| Paper 1008-b | 'Propter quam causam rememoramur rem absentem quae non est praesens, potius quam passionem praesentes?': The Scientific Account of Memory in Albertus Magnus
(Language: English)
Evelina Miteva, Philosophisches Seminar, Universität zu Köln
Index terms: Learning (The Classical Inheritance), Philosophy, Science |
|---|
| Abstract | Paper -a:
This paper takes Arnold de Villanova's treatise on the radical moisture as the basis for exploring how ageing was explained within the scholastic tradition, the subsequent demise of this framework, during the scientific revolution and its reappearance in contemporary bio-gerontology. Within this tradition, three themes are outlined - the conflict between ageing as the accumulation of error and as the exhaustion of substance; the distinction between 'normal' and 'abnormal' ageing; and the prospect and limits for extending longevity.
Paper -b:
What is memory, and what is recollection? What is their respective function and in what way are the two capacities interconnected? These are the main questions that Albertus Magnus discusses in De memoria et reminiscentia, a short treatise which is about to appear for the first time in a critical edition by Albertus-Magnus-Institut. Albert's concern is not a practical one, i.e. he is not dealing with the phenomenon of forgetting, neither, respectively, with mnemonic techniques. Albert adopts the viewpoint of a natural philosopher, i.e. of a scientist and is interested in the faculty itself and its modus operandi. The memory is a soul faculty that retains images. These images are not always actually present in the human soul, but are evoked by the recollection. Confronting the position of Aristotle with those of Avicenna, Averroes and other Islamic scholars, Albert develops a 13th-century theory on the way human brains work in regard to memory and remembering.
Paper -c:
Considering ideas of memory and authority in medical manuscripts of Henry Daniel in the late 14th century. Daniel cites the standard sources we expect in his manuscripts - can we use his text to determine what his real level of access to these materials might have been? Where Daniel cites 'canon' medical authority, how accurate is he? When the citations are incorrect in the c. 1370 edition of the MS, are they corrected in later copies of the text?
|
|---|
