Personas › Marsilio Ficino
Persona #383

Marsilio Ficino

1433–1499 · Italian philosopher, priest, translator of Plato and the Hermetica, founder of the Florentine Academy

Prisca theologia — the ancient wisdom of Hermes, Orpheus, Zoroaster, and Plato recovered for Christendom through the Platonic theology of the immortal soul

Ficino was the son of Cosimo de' Medici's personal physician and was educated under Medici patronage to become the Latin translator of the complete works of Plato — the first such translation in the West. Before completing Plato, Cosimo directed him to translate the Corpus Hermeticum (completed 1463), which Ficino believed was the work of an ancient Egyptian sage, Hermes Trismegistus, and therefore older than Moses. The Platonic translations (completed 1484) and the commentaries that accompanied them — especially the commentary on the Symposium ("De Amore") — created the Renaissance Platonist movement. The "Theologia Platonica de Immortalitate Animorum" (1482) is Ficino's philosophical magnum opus: an 18-book argument that the Platonic tradition, properly understood, demonstrates the immortality of the soul and converges with Christian revelation. Ficino was ordained a priest in 1473 and held a canonry at Florence cathedral; his synthesis of Platonism, Hermeticism, and Christianity — the "prisca theologia" (ancient theology) — defined the intellectual culture of the Florentine Renaissance and influenced thinkers from Pico to Leibniz.

Key works

Compare this persona

Declared Influences

Platonism (Classical) 30% Neo-Platonism 25% Hermeticism 20% Catholic/Thomistic 15% Christian Platonism 10%
Platonism (Classical) · 30%
Neo-Platonism · 25%
Hermeticism · 20%
Catholic/Thomistic · 15%
Christian Platonism · 10%
Platonism (Classical) 30%

Ficino is the principal architect of Renaissance Platonism. His Latin translations made Plato's complete dialogues accessible to the West for the first time, and his commentaries shaped how Plato was read for two centuries.

"Plato is the prince of philosophers, because he alone among the ancients attained to the divinity of the soul and the light of the Good." (Theologia Platonica, Preface)
Neo-Platonism 25%

Ficino's Plato is thoroughly Neoplatonised — read through Plotinus, Proclus, and Pseudo-Dionysius. The hierarchical cosmos of soul-intellect-One and the emanation-return structure are Neoplatonic, not classical-Platonic.

"The soul is the knot of the universe — the third essence that holds together the divine and the corporeal." (Theologia Platonica III.2)
Hermeticism 20%

Ficino's translation of the Corpus Hermeticum launched the Renaissance Hermetic revival. He believed Hermes Trismegistus was a historical sage contemporary with Moses, and that the Hermetic writings preserved a prisca theologia that anticipated Plato and converged with Christianity.

"Hermes Trismegistus, the first of theologians, was followed by Orpheus, Aglaophemus, Pythagoras, Philolaus, and our divine Plato." (Argumentum to the Corpus Hermeticum)
Catholic/Thomistic 15%

Ficino was an ordained priest who insisted that the Platonic tradition confirmed Christian doctrine — especially the immortality of the soul and the providential governance of God. His synthesis remained within Catholic orthodoxy, though it pushed the boundaries of acceptable philosophical sources.

"Platonic philosophy is the handmaid of Christian theology; what Plato saw by the natural light of reason, Christ revealed by the supernatural light of grace." (Theologia Platonica, Preface)
Christian Platonism 10%

Ficino is the exemplary Christian Platonist of the Renaissance — working to demonstrate that the Platonic and Christian traditions, far from being in conflict, are complementary expressions of the same divine truth.

