M
mcteague
Guest
Broadly speaking, over the last sixty years if you take a survey philosophy class in most public universities they will pretty much jump over the scholastic philosophers, with perhaps only a passing mention. The reason, I think, is that scholastic philosophers are seen as defending a proposition already accepted. We may admire the way an attorney can make an argument defending a position. However, few of us would confuse lawyers with philosophers.
Scholastic writers are often studied as part of comparative religion and not philosophy. And although it is true that many later thinkers were still Christian, we are generally able to distinguish between their religious and philosophical or scientific writings. The scholastic tradition, I think, is generally not seen as being independent, but as more specifically defenders of the faith.
I will quickly point out a problem just to show that I am aware of it. I think about some issue and come to a conclusion. When I explain my conclusion to another I am by definition defending it. This is true even if I completely recreate my thinking process as it existed prior to reaching the conclusion. That is I may not actually be able to be completely independent. But I think religious philosophers, and specifically scholastic ones, are seen as more biased. Their role is seen as specifically to defend a presumed correct conclusion.
Now we get to the problem of power. Even before Foucault people were aware of a relationship between power and what we may broadly call knowledge production. That is ideas that support the dominant ideology and power structure are generally rewarded. Those that do not are generally either punished or ignored. Most people would accept that philosophical arguments supporting, for example, Nazism inside Germany in the 1930s or Stalinism inside the USSR in the 1950s could not considered purely intellectual or independent. There might be extreme consequences for arguments that did not support them.
By the way, it is not my intent to equate the Catholic Church with either Nazism or Stalinism. I am simply using them to illustrate a point about power.
During the middle ages the Catholic Church was at the height of its power. It seems likely that arguments supporting that, at the time, dominant ideology would have been rewarded, and ones opposing it would not have fared well. There would have been consequences for opposing it. It seems unlikely, if he had lived at that time, that after proclaiming “God is dead” Nietzsche would have survived long. Although this may indicate a mistake in assigning the excesses of the inquisition to a much longer historical period.
Still I do think that the problems of power relationships and also of seeming to be only defending an already accepted conclusion present problems for the modern thinker. This view would be considered anti-religious by many in this forum. And I suppose that from a certain perspective it is.
Personally, I think there is much value in studying these Christian pre-enlightenment intellectuals. Although I choose not to identify myself here with any religion or philosophical school, I am not anti religion. But I think reconciling the place of scholastic and other religious base intellectual traditions within a modern liberal world is difficult. We live in a world that wants to separate religion from politics, and in fact all intellectual spheres. And many people seem to be fighting battles long past. The crusades, inquisition, and thirty years war were quite a while. And although he gets a fair share of media coverage, the pope in not, by along shot, what he used to be.
There are many here who seemed seem well versed in scholastic teachings. It seems that many of you are unhappy with the marginalization of christian philosophy in the modern western intellectual canon.
Are any of the concerns of the modern secular thinker valid? Is it possible to reconcile the general criticisms of the Scholastic tradition, so that that intellectual tradition is not seen as completely incompatible with the modern secular intellectual world. Is it possible for religious based philosophies of that historical period to be taught along side later, and often more secular ones, in a way that addresses the concerns of all parties.
Scholastic writers are often studied as part of comparative religion and not philosophy. And although it is true that many later thinkers were still Christian, we are generally able to distinguish between their religious and philosophical or scientific writings. The scholastic tradition, I think, is generally not seen as being independent, but as more specifically defenders of the faith.
I will quickly point out a problem just to show that I am aware of it. I think about some issue and come to a conclusion. When I explain my conclusion to another I am by definition defending it. This is true even if I completely recreate my thinking process as it existed prior to reaching the conclusion. That is I may not actually be able to be completely independent. But I think religious philosophers, and specifically scholastic ones, are seen as more biased. Their role is seen as specifically to defend a presumed correct conclusion.
Now we get to the problem of power. Even before Foucault people were aware of a relationship between power and what we may broadly call knowledge production. That is ideas that support the dominant ideology and power structure are generally rewarded. Those that do not are generally either punished or ignored. Most people would accept that philosophical arguments supporting, for example, Nazism inside Germany in the 1930s or Stalinism inside the USSR in the 1950s could not considered purely intellectual or independent. There might be extreme consequences for arguments that did not support them.
By the way, it is not my intent to equate the Catholic Church with either Nazism or Stalinism. I am simply using them to illustrate a point about power.
During the middle ages the Catholic Church was at the height of its power. It seems likely that arguments supporting that, at the time, dominant ideology would have been rewarded, and ones opposing it would not have fared well. There would have been consequences for opposing it. It seems unlikely, if he had lived at that time, that after proclaiming “God is dead” Nietzsche would have survived long. Although this may indicate a mistake in assigning the excesses of the inquisition to a much longer historical period.
Still I do think that the problems of power relationships and also of seeming to be only defending an already accepted conclusion present problems for the modern thinker. This view would be considered anti-religious by many in this forum. And I suppose that from a certain perspective it is.
Personally, I think there is much value in studying these Christian pre-enlightenment intellectuals. Although I choose not to identify myself here with any religion or philosophical school, I am not anti religion. But I think reconciling the place of scholastic and other religious base intellectual traditions within a modern liberal world is difficult. We live in a world that wants to separate religion from politics, and in fact all intellectual spheres. And many people seem to be fighting battles long past. The crusades, inquisition, and thirty years war were quite a while. And although he gets a fair share of media coverage, the pope in not, by along shot, what he used to be.
There are many here who seemed seem well versed in scholastic teachings. It seems that many of you are unhappy with the marginalization of christian philosophy in the modern western intellectual canon.
Are any of the concerns of the modern secular thinker valid? Is it possible to reconcile the general criticisms of the Scholastic tradition, so that that intellectual tradition is not seen as completely incompatible with the modern secular intellectual world. Is it possible for religious based philosophies of that historical period to be taught along side later, and often more secular ones, in a way that addresses the concerns of all parties.
