. Some scholars suggest that Grotius’s account of natural law resembles Suárez’s account. But others continue to argue that Barbeyrac is right to see Grotius as breaking the ice of previous philosophy and laying the groundwork for a distinctively modern moral philosophy. I plan to contribute to the debate by arguing that, properly understood, Grotius’s position is similar to Suárez’s on a range of fundamental questions, and, furthermore, that seeing Grotius as making a radical break with the past violates his own self-conception. 1

Suárez distingue entre cuatro formas diferentes de intentar un fin de acción: con una intención actual, virtual, habitual o interpretativa. Esta distinción se repite en muchos libros y artículos en siglos posteriores como una parte estándar de la teoría de la acción, y Suárez es evidentemente la fuente de muchos de los autores posteriores. Este artículo examina el tratamiento de Suárez de la distinción. La intención interpretativa recibe la mayor atención, ya que Suárez parece dar varias caracterizaciones inconsistentes de ella en diferentes obras. El artículo concluye con algunas notas sobre la posterior recepción de la distinción y comenta brevemente las lecciones que se deben aprender sobre cómo rastrear la influencia de Suárez.

Despite the importance of Suárez’s defense of the freedom of the will at the threshold of early modern philosophy, his account has received scant recent attention. This paper aims partially to redress that neglect. Suárez’s position can be understood as a balancing act between desiring to attribute libertarian freedom to agents and desiring to maintain the will’s status as a rational appetite. Hence, he rejects an intellectualism that says that choices are necessitated by the intellect’s judgements (since he does not think that the judgements themselves can be directly free), but affirms that only what is judged good can be chosen.

Arriaga is an early modern scholastic who recognizes the importance of relations to philosophical discussions. He offers a classification of different kinds of relations, focusing on the distinction between categorial relations and transcendental relations. I suggest that this distinction might be seen as akin to one version of the modern distinction between external and internal relations. Like Suárez, whom he characterizes as a “giant among the scholastics,” Arriaga offers a reductionist account of categorial relations. He criticises Suárez’s account, however, for formally identifying a relation with the foundation in one relatum, something Suárez does in order to preserve a real distinction between converse relations. Arriaga, in contrast, argues that a categorial relation is formally identical to the foundation and terminus. Arriaga gives less attention to transcendental relations, even though he thinks they are real relations, but I offer some suggestions for how he may be thinking about them.