De Transcendentibus

Lucas Queiroz

New Member
1605314673837.png


I was praticing my latin and I came across with that. Well dudies, first of all, what is dr´? And how does "habita" apply to that sentence?
 

Cinefactus

Censor
Staff member
From De Transcendentibus
The first cognitio is called confusa actualis
perhaps "Which concerns" might be the best way of translating habita.
I have no idea what all the philosophical terms translate to.
 

PFamilias

New Member
Curious how you came across this. I've never heard of Chrysosotomus Javellus, who it appears was a Thomistic Dominican. I'd be interested in talking about the philosophy if you are.

("which concerns" is possible - but "habita" might be an intentional allusion to "habitus", since the scholastics thought all knowledge was a kind of habit. If that's the case, that sentence might mean something like, "The first cognitio had of a universal thing is called confusa actualis." In the context of the rest, that's what I'd put my money on... but even though I'm new here, I know Cinefactus' Latin is better than mine. :) )
 

Cinefactus

Censor
Staff member
Don't forget that habita is passive.
Maybe, "Is held to be"
 

PFamilias

New Member
I did translate it as passive ("had"). I don't think "is held to be" works here. But could I ask how you'd translate the whole sentence if you used it that way?
 

Cinefactus

Censor
Staff member
I did translate it as passive ("had"). I don't think "is held to be" works here.
You are right.

I don't know anything about philosophy. I was hoping @Pacifica might bail me out ;)

My best guess:
The first knowledge, called actively disordered, had about the universal substance, is as something completely definable and is thus defined.
 

PFamilias

New Member
You are right.

I don't know anything about philosophy. I was hoping @Pacifica might bail me out ;)

My best guess:
The first knowledge, called actively disordered, had about the universal substance, is as something completely definable and is thus defined.
"Confusus" can't be disordered, because he's talking about knowing a composite thing as a whole rather than knowing it through its parts. It has to be "composed" or "combined", though I don't think St. Thomas uses "confusus" in this way; he uses "compositio", "compositus", and, more rarely, "coniunctus". But Chrysostomus Jovellus seems to be getting at the same thing. He's following the Aristotelian-Thomistic epistemic tradition of how we come to know things. You can tell by the definitions he provides in this and the following three paragraphs.

Anyway, I guess if I was going to put all my musings together, I'd come up with:

"The first knowledge had of a universal thing is called composed active [knowledge], which is something completely definable and is thus defined."

The distinctions between this kind of cognitio and the other three are classic scholastic logical or epistemic distinctions that have their roots in Aristotle. But CJ's terminology is different in some ways from St. Thomas'.

@Lucas Queiroz, how did you find Chrysostomus Jovellus? Also, have you read much of St. Thomas or other scholastics?
 

Lucas Queiroz

New Member
Thank you guys. Even though I already have a sense of what is being said in the text, I don't know how to translate it, but thanks.
 

Lucas Queiroz

New Member
"Confusus" can't be disordered, because he's talking about knowing a composite thing as a whole rather than knowing it through its parts. It has to be "composed" or "combined", though I don't think St. Thomas uses "confusus" in this way; he uses "compositio", "compositus", and, more rarely, "coniunctus". But Chrysostomus Jovellus seems to be getting at the same thing. He's following the Aristotelian-Thomistic epistemic tradition of how we come to know things. You can tell by the definitions he provides in this and the following three paragraphs.

Anyway, I guess if I was going to put all my musings together, I'd come up with:

"The first knowledge had of a universal thing is called composed active [knowledge], which is something completely definable and is thus defined."

The distinctions between this kind of cognitio and the other three are classic scholastic logical or epistemic distinctions that have their roots in Aristotle. But CJ's terminology is different in some ways from St. Thomas'.

@Lucas Queiroz, how did you find Chrysostomus Jovellus? Also, have you read much of St. Thomas or other scholastics?
Man, I just looked in the google books tab: "inauthor: " Chrysostomus Javellus"" "or" Chrisostomus Javellus ", or" Javelli ". There all his books appear, but of course in the worst possible quality. But I have studied Saint Thomas and others, yes.
 

Lucas Queiroz

New Member
I seek to be a doctor of the Church. I see that in the future a generation of pagans of the Neoplatonic tradition may make things a little more difficult in the church, and I would like to prevent that.
 

PFamilias

New Member
@Lucas Queiroz

Are you a professor, current student, or an independent scholar? I have formal training in Aristotelian-Thomistic Philosophy, and I'd be curious to chat about what you're working on.
 

PFamilias

New Member
Ah - I wouldn't have guessed your age, with you reading that philosophy... in Latin, no less. Well, good luck in your studies!
 
Top