Gilbert de la Porrée

Gilbert of Poitiers, Gilbert Porreta, Gilbertus Porretanus, Gilbert de la Porrée ( ~ * 1080, † 1155 ) was a scholastic philosopher and theologian.

The pupil of Bernard of Chartres, Anselm of Laon and Radulfs of Laon was a teacher in Poitiers, Chartres and Paris, commented, inter alia, the Boethius. He was Bishop of Poitiers in 1142.

He was representative of realism in universals. Gilbert probably different ( Coming at all beings which are in conformity inasmuch ) as the first Individuality (based on partial dissimilarity of the peculiarity of a being with others) and singularity. Gilbert was, inter alia, attacked by Bernard of Clairvaux for his verbal distinction between God and Godhead. Otto of Freising describes in detail his process.

Gilbert was a lamp of his time. For his friends and students of the Bishop of Poitiers towered above all his contemporaries in all the sciences and earned a name sounded fuller than even Plato. For his admirers Gilbert was the equal of wisdom and you from him seemed even as if ' the source of philosophy ' to flow. His main achievement consists in the distinction between id quod and id quo.

Translated literally mean the two expressions: " that which is " and " that by which it is." Your link is immediately clear when we think with reference to the opposite pole (in parentheses) in each case: "id quod est ( eo quo est) " and "id quo est (id quod est) " So this is through the quod quo and the quo is the one which is the quod. The origin of this way of speaking is in Platonism, where even in a true sense the individual is through the idea.

Applied Theologically the category pair quod / quo has lost all Platonic flavor. Therefore, we may with " who" and "what" translate it freely and continuing. Id quod est in theology is always a Who, a person; id est quo means a nature, a circumstance to be a way, in short: a What. Each Who is in the way of any What and a What's not actually own, but as a way of being a Who.

Two things makes this terminology:

First, they linked, as different terms imaginable with each other and through each other, the two expressions (natural person ) that the old church has created ( with a certain arbitrariness and randomness ) by different names of an originally single term ( the specific substance) as dogmatic basic categories, without having to put in a comprehensive relationship.

Second, surpasses all previous attempts Gilbert's performance, nature and person to be placed in relationship, in that it as such straddles the concrete substance to a pair of concepts apart. As it had been previously? Since any understanding of the two basic Christian dogma ( Trinity and Incarnation ) meant a loss either to concreteness or substantiality. The Trinity could be construed either as a substance with three ( accidental ) Relations ( Augustine) or as the ( general ) nature in three concrete realizations ( Cappadocian ). And the unity of the person of Christ in two natures nor Boethius boldly compares with the unity of a choir; the difference between nature and person for him is between a general and a particular.

So you wanted to the words natural and understandable person from and against each other keep, so could only either the substance of an accident or the specific substance of the concrete are compared. However, both possibilities of thought are, of course (which you knew then! ) Not on the dogmas applicable. Were added in as a matter of course, that there are no accidents in God and humanity of Christ is also concrete, so this clarification was not harmonious, but by force from the outside and took all of course, who had promised the scheme away again. So you found yourself in desperate shortages before, got over on the true faith, but not thinking before Gilbert's distinction.

You alone are of course still no answer to the question how the different people and the God-man, the different natures of each behavior in the Trinity to one another. But probably has Gilbert, and today he alone, to the center of his thought an analogy equally applicable to both dogmas conceptual scheme, without which these further questions should not be answered balanced, in which they also, as of course very different Ausfaltungen a structure, are firmly connected.

In order to allow the Catholic / Orthodox dialogue on the issue of divine energies an approximation, 1964, recourse to Gilbert was found to be helpful; the then designed " New Porretanismus " is now published on the net.