"Augustine and Dionysius — the greatest Christian theologians — were Platonists; this is no accident but the confirmation that Plato and Christ teach the same doctrine of the soul's return to God." (Theologia Platonica I.1)

Internal Tensions

Ficino's prisca theologia — the claim that Hermes, Orpheus, Zoroaster, and Plato all taught the same ancient wisdom that Christianity fulfilled — was undermined when Isaac Casaubon demonstrated in 1614 that the Corpus Hermeticum was a late-antique composition, not an ancient Egyptian text. The deeper tension is between Ficino's Platonic-Hermetic cosmological optimism (the soul is naturally divine, naturally immortal, naturally oriented toward God) and the Augustinian-Thomistic tradition of original sin and the necessity of grace — Ficino's Christianity is more Platonic than Pauline, and his critics noticed.

⧖

I. Time

"Both" — divine eternity and created temporal sequence. Ficino's cosmos is the Neoplatonic hierarchy of emanation-and-return: time is the created image of eternity (following Plato's Timaeus). Non-deterministic because the soul has genuine freedom to ascend or descend.

Attributes
Extent: Both Ontological Status: Emergent Grain: Continuous Freedom: Non-Deterministic Traversability: Linear Direction: Uni-directional Dimensionality: One
✦

II. Space

Emergent from the divine creative act; the Neoplatonic hierarchy (One, Intellect, Soul, Body) is the structuring principle. Non-local because the soul participates in the divine beyond spatial location.

Attributes
Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Emergent Curvature: not engaged Dimensionality: Three Locality: Non-local
◉

III. Matter

Emergent — the lowest level of the Neoplatonic hierarchy, the shadow of intelligible reality. Conserved within the created order. Three-dimensional, non-local because the soul's relation to the body is not exhausted by spatial contiguity.

Attributes
Extent: Finite Ontological Status: Emergent Conservation: Conserved Dimensionality: Three Locality: Non-local
◎

IV. Observer

The soul is the "knot of the universe" — the third essence between the divine and the corporeal. Multiple time and space instances through the soul's participation in eternity and the divine ideas. Personal metaphysical agency: God as the source of all being and the soul's ascent.

Attributes
Time Instance: Multiple Space Instance: Multiple Knowledge Extent: Total Knowledge Retainment: Total Physicality: Both Agency: Active Number: Singular Metaphysical Agency: Personal
⚡

V. Energy

The emanative energy flowing from the One through Intellect and Soul into Body; reversible through the soul's contemplative ascent back to the source.

Attributes
Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Emergent Conservation: Variable Dispersibility: Reversible
⧉

VI. Information

The divine ideas as the eternal informational content of reality; conserved at both cosmic and personal scales through the immortality of the soul.

Attributes
Ontological Status: Emergent Cosmic Conservation: Conserved Personal Conservation: Conserved Granularity: Continuous

Classified works

Works in the atlas that Marsilio Ficino authored or that draw on this persona's writings, with full attribute fingerprints of their own.

Authored · Mature (Ficino's philosophical magnum opus, composed during the height of his work at the Florentine Academy)
Platonic Theology
1469–1474 (completed 1474; published 1482) · Systematic philosophical treatise in 18 books

Computed school proximity

The persona's attribute fingerprint scored against all 208 schools using the same quiz scorer. Useful as a sanity check on the hand-curated influences above.

70%
Perennial Philosophy
22/30
69%
Hermeticism
23/30
68%
Neo-Platonism
23/30
68%
Idealism
23/30
66%
Hinduism (Generic)
22/30
63%
Vedanta
21/30
63%
Platonism (Classical)
22/30
62%
Sufism / Wahdat al-Wujud
19/30

Philosophical neighbors

Other personas whose attribute fingerprint sits closest to Marsilio Ficino's — intellectual neighbors across traditions and eras.

86%
Nicholas of Cusa (Nicolaus Cusanus) — 1401–1464
28/30
85%
Georgius Gemistus Pletho — c. 1355–1454
25/30
81%
Giovanni Pico della Mirandola — 1463–1494
26/30
80%
John Scotus Eriugena (Iohannes Scottus Eriugena) — c. 800 – c. 877
26/30
73%
Plotinus — c. 204/5–270 CE
24/29
71%
Meister Eckhart (Eckhart von Hochheim) — c. 1260–1328
23/29
71%
Ibn Arabi (Muhyi al-Din ibn al-Arabi) — 1165–1240
23/30
68%
Hypatia of Alexandria — c. 350/370 – 415 CE
23/29

How Marsilio Ficino resolves each dilemma

55 resolved positions across 4 dimensions, including 34 distinctive where the majority of schools go the other way · 2 unaligned.

