No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Sebastián Izquierdo's (1601–1681) Theory of Priority
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 January 2019
Abstract
The Spanish philosopher Sebastián Izquierdo was a luminary of seventeenth-century scholasticism. In his main philosophical work, Pharus scientiarum, Izquierdo claims to be the first to provide a systematic analysis of the notion of priority. Izquierdo is not the first to attempt an analysis of priority, but his treatment is original and rigorous. Izquierdo distinguishes between accidental and essential priority. This distinction crosscuts his distinction between relative and absolute priority. Izquierdo also recognizes four types of absolute priority: priority of duration, priority of origin, priority of nonmutual connection, and priority of worth. In this article I explain Izquierdo's various priority relations, their formal properties, and how they all cohere in a general theory of priority.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Journal of the American Philosophical Association , Volume 4 , Issue 4 , Winter 2018 , pp. 491 - 509
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Philosophical Association 2019
Footnotes
Thanks to two anonymous referees at the Journal of the APA, Martin Pickavé, Stephan Schmid, and Bryan Reece for helpful comments.
References
Aristotle, . (1966) Metaphysics. Translated by Apostle, Hippocrates G.. Des Moines: Peripatetic Press.Google Scholar
Aristotle, . (2002) Categories and De Interpretatione. Translated by Ackrill, J. L.. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Arriaga, Rodrigo de. (1669) Cursus philosophicus. Lyon: Ioannis Antonii Huguetan and Guillielmi Barbier.Google Scholar
Augustine, . (1992) Confessions. Translated by Chadwick, Henry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Backer, Aloys de, and de Backer, Augustin. (1893) Bibliothèque de la Compagnie de Jésus. Vol. 4 Bibliographie, Haakman–Lorette. Edited by Carlos Sommervogel. Brussels: Oscar Schepens.Google Scholar
Ceñal, Ramón. (1942) ‘El P. Izquierdo y su “Pharus Scientiarum”’. Revista de Filosofía, 1, 126–54.Google Scholar
Ceñal, Ramón. (1974) Le combinatoria de Sebastián Izquierdo: ‘Pharus Scientiarum’. Madrid: Instituto de España.Google Scholar
Di Vona, Pietro. (1994) I concetti trascendenti in Sebastián Izquierdo e nella scolastica del Seicento. Naples: Loffredo.Google Scholar
Brian, Embry. (2015) ‘Truth and Truthmakers in Early Modern Scholasticism’. Journal of the American Philosophical Association, 1, 196–216.Google Scholar
Herreros, Fuertes, Luis, José. (1982) La logica como fundamentacion del arte general del saber en Sebastián Izquierdo: estudio del ‘Pharus Scientiarum’ (1659). Salamanca: Instituto de Estudios Albacetenses.Google Scholar
Heider, Daniel. (2010) ‘Bartholomew Mastrius (1602–1673) and John Punch (1559 or 1603–1661) on the Common Nature and Universal Unity’. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association, 84, 145–66.Google Scholar
Heider, Daniel. (2016) ‘The Notitia Intuitiva and Notitia Abstractiva of the External Senses in Second Scholasticism: Suárez, Poinsot, and Francisco De Oviedo’. Vivarium, 54, 173–203.Google Scholar
Izquierdo, Sebastián. (1659) Pharus scientiarum. Lyon: Claudii Bourgeat and Mich. Lietard.Google Scholar
Knebel, Sven. (2000) Wille, Würfel und Wahrscheinlichkeit: Das System der moralischen Notwendigkeit in der Jesuitenscholastik, 1550–1700. Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag.Google Scholar
Lowe, E. Jonathan, and Tuomas, E. Tahko. (2015) ‘Ontological Dependence’. In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dependence-ontological/.Google Scholar
Novotny, Daniel. (2009) ‘In Defense of Baroque Scholasticism’. Studia Neoaristotelica, 6, 209–233.Google Scholar
Novotny, Daniel. (2013) Ens Rationis from Suárez to Caramuel: A Study of Scholasticism of the Baroque Era. New York: Fordham University Press.Google Scholar
Oviedo, Francisco. (1651) Cursus philosophicus ad unum corpus redactus, Tomus primus. Lyon: Philippi Borde, Laurentii Arnaud, and Claudii Rigaud.Google Scholar
Peinado, Francisco. (1680) Disputationes in octos libros physicorum Aristotelis. Complutum (Alcalá): Sumptibus colegii Complutensis Societatis Jesu, Apud Franciscum Garcia Fernandez.Google Scholar
Penner, Sydney. (2012) ‘Rodrigo de Arriaga on Relations’. Modern Schoolman, 89, 25–46.Google Scholar
Rosen, Gideon. (2010) ‘Metaphysical Dependence: Grounding and Reduction’. In Hale, Bob and Hoffmann, Aviv (eds.), Modality: Metaphysics, Logic, and Epistemology (New York: Oxford University Press), 109–36.Google Scholar
Rossi, Paolo. (2000) Logic and the Art of Memory. Translated by Stephen Clucas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Schaffer, Jonathan. (2009) ‘On What Grounds What’. In Chalmers, David J., Manley, David, and Wasserman, Ryan (eds.), Metametaphysics: New Essays on the Foundations of Ontology (New York: Oxford University Press), 347–83.Google Scholar
Schmutz, Jacob. (2006) ‘Izquierdo (Sebastián)’. In Nativel, Colette (ed.), Centuriae Latinae II: Cent une figures humanistes de la Renaissance aux Lumières (Geneva: Librairie Droz), 415–23.Google Scholar
Schmutz, Jacob. (2009) ‘Les innovations conceptuelles de la métaphysique Espagnole post-Suarérzienne: les status rerum selon Antonio Pérez et Sebastián Izquierdo’. Quaestio, 9, 61–99.Google Scholar
Suárez, Francisco. (1861) Disputationes metaphysicae. Vol. 25–26 of Opera omnia, edited by Berton, Charles. Paris: Vivès.Google Scholar
Tuttle, Jacob. (2016) ‘Suárez's Non-Reductive Theory of Efficient Causation’. In Pasnau, Robert (ed.), Oxford Studies in Medieval Philosophy, Vol. 4 (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 125–58.Google Scholar