William of Ockham and Walter Chatton on Sensory Powers and the Materiality of Sensation
Main Article Content
Abstract
While many thirteenth-century scholastic philosophers thought that the human powers of sensation are distinct from the human intellect, this apparent consensus collapsed in the 1320s, ‘30s, and ‘40s. The proximate cause of this transformation was Walter Chatton’s rejection of William of Ockham’s arguments that the human powers of sensation are distinct from the human intellect. This article examines Chatton’s implicit and explicit motivations for rejecting Ockham’s arguments. I show that Ockham thinks that the senses are distinct from the intellect because he holds that sensing is material and embodied in a way that thinking is not. I show that Chatton, on the other hand, sees no need to posit such a difference between sensation and thought with respect to materiality or embodiment because he thinks that nothing about the character of sensory experience shows it to be material or embodied in a way that thinking is not.
Downloads
Publication Facts
Reviewer profiles N/A
Author statements
Indexed in
-
—
- Editor & editorial board
- profiles
- Academic society
- N/A
- Publisher
- UCOPress
To learn about these publication facts, click 
PF is maintained by the Public Knowledge Project
Article Details
References
Manuscripts
Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat. 15805.
Primary Sources
Adam Wodeham, Lectura secunda, edited by R. Wood and G. Gál, 3 vols. (St. Bonaventure: St. Bonaventure University, 1990).
Gervasius Waim, Tractatus noticiarum (Paris: 1519).
Gregory of Rimini, Lectura super primum et secundum Sententiarum, edited by A. D. Trapp, V. Marcolino, and M. Santos-Noya, 7 vols. (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1979-1987).
John Duns Scotus, Ordinatio, liber quartus: distinctiones 43-49, edited by C. Balić et al., Ioannis Duns Scoti opera omnia studio et cura Commissionis Scotisticae, vol. 14 (Vatican City: Vatican Polyglot Press, 2013).
Rodrigo de Arriaga, Cursus philosophicus (Antwerp: 1632).
Thomas Aquinas, Quaestiones disputatae de anima, edited by C. Bazán et al., Editio leonina, t. 24, 1 (Rome-Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1996).
Walter Chatton, Reportatio et Lectura super Sententias: collatio ad librum primum et prologus, edited by J. C. Wey, Studies and Texts 90 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1989).
Walter Chatton, Reportatio super Sententias: liber I, distinctiones 1-9, edited by J. C. Wey and G.J. Etzkorn, Studies and Texts 141 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2002).
Walter Chatton, Reportatio super Sententias: liber I, distinctiones 10-48, edited by J. C. Wey and G.J. Etzkorn, Studies and Texts 142 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2002).
Walter Chatton, Reportatio super Sententias: liber II, edited by J. C. Wey and G. J. Etzkorn, Studies and Texts 148 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2004).
Walter Chatton, Reportatio super Sententias, edited by J. C. Wey and G. J. Etzkorn, Studies and Texts 149 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2005).
Walter Chatton, Lectura super Sententias: liber I, distinctiones 1-2, edited by J.C. Wey and G.J. Etzkorn, Studies and Texts 156 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2007).
Walter Chatton, Lectura super Sententias: liber I, distinctiones 3-7, edited by J.C. Wey and G.J. Etzkorn, Studies and Texts 158 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2008).
Walter Chatton, Lectura super Sententias: liber I, distinctiones 8-17, edited by J.C. Wey and G.J. Etzkorn, Studies and Texts 164 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2009).
William Crathorn, In primum librum Sententiarum, edited by F. Hoffman, Quäestionen zum ersten Sentenzenbuch (Münster: Aschendorff, 1988).
William of Ockham, Scriptum in librum primum Sententiarum ordinatio, edited by S. Brown et al., Opera theologica 1 (St. Bonaventure: St. Bonaventure University, 1967).
William of Ockham, Quodlibeta septem, edited by J. C. Wey, Opera theologica 9 (St. Bonaventure, N.Y.: St. Bonaventure University, 1980).
