Universals in Second Scholasticism: A comparative study with focus on the theories of Francisco Suárez S.J. (1548-1617), João Poinsot O.P. (1589-1644) and Bartolomeo Mastri da Meldola (54 Bochumer Studien zur Philosophie)

This study aims to present a comparative analysis of philosophical theories of universals espoused by the foremost representatives of the three main schools of early modern scholastic thought. The book introduces the doctrines of Francisco Suárez, S.J. (1548–1617), the Thomist John of St. Thomas, O.P. (1589–1644), and the Scotists Bartolomeo Mastri da Meldola, O.F.M. Conv. (1602–1673) and Bonaventura Belluto, O.F.M. Conv. (1600–1676). The author examines in detail their mutual doctrinal delineation as well as the conceptualist tenet of the Jesuit Pedro Hurtado de Mendoza (1578–1641), whose thought constitutes an important systematic point of comparison especially with Suárez’s doctrine. The book offers the first comparative elaboration of the issue of universals, in both its metaphysical and its epistemological aspects, in the era of second scholasticism.

Table of Contents:
1. Acknowledgments; 2. 1. Introduction; 3. 2. Francisco Suarez (1548-1617) on universals; 4. 3. Joao Poinsot (1589-1644) on universals; 5. 4. Bartolomeo Mastri da Meldola (1602-1673)/Bonaventura Belluto (1600-1676) on universals; 6. 5. Concluding comparison and evaluation; 7. Appendix: Bio-bibliographies; 8. Bibliography; 9. Index of names; 10. Subject index

Review :
The debate on universals is, generally speaking, a well-known subject in the history of philosophy, but views on universals from the end of the sixteenth to the mid-seventeenth century—the object of Heider’s welcome contribution—are quite neglected. [...] The virtue of the book, no doubt a reference for research on the subject, lies in painstakingly following the full complexities of the debate being analyzed. It is also successful in approaching the subject in a comparative way (Heider’s comparisons extend, in fact, to many more authors than the three main ones structuring the volume). In this way, and not insignificantly, the author conveys the eminently dialogical way in which Second Scholastic positions developed through reacting to one another. Die vorliegende Arbeit ist ein überaus wichtiger Beitrag zu diesem Gebiet. Sie leistet die Untersuchung der Universalienlehre zudem nicht an einem einzelnen Autor, sondern in komparatistischer Weise im Vergleich der wichtigsten Autoren der Jesuiten (Suárez), der dominikanischen Thomisten (Poinsot/Johannes a S. Thoma) und der franziskanischen Skotisten (Mastri/Belluto). […] Die methodische und quellenmäßige Durchführung der Arbeit kann uneingeschränkt als exzellent eingestuft werden. Mit größtmöglicher Klarheit werden die einzelnen Positionen und Argumente Schritt für Schritt entfaltet und beleuchtet, historisch eingeordnet und in ihrer Valenz bewertet. Daniel Heider´s book on the universals in three major representatives of the so-called Second Scholasticism is a detailed examination based on close reading of the relevant primary sources and gives access to the debate as it was lead among the philosophers of the 17th century. It proves the author's intimate familiarity with the issues and his mastery of the philosophical questions. […] Heider proves himself to be an outstanding scholar and specialist of the 17th century school philosophy and of present-day epistemology. The great strength of this book is Heider's masterful, detailed examination of three representative accounts from sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Scholasticism. Suárez offers an orginal blend of Thomist, Scotist and nominalist elements; Poinsot's account is more purely ad mentem Thomi, while Mastri and Belluto take an approach ad mentem Scoti. Of course, there were other streams of thought in the period, but Heider reasonably takes these to be the most important ones. In addition to a familiarity with the primary texts that few could rival, he has an exemplary command of the secondary literature. A key benefit of this erudition is that his analysis is not limited to the narrow ontological problem of universals, but also encompasses the psychological questions about the processes of cognition and the formation of universal concepts.