Formal distinction

Concept in scholastic metaphysics

Part of a series on

John Duns Scotus

Scotism

Scholasticism
Univocity
Haecceity
Immaculate Conception
Beatific vision
Formal distinction
Hylomorphism
Scotistic realism
Substance theory (ousia)
Accident
Substantial form
Quiddity (essence / nature)
Individuation
Existence of God
Christology
Platonic realism
Categories (Aristotle)
Problem of universals
Metaphysics
Christianity and slavery

Works

Opus Oxoniense
Tractatus de Primo Principio
Quaestiones Quodlibetales

Influences

Aristotle ("The Philosopher")
St. Paul ("The Apostle")
Pseudo-Dionysius
St. Augustine ("The Theologian")
St. Boethius
Avicenna
Peter Lombard ("The Master")
Averroes ("The Commentator")
Maimonides ("Rabbi Moses")
St. Albertus Magnus ("The Universal Doctor")
St. Thomas Aquinas ("The Angelic Doctor")

People

* Andreas
* Aureoli
* Balic
* Barnewall
* Baron
* Bonet
* Caracciolo
* Carletti
* Faber
* Ferchi
* Frassen
* Horan
* Mac Cathmhaoil
* Mastrius
* de Mayronis
* d'Orbellis
* Ó Fithcheallaigh
* Pelagius
* Punch
* Scotellus
* Scriptoris
* Thomae
* Sixtus IV
* Wadding

Related

Aristotelianism
Franciscan Order
Oxford University
Catholic theology
List of Franciscan theologians
Empiricism

Philosophy Portal

Catholicism Portal

* v
* t
* e

In scholastic metaphysics, a formal distinction is a distinction intermediate between what is merely conceptual, and what is fully real or mind-independent—a logical distinction. It was made by some realist philosophers of the Scholastic period in the thirteenth century, and particularly by Duns Scotus.

## Background

[edit]

Many realist philosophers of the period (such as Aquinas and Henry of Ghent), recognised the need for an intermediate distinction that was not merely conceptual, such as a distinction of reason reasoned, but not fully real or mind-independent either, such as a major real distinction. Aquinas held that the difference between our concepts arises not just in the mind, but has a foundation in the thing (fundamentum in re), such as a distinction of reason reasoning. Henry held that there was an 'intentional' distinction (distinctio intentionalis) such that 'intentions' (i.e. concepts) that are distinct in the mind, correspond to things which are potentially distinct in reality.

Scotus argued for a formal distinction (distinctio formalis a parte rei), which holds between entities which are inseparable and indistinct in reality, but whose definitions are not identical. For example, the personal properties of the Trinity are formally distinct from the Divine essence. Similarly, the distinction between the 'thisness' or haecceity of a thing and its existence is intermediate between a real and a conceptual distinction.[1] There is also a formal distinction between the divine attributes e.g. love and mercy, and the powers of the soul.[2]

Ockham was opposed to the idea, arguing that whenever there is any distinction or non-identity in reality, then two contradictory statements can be made. But contradictory statements, he goes on arguing, cannot be truly asserted unless the realities they stand for are either (1) distinct real things (2) distinct concepts or (3) a thing and a concept. But if they all exist in reality, they are not distinct concepts, nor are they a real thing and a concept. Therefore, they are distinct in reality.[3]

## Notes

[edit]

1. ^ Honderich p. 209
2. ^ Scotus, Ordinatio II. d. 24 p. 8
3. ^ Ockham, Ordinatio I. i. q1.

## References

[edit]

* Gracia, J.E. & Noone, T., A Companion to Philosophy in the Middle Ages, Blackwell 2003.
* Grenz, Stanley J., The Named God And The Question Of Being: A Trinitarian Theo-ontology, Blackwell 2005.
* "The Death of Blessed Scotus", article written by Canon Joseph Bonello and Eman Bonnici.
* Honderich, T., (ed.) The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, article "Duns Scotus", Oxford 1995.
* Ingham, M.B., & Mechthild Dreyer, The Philosophical Vision of John Duns Scotus: An Introduction. Washington DC: Catholic University of America Press 2004.
* Kretzmann, N., A. Kenny, & J. Pinborg, Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy Cambridge: 1982.
* Vos., A. The Philosophy of John Duns Scotus. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2006.
* Williams, Thomas, (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Duns Scotus. Cambridge University Press 2003.

*[v]: View this template
*[t]: Discuss this template
*[e]: Edit this template