User:Coth02/John of Głogów

Published Works and Commentaries
John of Glogów wrote extensively on various topics of philosophy, geology, and logic. One of his most notable philosophical work was his commentary on Peter of Spain. In his commentary, John, along with Michael of Biestrzycowa, rejected the paradoxes of strict implication based on the notion of everyday law. In other words, they did not believe Peter of Spain's findings were an accurate model to follow ordinarily. It was suggested that John and Michael were also rejecting conjunctive simplification, but it was never formally confirmed. One of the issues they thought to contest was the domain surrounding antecedents and consequents. Specifically, whether consequent was a subsection of antecedents, weather it was formal or informal, and weather it had a natural connection or a relation to reason. In John's commentary on the seventh treatise of the Summulae (Latin for Summaries), also know as the Parva logicalia, by Peter of Spain, John challenged the historically accepted laws on logic. Specifically, the two rules stating from the impossible anything follows and the necessary follows from anything.

John continued these themes of contradiction in his other commentaries including his commentaries on Aristotle's work. John did not focus on Aristotle's astronomy or Mathematics, but rather Aristotle's metaphysical ideas. He questioned whether the connection between words and concepts was properly allocated for in Aristotle's Book of Predicaments. In addition, John deconstructed and analyzed Aristotle's book of Prior Analysis. Throughout John's commentaries on Aristotle's work, his topics stemmed for one central idea. This idea is whether there are truly relationships between the nature of reality and reasoning. For example, Is the syllogism between the body and soul to the universe accurate. In addition, John introduced some lines of his own thinking like the similarities between humans and animals. This material would be further developed by René Descartes. One of John's last commentaries on Aristotle was comptus chirometralis, which focuses on ethics.

The year before John passed away, he finished his commentary on Johannes de Sacrobosco. Johannes's publication was called Sphaera. While the piece of work fell under the topic of astronomy, John was able to connect it with astrology also. During this time period, there was a large debate arguing the proper use of celestial orbs. Followers of Ptolemy believed orbs were a combination of epicycles and eccentrics, while followers of Averroe thought orbs needed to be centered around the earth, therefore epicycles and eccentrics were physically impossible. John, being a strong follower of Ptolemy's science, used his commentary of Johannes's work to argue in favor of orbs being made of epicycles and eccentrics, though his main reason for creating the commentary was to teach it to his students at The University of Kraków. Throughout the commentary, John contradicts Johannes on several points. First, he argues Johannes's circles are not legitimate because mathematical concepts cannot cause celestial objects to move. In addition, John goes on to explain that the sun is in a eccentric orb, moved by its annual motion, and rotates slowly. Another point john refutes it the number of orbs needed to explain the moon's motion. John believes 4 orbs are required.