Le «questioni fiorentine» di ambito bonaventuriano. Un primo studio lessicale e dottrinale

digital

Articolo

rivista	RIVISTA DI FILOSOFIA NEO-SCOLASTICA
fascicolo	RIVISTA DI FILOSOFIA NEO-SCOLASTICA - 2017 - 4. Il pensiero filosofico e teologico in Bonaventura da Bagnoregio
titolo	Le «questioni fiorentine» di ambito bonaventuriano. Un primo studio lessicale e dottrinale
autore	Andrea di Maio
editore	Vita e Pensiero
formato	Articolo \| Pdf
online da	03-2018
doi	http://filosofianeoscolastica.vitaepensiero.com/doi/10.26350/001050_000025
issn	00356247 (stampa) \| 18277926 (digitale)

€ 6,00

Ebook in formato Pdf leggibile su questi device:

Computer
con Software:
- Adobe PDF Reader
Android
iPhone/Ipad
con App:
- Adobe PDF Reader
E-Book Reader
Ibs Tolino
Kobo

Descrizione
In 2014, M. Olszewski edited some disputed questions (about creation, ‘image’ and human soul) found in a manuscript conserved in Florence. The authorship of these «florentine questions» is controversial. There are reasons to attribute them to Bonaventure, as well as to other authors very close to him. However, after their publication, someone criticized this attribution. In this note, I will pursue three goals. One, to show that there is an impressive similarity of lexical usages and no real doctrinal inconsistency between these questions and works doublessly recognized as Bonaventurian. Two, to highlight the truly cooperative and creative character of the Franciscan Theological School of Paris in the middle of the 13th Century (really far from the usual historiographic idea of a conservative and eclectic environment). And three, to present some suggestions (still interesting today) emerging from the text. keywords Creation, Soul, Bonaventurian Lexicography, Franciscan Theological School of Paris in the 13rd Century

Descrizione

In 2014, M. Olszewski edited some disputed questions (about creation, ‘image’ and human soul) found in a manuscript conserved in Florence. The authorship of these «florentine questions» is controversial. There are reasons to attribute them to Bonaventure, as well as to other authors very close to him. However, after their publication, someone criticized this attribution. In this note, I will pursue three goals. One, to show that there is an impressive similarity of lexical usages and no real doctrinal inconsistency between these questions and works doublessly recognized as Bonaventurian. Two, to highlight the truly cooperative and creative character of the Franciscan Theological School of Paris in the middle of the 13th Century (really far from the usual historiographic idea of a conservative and eclectic environment). And three, to present some suggestions (still interesting today) emerging from the text.