درخت حوزه‌های تخصصی

The present study addresses the problem of the relationship between mind and body in the thought of the Italian Franciscan philosopher Matthew of Acquasparta (1240–1302). In Question 10 of the Questions on Faith and Knowledge, titled “Whether the Intellect, with Regard to Its Act, Is Bound by the Weakness and Ineptitude of the Body,” Matthew argues that bodily dispositions influence the actuality of the intellect. His reflection is guided by various authorities (auctoritates), foremost among whom is Augustine of Hippo, a general point of reference that the thinker of Acquasparta adopts for his theorization. However, Matthew develops a rigorous line of reasoning in which Aristotle—through whom he also implicitly reinterprets Augustine—as well as Avicenna and al-Ghazālī play crucial roles. The Franciscan philosopher maintains that the body can distract the intellect from properly exercising its function, impairing both the soul’s inward focus and the tranquility required for intellectual activity due to external disturbances. Furthermore, the compromised sensory organs of a sick, aged, or wounded body will provide confused images to the mind, thereby clouding its capacity for understanding. The strong connection between body and mind clarifies the unity of the human person as a composite of soul and body, with significant implications both in anthropology and soteriology, particularly concerning the prospect of the unity between the soul and a finally glorified body, which Christian doctrine awaits in the resurrection at the end of time.

This essay is a critical study of Rutger Bregman’s 2020 book, Humankind: A Hopeful History, from a broadly Kantian point of view. I present and defend the main points and arguments of the book, and on that basis, articulate a doctrine in social and political philosophy, which I call realistic-optimist dignitarian humanism, aka RODH, that I think captures the essence of what Bregman is driving at. Among its various theoretical and practical virtues, RODH gets constructively and creatively between Hobbes’s excessive pessimism about human nature on the one hand, and Rousseau’s unrealistic optimism about human nature on the other.