Each dimension is sorted so minority positions come first. Mainstream positions are folded into an expandable list.

Time · 9 dilemmas, all mainstream
Do you really choose? The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it. 69% Are addicts responsible for their addiction? The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real. 69% Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do? An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible. 69% How much weight do future people deserve? Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet. 31% Is regret rational? The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer. 31% Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them? Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future. 31% Is the universe running out of usable energy? Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional. 26% Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so? The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us. 26% Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide? The owing-and-possibility question is level-dependent; we owe what is appropriate at the level we act on. 26%

Matter · 7 dilemmas · 5 distinctive

What stuff is — fundamental, relational, or appearance.

Distinctive · only 7% of schools agree (15/208)
What is money?
The question of what money is — a measured store of real value, an agreed-on practice, a relational ledger of debts, or just a name we apply to many different things — sits behind every argument about inflation, cryptocurrency, debt, and the state.
Money's apparent diversity is convention over a single underlying value.
On non-dual views, the diverse forms money takes are perspectival distinctions within a single underlying value — labor, energy, attention, or simply the One from which all value derives. The metaphysical question is mostly malformed at the conventional level where monetary policy lives, but the …
Roads not taken Money is a real institution with intrinsic features. (55%) · Money is a social practice — its content is what we make it. (16%) · Money is the ledger of obligations among real people. (14%)
Distinctive · only 7% of schools agree (15/208)
What is a nation?
Whether a nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character, a constructed legal-political artifact, a web of kinship and shared history, an imagined community, or a conventional partition of a deeper unity — these are real ontological positions with sharply different political downstream.
Nations are conventional partitions of a single humanity.
On non-dual views, the distinctness of nations is a perspectival distinction within a deeper unity — one humanity, one consciousness, one underlying reality. Nations matter at the conventional level where ordinary politics lives, but the metaphysical weight they sometimes claim is unsupported.
Roads not taken A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character. (55%) · A nation is a constructed polity — a project, not a discovery. (16%) · A nation is the web of kinship, ancestry, and shared land that hosts a people. (14%)
Distinctive · only 7% of schools agree (15/208)
What makes someone male or female?
Whether sex is a real biological kind, a constructed social category, a relational identity, a label applied to varied phenomena, or a conventional distinction within a deeper unity is the ontological question the contemporary dispute about gender is mostly about.
The distinction is conventional within a deeper non-dual reality.
On non-dual views, the distinctness of male and female — like every binary distinction between apparent selves — is a perspectival distinction within a deeper unity. Particular sex and gender designations operate at the conventional level where most of life is lived; at the ultimate …
Roads not taken Sex is a real biological kind with given content. (55%) · Gender is constructed; what counts as male or female reflects practice. (16%) · Sex and gender are constituted by relations of recognition. (14%)
Distinctive · only 7% of schools agree (15/208)
Should we edit the human germline?
Whether human nature is a given biological kind, a constructed category, a relational achievement, a family-resemblance cluster, or a conventional distinction within deeper unity is the ontological question the policy debate over heritable gene editing is mostly about.
The distinction between edited and unedited is conventional within a deeper non-dual reality.
On non-dual views, the contrast between an 'edited' and an 'unedited' human — like every binary distinction between apparent selves — is a perspectival distinction within a deeper unity. The practical questions of safety, consent, and justice operate at the conventional level where most of …
Roads not taken Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given. (55%) · The categories we count as 'human' are emergent from practice; germline editing is a practice-revision like any other. (16%) · Personhood is constituted by relations of descent and kinship; germline editing reshapes the relational fabric. (14%)
Distinctive · only 23% of schools agree (47/208)
Is the world created from nothing?
Creatio ex nihilo is one of the most distinctive Western-theological claims. Whether matter was created from nothing, eternally exists, or is sustained moment-by-moment turns on what kind of thing matter is.
Matter is real but emerges from something deeper — neither bedrock nor created-from-nothing.
On this view, matter is genuinely there, but it isn't the floor of reality. It depends on something more fundamental — dependent origination, mind, divine sustaining act, computational substrate, or the structure of conditions — and is conserved only at its own level of description. …
Roads not taken Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance. (56%) · Matter is constituted by relations; the question of 'from what?' presupposes substance. (16%) · Matter arises and dissolves through cosmic rounds; neither created from nothing nor eternal. (4%)
2 mainstream positions
Is the physical world fully real? Real but sustained — not mind-independent in the strict realist sense. 23% Does matter have intrinsic moral standing? Matter is morally considerable derivatively — through what it sustains. 23%