William of Ockham, Quaestiones in librum secundum[-quartum] Sententiarum (reportatio), edited by G. Etzkorn, G. Gál, R. Green, F. E. Kelley, and R. Wood, 3 vols., Opera theologica 5-7 (St. Bonaventure, N.Y.: St. Bonaventure University, 1981-1984).
William of Ockham, Summula philosophiae naturalis, edited by S. Brown, Opera philosophica 6 (St. Bonaventure N.Y.: St. Bonaventure University, 1984).
William of Ockham, Expositio in libros Physicorum Aristotelis: libri IV-VIII, edited by R. Wood et al., Opera philosophica 5 (St. Bonaventure N.Y.: St. Bonaventure University, 1984).
William of Ockham, Brevis summa libri Physicorum, edited by S. Brown, Opera philosophica 6 (St. Bonaventure N.Y.: St. Bonaventure University, 1984).
Secondary Sources
Adams, Marilyn McCord, William Ockham (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1987), 661-664.
Adams, Marilyn McCord, Housing the Powers: Medieval Debates about Dependence on God (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2022).
Bayne, Tim, and Michelle Montague, “Cognitive Phenomenology: An Introduction”, in Cognitive Phenomenology, edited by T. Bayne and M. Montague (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), viii-34.
Brower-Toland, Susan, “Medieval Approaches to Consciousness: Ockham and Chatton”, Philosopher’s Imprint 12 (2012): 1-29.
Cory, Therese Scarpelli, “Embodied vs. Non-Embodied Modes of Knowing in Aquinas: Different Universals, Different Intelligible Species, Different Intellects”, Faith and Philosophy 35/4 (2018): 417-446.
Courtenay, William, Adam Wodeham: An Introduction to His Life and Writings (Leiden: Brill, 1978).
Cross, Richard, “Ockham on Part and Whole”, Vivarium 37/2 (1999): 143-167.
De Boer, Sander W., “Dualism and the Mind-Body Problem”, in Philosophy of Mind in the Late Middle Ages and Renaissance, edited by S. Schmid (New York: Routledge, 2019).
Hasse, Dag, “The Soul’s Faculties”, in The Cambridge History of Medieval Philosophy, vol. 1, edited by R. Pasnau (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 305-319.
Keele, Rondo, “Oxford Quodlibeta from Ockham to Holcot”, in Theological Quodlibeta in the Middle Ages: The Fourteenth Century, edited by C. Schabel (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 651-692.
King, Peter, “Why Isn’t the Mind-Body Problem Medieval?”, in Forming the Mind, vol. 5, Studies in the History of Philosophy of Mind (Dordrecht: Springer, 2007), 187-205.
Löwe, Can Laurens, “Aristotle and John Buridan on the Individuation of Causal Powers”, in Oxford Studies in Medieval Philosophy 6/1 (2018): 189-222.
Pasnau, Robert, “The Mind-Soul Problem”, in Mind, Cognition and Representation: The Tradition of Commentaries on Aristotle’s De Anima, edited by P. J. J. M. Bakker and J. M. M. H. Thijssen, (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007), 3-21.
Pasnau, Robert, Metaphysical Themes (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011).
Pasnau, Robert, “Mind and Hylomorphism”, in The Oxford Handbook of Medieval Philosophy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012).
Perler, Dominik, “Seeing and Judging: Ockham and Wodeham on Sensory Cognition”, in Theories of Perception in Medieval and Early Modern Philosophy, edited by S. Knuuttila and P. Kärkkäinen, Studies in the History of Philosophy of Mind (Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 2008).
Perler, Dominik, “Ockham über die Seele und ihre Teile”, Recherches de théologie et philosophie médiévales 77/2 (2010): 315-350.
Perler, Dominik, “Faculties in Medieval Philosophy”, in The Faculties: A History, edited by D. Perler (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), 97-139.
Pini, Giorgio, “Two Models of Thinking”, in Intentionality, Cognition, and Mental Representation in Medieval Philosophy, edited by G. Klima (New York: Fordham University Press), 81-103.
Wood, Adam, “The Faculties of the Soul and Some Medieval Mind-Body Problems”, The Thomist 75/4 (2011): 585-636.