Giles of Rome, Henry of Ghent, and Godfrey of Fontaines on Whether to See God is to Love Him

Although Giles of Rome, Henry of Ghent, and Godfrey of Fontaines disagree with each other profoundly over the relationship between the intellect and the will, they all think that someone who sees God must also love him in the ordinary course of events. However, Godfrey rejects a central thesis argue...

Full description

Saved in:  
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Osborne, Thomas M. (Author)
Format: Electronic Article
Language:English
Check availability: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
Drawer...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Published: Peeters 2013
In: Recherches de théologie et philosophie médiévales
Year: 2013, Volume: 80, Issue: 1, Pages: 57-76
Online Access: Volltext (JSTOR)
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)
Parallel Edition:Electronic

MARC

LEADER 00000naa a22000002 4500
001 182244232X
003 DE-627
005 20221115052822.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 221115s2013 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
024 7 |a 10.2143/RTPM.80.1.2988828  |2 doi 
035 |a (DE-627)182244232X 
035 |a (DE-599)KXP182244232X 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rda 
041 |a eng 
084 |a 1  |2 ssgn 
100 1 |a Osborne, Thomas M.  |e VerfasserIn  |4 aut 
245 1 0 |a Giles of Rome, Henry of Ghent, and Godfrey of Fontaines on Whether to See God is to Love Him 
264 1 |c 2013 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a Computermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
520 |a Although Giles of Rome, Henry of Ghent, and Godfrey of Fontaines disagree with each other profoundly over the relationship between the intellect and the will, they all think that someone who sees God must also love him in the ordinary course of events. However, Godfrey rejects a central thesis argued for by both Henry and Giles, namely that by God’s absolute power there could be such vision without love. The debate is not about the ability to freely reject or at least refrain from willing complete happiness, but about the connection between the known object and the will’s act. Godfrey’s discussion is an occasion for him to criticize Giles’s idiosyncratic view that an elicited act of love for the known object is necessary for every act of knowing, and Henry’s development of the view that the known object is merely a sine qua non cause of an act of love. In his response, Godfrey defends a thesis that later becomes widespread, namely that the known object is an efficient cause of love.\n4207 \n4207 
773 0 8 |i Enthalten in  |t Recherches de théologie et philosophie médiévales  |d Leuven : Peeters, 1997  |g 80(2013), 1, Seite 57-76  |h Online-Ressource  |w (DE-627)387427848  |w (DE-600)2145018-3  |w (DE-576)112775624  |x 1783-1717  |7 nnns 
773 1 8 |g volume:80  |g year:2013  |g number:1  |g pages:57-76 
776 |i Erscheint auch als  |n elektronische Ausgabe  |w (DE-627)1633061434  |k Electronic 
856 |3 Volltext  |u http://www.jstor.org/stable/26485543  |x JSTOR 
856 4 0 |u https://doi.org/10.2143/RTPM.80.1.2988828  |x Resolving-System  |z lizenzpflichtig  |3 Volltext 
856 4 0 |u https://poj.peeters-leuven.be/content.php?url=article&id=2988828&journal_code=RTPM  |x Verlag  |z lizenzpflichtig  |3 Volltext 
935 |a mteo 
951 |a AR 
ELC |a 1 
ITA |a 1  |t 1 
LOK |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 
LOK |0 001 4211085751 
LOK |0 003 DE-627 
LOK |0 004 182244232X 
LOK |0 005 20221115052822 
LOK |0 008 221115||||||||||||||||ger||||||| 
LOK |0 035   |a (DE-Tue135)IxTheo#2022-10-27#D83A2575D17C398949764467D0E018FC9FD4E3E3 
LOK |0 040   |a DE-Tue135  |c DE-627  |d DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 092   |o n 
LOK |0 852   |a DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 852 1  |9 00 
LOK |0 866   |x JSTOR#http://www.jstor.org/stable/26485543 
LOK |0 935   |a ixzs  |a ixrk  |a zota 
ORI |a SA-MARC-ixtheoa001.raw 
REL |a 1 
SUB |a REL 

Similar Items

more