Gerard Manley Hopkins and the Spell of John Duns Scotus / / John Llewelyn.

• Superior document: Title is part of eBook package: De Gruyter Edinburgh University Press Complete eBook-Package 2014-2015
• VerfasserIn: Llewelyn, John,
• Place / Publishing House: Edinburgh : : Edinburgh University Press, , [2022]; ©2015
• Year of Publication: 2022
• Language: English
• Physical Description: 1 online resource (160 p.)
• Other title: Frontmatter --; Contents --; Acknowledgements --; Part I --; 1 The Crux --; 2 Instress Scaped and Inscape Stressed --; 3 Parsing the Poem of Parmenides --; 4 Hopkins' Double Discovery, of Scotus and of Himself --; 5 Some Transcendentals --; 6 Another Transcendental? --; Part II --; 7 Seeming, Observing and Observance --; 8 Peirce's Post-Kantian Categories --; 9 Ecceity, Ipseity and Existents --; 10 Being as Doing --; 11 From Method of Ignorance to Way of Love --; 12 Categories and Transcendentals Transcended --; Afterword --; Notes --; Selective Bibliography --; Index
• Format: Mode of access: Internet via World Wide Web.
• ISBN: 9781474408950; 9783110780451
• DOI: 10.1515/9781474408950?locatt=mode:legacy
• Access: restricted access
• Hierarchical level: Monograph
• Statement of Responsibility: John Llewelyn.

A fresh look at Gerard Manley Hopkins and his celebration of John Duns ScotusThe early medieval Scottish philosopher and theologian John Duns Scotus shook traditional doctrines of universality and particularity by arguing for a metaphysics of 'formal distinction'. Hundreds of years later, why did the 19th-century poet and self-styled philosopher Gerard Manley Hopkins find this revolutionary teaching so appealing? John Llewelyn answers this question by casting light on various neologisms introduced by Hopkins and reveals how Hopkins endorses Scotus's claim that being and existence are grounded in doing and willing. Drawing on modern responses to Scotus made by Heidegger, Peirce, Arendt, Leibniz, Hume, Reid, Derrida and Deleuze, Llewelyn's own response shows why it would be a pity to suppose that the rewards of reading Scotus and Hopkins are available only to those who share their theological presuppositions.