Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 

Saved Queries

Sign in to use this feature.

Search Filter Reset All

Years

Between: -

Subjects

remove_circle_outline
Add Subjects Reset
Select Subjects

Journals

remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
Add Journals Reset
Select Journals

Article Types

remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
Add Article Types Reset
Select Article Types

Countries / Regions

remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
Add Countries / Regions Reset
Select Countries / Regions
Update Search
share announcement

Search Results (5)

Search Parameters:
Keywords = Francisco Suárez (1548–1617)

Order results
Result details
Results per page
Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
15 pages, 283 KiB  
Article
Limited from the Outside: Francisco Suárez and the External Limits of Political Power
by Leonor Durão Barroso
Religions 2024, 15(3), 259; https://doi.org/10.3390/rel15030259 - 21 Feb 2024
Viewed by 1756
Abstract
Francisco Suárez has been interpreted both as a champion of absolute power and as an advocate of popular sovereignty. Although not taking a position in this debate, this paper seeks to understand whether Suárez’s political thought provides theoretical ground to advance the notion [...] Read more.
Francisco Suárez has been interpreted both as a champion of absolute power and as an advocate of popular sovereignty. Although not taking a position in this debate, this paper seeks to understand whether Suárez’s political thought provides theoretical ground to advance the notion of limited government. It focuses specifically on the question of whether there are, in Suárez’s work, external limits to the power of rulers at home. The answer is considered by regarding two elements, which we argue contribute to such a limitation. First, the paper considers how the ius gentium hinders the possibility of an all-powerful government at home; then, it focuses on how the hierarchical ordering of the spiritual and temporal spheres limit the scope of the ruler of the latter. It is argued that both elements provide some ground for limiting the extent of power by rulers in their communities. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Religious Ethics and Law: A Comparative Perspective)
9 pages, 274 KiB  
Article
Suárez’ Minimal Realism of Artifacts
by Erik Åkerlund
Philosophies 2022, 7(6), 133; https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies7060133 - 25 Nov 2022
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 2501
Abstract
The article places Francisco Suárez (1548–1617) and his position on the ontological status of artifacts against the Medieval philosophical background. It is concluded that Suárez is an artifact realist. However, Suárez’ realism concerning artifacts is of a minimalist kind. Inscribing himself into the [...] Read more.
The article places Francisco Suárez (1548–1617) and his position on the ontological status of artifacts against the Medieval philosophical background. It is concluded that Suárez is an artifact realist. However, Suárez’ realism concerning artifacts is of a minimalist kind. Inscribing himself into the realist tradition, Suárez affirms that an artifact has an “artificial form”, a ‘forma artificialis’. However, this form is not a thing in its own right, but rather has the status of a mode. Further, the artificial form is not a mode of substance, but rather of quantity. Hence, Suárez can rightly be called a minimal realist concerning artifacts. In an additional section, the role of the exemplar in the production of an artifact is explored. Suárez counts the exemplar among the efficient causes, and so, the exemplar in the mind of the artisan is one of many efficient causes that together produce and determine the artifact. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Art vs Nature: The Ontology of Artifacts in the Long Middle Ages)
13 pages, 252 KiB  
Essay
Early Modern Uncertainty: Reason, Conscience, and Belief in Post-Reformation Catholicism
by Stefania Tutino
Religions 2022, 13(11), 1108; https://doi.org/10.3390/rel13111108 - 16 Nov 2022
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 2075
Abstract
This essay investigates the role of uncertainty in post-Reformation Catholicism. It argues that one of the reasons why uncertainty was so central to early modern Catholic discourse lies in the complex and multifaced relationship between believing—that is, the act of holding as true [...] Read more.
This essay investigates the role of uncertainty in post-Reformation Catholicism. It argues that one of the reasons why uncertainty was so central to early modern Catholic discourse lies in the complex and multifaced relationship between believing—that is, the act of holding as true something that we are unable to verify as such by means of reason—and knowing—that is, the act of holding something as true on the basis of a reasonable and reasoned assessment. By providing a brief analysis of printed and manuscript sources, this essays shows how some of the theological, religious, and intellectual tensions in articulating the relationship between things that need to be believed by faith and things that need to be known by reason, both in the works of influential theologians such as Augustine and Francisco Suárez, and in the elaboration of a wider sector of the Catholic population. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Decision-Making in an Uncertain Time. Should You Always Obey Your Conscience?)
9 pages, 262 KiB  
Article
A Thomistic Account of Human Free Will and Divine Providence: Pedro de Ledesma and the De Auxiliis Controversy
by David Torrijos-Castrillejo
Religions 2022, 13(4), 375; https://doi.org/10.3390/rel13040375 - 18 Apr 2022
Cited by 4 | Viewed by 2644
Abstract
Pedro de Ledesma is one of the Dominican theologians of the School of Salamanca involved in the De Auxiliis controversy, i.e., the disputes around a famous book by Luis de Molina on the relation between divine foreknowledge and providence and our free will. [...] Read more.
Pedro de Ledesma is one of the Dominican theologians of the School of Salamanca involved in the De Auxiliis controversy, i.e., the disputes around a famous book by Luis de Molina on the relation between divine foreknowledge and providence and our free will. Studying an unpublished manuscript by Ledesma and his 1611 book on this subject, the article shows that he opposed Molina with a Thomistic position that we call deflationary. According to this interpretation, God, in moving the created will to do good actions, does not bring about an entity distinct from volition itself. Contrary to other Thomists, he does not think that the immediate effect of the divine motion of the will is an intermediary entity used by God to produce, with the will, the created free act. Ledesma defends his thesis by using some elements of Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics, in particular, a minimalist interpretation of the relation between action and passion already present in Domingo de Soto and the specific causality of immanent acts. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Religions and Humanities/Philosophies)
12 pages, 256 KiB  
Article
Contingency, Free Will, and Particular Providence
by David Torrijos-Castrillejo
Religions 2021, 12(10), 832; https://doi.org/10.3390/rel12100832 - 6 Oct 2021
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 2591
Abstract
The results from contemporary science, especially the theory of evolution and quantum physics, seem to favor process theology. Moreover, the evil committed by free will leads some theologians to reduce divine action in order to prevent God from being responsible for evil. Thus, [...] Read more.
The results from contemporary science, especially the theory of evolution and quantum physics, seem to favor process theology. Moreover, the evil committed by free will leads some theologians to reduce divine action in order to prevent God from being responsible for evil. Thus, among those who defend a particular providence, Molinism finds many followers. This article first argues that contemporary science does not constrain us to deny particular providence. Second, it criticizes the implicitly deterministic character of Molinism. Thirdly, a Thomistic solution is proposed as an alternative which, by means of a different metaphysical approach to cosmic contingency and freedom of will, defends particular providence without reducing divine activity except in personal sins. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Theodicy and Challenges of Science: Understanding God, Evil and Evolution)
Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
 
Displaying article 1-50 on page 1 of 1.
Back to TopTop