...that cursed Averroes (and Aquinas too)?

[Betterave]

In trying to understand Averroes noetic theory, I suggest that Averroes (or ille maledictus Averroes, as Scotus once wrote) was trying to make sense of the peripatetic (Aristotelian) adage nihil est in intellectu quod non prius fuerit in sensu. A Scotist among us has replied that this adage is not a sensible claim. Does anyone disagree?

 

[Betterave]

Also, is this tied to the notion that being precedes knowing, something I’ve heard tell that Gilson demonstrated (I’m not sure how).

 

[JohnDamian]

For those non-latin lovers;;

nihil est in intellectu quod non prius fuerit in sensu

Means nothing is in the understanding that was not first in the senses.

 

[Apollos]

nihil est in intellectu quod non prius fuerit in sensu.

A Scotist among us has replied that this adage is not a **sensible **claim.

I would agree, but … it sounds more like a wry pun than a thesis.

 

[Betterave]

I would agree, but … it sounds more like a wry pun than a thesis.

A clever suggestion, but for context check out the thread: “ille maledictus Averroes” - the suggestion, I think, is that the adage is not only “not sensible,” but tends towards the “frustratingly absurd.” (So take that, Aquinas, Gilson, and followers! )

 

[Betterave]

A clever suggestion, but for context check out the thread: “ille maledictus Averroes” - the suggestion, I think, is that the adage is not only “not sensible,” but tends towards the “frustratingly absurd.” (So take that, Aquinas, Gilson, and followers! )

I had hoped for a little opposition from the usual defenders of Gilson and Aquinas, but I guess the Scotist will walk away unchallenged this time. I guess Descartes and Kant are one thing, but people are afraid to tangle with “the Subtle Doctor.”