To see why Scotus thinks the argument is “affirming the consequent” we have to rearrange it a little. For instance, like this:

1. It is not true that something is true. [Call this proposition A.]

2. It is true that A. [Call this proposition B.]

All right then, the argument goes like this:

If B, then A.
A.
Therefore B.

This is invalid!

I don’t know about this duns scotus guy; listen to this: ” Genealogy of Nihilism rereads Western history in the light of nihilistic logic, which pervades two millennia of Western thought and is coming to fruition in our present age in a virulently dangerous manner. From Parmenides to Alain Badiou, via Plotinus, Avicenna, Duns Scotus, Ockham, Descartes, Spinoza, Kant, Hegel, Heidegger, Sartre, Lacan, Deleuze and Derrida, a genealogy of nothingness can be witnessed in development, with devastating consequences for the way we live.”

“linked with the formal distinction is the univocityof being, which asserts that the primary object of cognition is “being” as ontologically darined, since indeterminate and neutral. because each reality is mediated by a logical sameness of being, knowledge of being starts to usurp the primacy of theology. And since univocity therby operates already as the possibility ofr all knowing, the measure of knowing betgins to be a clear and distinct grasp of logically distinguishable items. In this way the primacy of adequation invovling a real relation between knower and known starts to fade. cognition is no longer necessarily about actual objects, but by way of the potentia absoluta is possible in principle without one…this means that veridi ality will stem from successful representation, which can be mimicked by illusion, since a species is now thought of more as a mimesis of the known object.”

Conor Cunningham, Geneaology of Nihilism: Philosophies of nothing and the difference of Theology (Radical orthodoxy series),p. 21

Yes, I’m finally convinced—we’ve wasted our lives. If only we could make our theology reconcilable with life and the living—with the very gift that being is. But that rascally Blessed Duns stands in our way!

The Amazon review for that book is distressingly hilarious. ‘after reading each section I could think to myself, “I understand Scotus,” “I understand Spinoza,” or “I understand Hegel”’… . ‘he provides a final survey of nihilism, showing that it tries to make everything the same, creating an indifference to all difference. In so doing, he shows that modernity can no longer speak meaningfully, especially in the observation that it often cannot see any difference between a holocaust and an ice cream cone.’ … ’ the meontotheological logic of nihilism’s nothing as something is actually very similar to theology’s creation ex nihilo.’

Anyone who uses phrases like “meontotheological logic of nihilism’s nothing” has lost my sympathy, probably for good.

of course, isn’t he guilty of the same thing, ie creating indifference to all difference. the very project of showing that all these thinkers are nihilistic seems not to respect their differences. he seems more well read than some of these people; he had a section on henry of ghent and why his analogy is bad. He also seems guilty of throwing in random irrelevant conclusions like that bit about knowlege of being usurping theology; out of left field

the very project of showing that all these thinkers are nihilistic seems not to respect their differences

Great point. It’s another example of the contemporary desire to sum up and refute everyone’s problems (except one’s own of course) by placing each within the setting of the Great Story that one has personally discovered, and which absolves one of the necessity of encountering other thinkers on a person-by-person and thought-by-thought basis. Of course every Great Story is different and contradicts the others.

Case in point: read this exerpt: http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2007/05/16/prolegomena-to-god-history-and-dialectic-by-most-rev-photius-joseph-p-farrell-ssb-dphiloxon/#more-115

It’s worth the time, if only for illuminating just why these guys are incapable of reasonable discussion.

I would definitely be interested in reading some Eastern Orthodox thought, but I have not been able to turn up anyone very engaging. A friend of mine in high school was Greek Orthodox, and he had a lot of provocative things to say, but I could never get into anything he gave me to read.

Mr Findler,

I wonder what your friend gave you?

As with any other subject, a great books fellow like me will go to the sources before looking at any secondary literature. More than anything else I would suggest the Philokalia (see Amazon for details), a large collection of writings by Orthodox “classic” authors spanning a thousand years. It’s the best introduction to, and guide through, Eastern Christian ways of thinking that I know of, anyway.

I know that he’s rather busy now, but for my part I would welcome any suggestions from our friend and occasional Monadological commentor Mike Esterheld on Orthodox reading material.

Oh, I don’t remember the names of the ones I dipped into, some then-fashionable people who may or may not still be read. The Philokalia, yes I really should get around to that. (I was being disingenuous, that and Basil and a couple other things were also recommended by my friend, but I put them off for “later”. Well, here it is later.) There’s a lovely Orthodox bookstore near where I lived last year that I’ve dropped in on a few times (to browse the icons) (I like icons) that has a translation (the translation? - I’ve never seen any but the one multicolored four-volume paperback) I keep looking at but never buying (my public library unaccountably does not have a copy). I guess what I was thinking of was something like Lewis or Kreeft but from an Orthodox point of view. Easy reading, only intelligent.

Yes, it’s the only (semi-) full translation, and it’s not done. It’s eight years now since I bought the four volumes, and I’ve been waiting for the fifth and final one ever since. I’m starting to think it’ll never come out; some of the translators are long dead and the rest getting old. Still, it’s good.

I was thinking of was something like Lewis or Kreeft but from an Orthodox point of view. Easy reading, only intelligent

The only person I know who comes close to this description is Timothy Ware (one of the Philokalia translators), but many Orthodox would take issue with him on some important points, so I don’t know if he’s really a good recommendation or not. His famous introduction The Orthodox Way is widely read but I thought it was pretty shallow.

#6: that was spectacular. but i didn’t have the patience to read much of it. such my expertise is restricted to such things as oesa vs. osa, I don’t have much with which to evaluate. Hence the time wasted on amazon.com et al. where i search inside popular books of contemporary theology by such keywords as “duns scotus” and “univocity”. Cross I think still has the best analysis of the RO metanarratives. I was thinking of writing my own sort of thing for a class next sememster on heidegger and medieval thought entitled “Before Writing: Towards a Scotistic Metanarrative or How I learned to Split the Horizon of Being” but i dropped the class in favor of one on the scientific revolution of the 17th cen. FYI, Wallace argues against spiritual matter. the same old humdrumy stuff: if the human soul had a material element, it couldn’t know universals (POI obviously lurking in the background). you should read that book.

fyi, i’ve tried posting from multiple computers and always get errors.

Timothy Ware it was! I’m surprised he is still popular. The sensationalist I was born in a false tradition with no laying on of hands but I found the energetic way story seemed short-lived to me then. I recall that The Orthodox Way was what he gave me, it had just been published that year or the year before. I didn’t think much of it then. But I was seventeen, and I’m not as interested now in having well-formed judgments as I was then.

I met another Anglican convert to Orthodoxy in Moscow, he was to be the priest at a friend’s wedding. Looked very Orthodox, with a thick greasy black beard (looked something like the Bishop of Cyrenia on Cyprus in the 1950s, if you know who that is, I only happen to this month because I was reading about that time recently, and I won’t know next month), squat, heavy browed. What do willowy tall blond Anglicans convert to?

for “laying on of hands” above, read “true apostolic succession”.