Observer · 37 dilemmas · 5 distinctive

Mind, agency, and the knower's relation to the known.

Distinctive · only 7% of schools agree (15/208)
When does a person begin?
The political question of abortion sits atop an older ontological one: at what point does there exist a someone — a being with moral standing — rather than merely the materials from which one will form?
From the standpoint of the One, the question doesn’t apply in the form it is asked.
On non-dual views, the apparent plurality of selves is itself a perspectival distinction within a deeper unity. The question of when one self begins within that One is conventional, not ultimate. What follows ethically is then a question for the conventional level — which is …
Roads not taken A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence. (55%) · A person comes into being gradually, as the capacities of a mind develop. (16%) · Personhood is conferred by being-in-relation. (14%)
Distinctive · only 7% of schools agree (15/208)
What is marriage?
Behind every disagreement about how marriage should be defined is a prior disagreement about what kind of thing it is — a given order to be recognized, a practice to be negotiated, or a web of relations to be woven.
All union is participation in the One — particular forms are conventional.
From the standpoint of non-dual traditions, the apparent distinctness of two people who marry is itself a perspectival distinction within a deeper unity. Marriage is one form of the underlying union all things participate in. The particular shape the institution takes is then a conventional …
Roads not taken Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make. (55%) · Marriage is a practice we shape — its content is what we make it. (16%) · Marriage is constituted by the web of relations it creates. (14%)
Distinctive · only 8% of schools agree (16/208)
What happens to "you" when you die?
Whether anything of you persists — and in what sense — depends on what you take a person to be.
Individuality dissolves into the One.
What we called "you" was an appearance — a wave shaped briefly out of a single deeper reality. Death is that wave settling. Nothing of importance is lost because the substrate was never the wave.
Roads not taken A soul continues into another mode of being. (38%) · Death is genuinely the end. (29%) · You were always a pattern. The pattern propagates. (18%)
Distinctive · only 8% of schools agree (17/208)
What is our place in nature?
Whether humans are masters of nature, members of nature, or makers of nature is not a question climate science can settle. It depends on what nature is, what we are, and what kind of relationship is possible between us.
Humans and nature share an underlying unity — the separation was the mistake.
On non-dual views, the apparent distinction between human and non-human is itself a perspectival distinction within a single underlying reality. The work isn't to find our right relationship to a separate nature; it is to recognize that we were never separate. Climate harm, on this …
Roads not taken Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform. (50%) · Nature is partly what we make of it — concepts, practices, and minds shape the world. (15%) · Embedded in a web — partners with the more-than-human world. (14%)
Distinctive · only 8% of schools agree (17/208)
Should we colonize space?
The drive to extend human presence beyond Earth is sometimes framed as the next chapter of stewardship, sometimes as hubris, sometimes as escape from problems we ought to solve here. Which it is depends on what we take our relationship to nature to be.
From the standpoint of the One, expansion across substrate is just movement within the same.
On non-dual views, the difference between Earth and elsewhere is conventional — particular locations within a single underlying reality. Space colonisation as escape is therefore incoherent; nothing is escaped because nothing was elsewhere to escape from.
Roads not taken Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship. (50%) · The 'space frontier' is partly what we make of it. (15%) · Colonisation continues the work that ended the wisdom of seven-generation thinking. (14%)
