John is taking the middle ground whereas Dante is pro-monarchy. How do their arguments differ? Like, for example, Dante is taking an Aristotelian idea and justifying his claims based on Aristotle's high status and inductive reasoning: humans are distinguished by reason and they exercise that to do what they do best in groups, and that needs to be universal. I hope I'm interpreting it right. How does it differ from John of Paris's argument in On Royal and Papal Power?

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.