A Reply to Rovira: Can the "Imperfection" of my Philosophy of Pure Perfections be Overcome?

Abstract

In his excellent paper “Perfection and Imperfection of Josef Seifert’s Theory of Pure Perfections,” Rogelio Rovira has formulated with precision Anselm of Canterbury’s philosophical discovery of the pure perfections and Duns Scotus‘ refinements of this teaching. He has further attributed to me, more than generously, eight improvements of the philosophy of pure perfections. In the last part of his essay, he has asked two excellent questions about my philosophy of pure perfections which to answer, as well as I am able to, is my present task. Rovira thinks that I have never addressed the first of these two questions, at least not adequately.1 The other issue arises from distinctions expressly proposed by me but has not been sufficiently treated yet. He kindly describes what he means by “imperfections,” rather than in terms of faults, as parts of my position that stand in need of further investigations and are perfectible. In spite of these imperfections, he even bestows the title doctor perfectionum on me, an honor I certainly do not deserve as long as I have no answers for him.