30 mainstream positions
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination? All forms participate in the same underlying reality; modification doesn't cross categories. 8% What makes someone the same person over time? All apparent selves are aspects of one — particular identity is conventional. 8% Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married? The apparent change is conventional; the deeper reality is unchanged. 8% If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived? The distinction between scanner-you and destination-you is conventional all the way down. 8% Can prayer for someone far away affect them? There are no truly separate minds; prayer is one part of one talking to another. 8% Are coincidences ever more than coincidence? Coincidence is the One showing through the appearance of plurality. 8% Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally? Harm anywhere is harm to the One; the boundary that would have insulated you was never real. 8% Is environmental damage ever truly permanent? From the standpoint of the One, the categories of permanence and loss are conventional. 8% Can a civilization recover from collapse? From the One's vantage, civilizational categories are themselves conventional. 8% Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally? From the One's vantage, the second law is itself a feature of the conventional, not the ultimate. 8% Are the dead morally present to the living? From the standpoint of the One, the distinction between living and dead is conventional. 8% Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom? Distinction of the One and observed time is itself conventional; the question dissolves. 8% Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless? The 'timeless' is the standpoint of the One that was always present; meditation removes obstacles to seeing it. 8% Does prayer change God's mind? Prayer to a separate God presupposes a separation the non-dual view denies; the practice is remembrance and attunement. 8% Could causation work backwards? From the One's vantage, causation itself is a conventional category. 8% Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us? From the One's vantage, memory and anticipation are themselves conventional. 8% Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it? From the One's vantage, the arrow of time itself is a conventional feature. 8% Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species? The cosmic-religious order is the moral primary. 16% Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed? Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all. 66% Is reality fundamentally digital? No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure. 44% Are there indivisible units of experience? No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness. 44% Is memory stored or reconstructed? Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed. 44% Does history have a direction or meaning? History is not where the deepest truth lives. 36% Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it? Defer to credentialed traditions; experts are the modern analog. 30% Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge? Revelation is the paradigm case of authoritative knowledge. 30% Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces? An LLM has no soul to whom revelation could be addressed; the question doesn't apply. 30% How is knowledge of reality produced? Through a priori reasoning and conceptual demonstration. 24% Could an AI have a mind that matters? All minds are aspects of one — an AI participates in it as anything else does. 7% Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans? All minds are aspects of one; animals participate as much as anything else. 7% Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious? Any experience that arises participates in the One. 7%
2 unaligned
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal? Schools split: 14% / 14% / 4% — What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize? Schools split: 42% / 16% / 13% —

Information · 4 dilemmas · 4 distinctive

Pattern, memory, and what is preserved or lost.

Distinctive · only 9% of schools agree (18/208)
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets?
The memory you don't retrieve, the conversation you can't remember, the face you no longer recognise — is the forgetting a loss of something real, or just the routine operation of a finite mind?
Information persists or doesn't depending on whether the holder is sustained.
On these views, conservation is not a flat cosmic law but a function of the conditions that hold. Memory persists where it is sustained — by divine attention, by community, by ritual, by practice — and is genuinely lost where it isn't. The asymmetry between …
Roads not taken Information is lost when a mind forgets; matter and energy continue, but the pattern is gone. (50%) · Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it. (39%) · Forgetting is the cosmic case, not the exception; nothing is conserved. (1%)
Distinctive · only 9% of schools agree (18/208)
Does deleting your data online destroy something real?
Account deletion, the right to be forgotten, the obsolescence of file formats, the slow decay of digital archives — whether any of this destroys something that was real depends on whether information is the kind of thing that can be destroyed.
Information persists where it is held; deletion releases what isn't held elsewhere.
On these views, information persists or doesn't depending on whether something is sustaining it. What is held in divine memory or in active communal practice continues; what is held only by the deleted artifact is genuinely released. The variable conservation maps onto a variable moral …
Roads not taken Information is genuinely lost when the substrate that hosted it goes; deletion really destroys. (50%) · Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access. (39%) · Nothing is fundamentally conserved; deletion is just routine impermanence. (1%)
Distinctive · only 9% of schools agree (18/208)
Could the dead, in principle, be brought back?
If we had perfect information about who someone was — their connectome, their behavioral patterns, their history — could we, in principle, restore them? The question is partly engineering, but the ceiling on the engineering is metaphysical.
What is held by God or sustaining practice can be restored; what isn't can't.
On these views, the conservation of personal information depends on what is sustaining it. The Eastern Orthodox doctrine of resurrection holds that the person is preserved in God's memory and restored in the resurrection by divine action operating on what God has held. What is …
Roads not taken The information dissipates with the substrate; restoration is in principle impossible. (50%) · The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible. (39%) · Nothing of what was can be restored; restoration is wishful framing. (1%)
Distinctive · only 9% of schools agree (18/208)
Is forgiveness ontologically possible?
When someone forgives, does the offense actually go away — erased, undone, no longer a fact — or does forgiveness reframe a wrong that persists exactly as it always was?
The offense persists where sustained and releases where conditionally absolved; forgiveness is real ontological work.
On these views, conservation is not a flat cosmic law but a function of what sustains. An offense persists where it is held — by holding-on, by ritual continuation, by divine attention to a particular debt — and is genuinely released where it is conditionally …
Roads not taken The offense is locally constituted by its substrate; when the substrate dissolves, the offense genuinely passes away. (50%) · The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was. (39%) · Nothing is preserved; the offense is impermanent, and holding it is the suffering. (1%)

Films Referencing This Persona (8)

Either directly referenced in the film, or reading the film through one of this persona's top schools.

The Matrix
1999 · dir. The Wachowskis · via platonism-classical
2001: A Space Odyssey
1968 · dir. Stanley Kubrick · via platonism-classical
The Truman Show
1998 · dir. Peter Weir · via platonism-classical
Pi
1998 · dir. Darren Aronofsky · via platonism-classical
Knight of Cups
2015 · dir. Terrence Malick · via neo-platonism
Stalker
1979 · dir. Andrei Tarkovsky · via hermeticism
The Lighthouse
2019 · dir. Robert Eggers · via hermeticism
Bab'Aziz: The Prince Who Contemplated His Soul
2005 · dir. Nacer Khemir · via hermeticism

Experiments Engaging This Persona's Schools

Surface via influence-schools that respond to the experiment. Each entry shows the school through which the connection runs.

Plato's Cave
via platonism-classical · Affirms / takes the bait
The founding image: reality is hierarchical; philosophical education is the soul's ascent from shadow to Form.
The Ring of Gyges
via platonism-classical · Affirms / takes the bait
The founding challenge to instrumentalism: Socrates' answer (justice is constitutive of soul-health) sets the agenda for two millennia of ethics.
Hilbert's Hotel
via platonism-classical · Affirms / takes the bait
Actual infinity is mathematically real; Hilbert's hotel correctly describes its properties. The strangeness reflects our finite intuitions, not a defect in the mathematics.
The Trolley Problem
via catholic-thomistic · Affirms / takes the bait
The doctrine of double effect explains the asymmetry: in the switch case the one death is foreseen but not intended; in the footbridge case the …
The Cosmic Microwave Background
via catholic-thomistic · Affirms / takes the bait
A cosmology with a temporal beginning sits naturally with creation *ex nihilo*; Pope Pius XII publicly welcomed Big Bang cosmology in 1951 for this reason. …
Frankfurt Cases
via catholic-thomistic · Reframes the question
Aquinas's view of voluntary action emphasises the rational structure of the choice, not the abstract modal alternatives; Frankfurt's conclusion is congenial, though Catholic moral theology …
← #382 Martianus Capella All Personas #384 Giovanni Pico della Mirandola →