1. The medieval schoolmen studied Aristotle, that is clear. What was their purpose in doing so? Was it only for the sake of their theology? Or did they wish to learn philosophy as philosophy?
2. Did they respect the integrity and reasoning of the science, as it was laid out by Aristotle in his lectures? How seriously did they take Aristotle's treatment of the sciences? Was the predominant attitude to use Aristotle only in so far as he bolstered their theological arguments, but without looking at how his arguments fit into the rest of his sciences, as he laid them out? (If he contradicted the Faith he was corrected with a response and/or not employed.) Was their theology so important that they lost sight of the philosophical argumentation?
I have to say that from what I have read of St. Bonaventure, this characterization appears to be true for him. But what of the Franciscans who came after him, or the secular masters? One can appropriate Aristotle without learning well from him, and the early medievals may have been disadvantaged in comparison with their successors.
3. The medievals had inherited certain ways of understanding material creation, but much of this apparatus was not Divinely revealed but given by their non-Christian predecessors, for example the neo-Platonists. Still, are the Augustinian and Aristotelian accounts of the soul so opposed that they cannot be reconciled? With regards to understanding Aristotle's physics as preparation for metaphysics -- was there a problem there as well? Did some jump into metaphysics without acquiring physics first? It seems to me that the later medievals took his physics more seriously.
4. What about Aristotelian logic? I have been unable to investigate the medieval appropriation of logic and its development (especially in relation to metaphysics) I'll have to pick up a copy of Medieval Logic: An Outline of Its Development from 1250 to c. 1400 by Philotheus Boehner. Can differences between Aquinas and Scotus (or Ockham) be reduced or at least partially linked to different understandings/interpretations of Aristotle?
7 comments:
Perhaps this sermon of St. Bernard of Clairvaux—the "clear-voiced," "Honey Mouthed Doctor" (Doctor Mellificus)—will help answer your questions.
Also, regarding Ockham, he like most nominalists were opposed to the Papacy and more in favor of a secular society.
And if you want a good text on logic, read John Deely's 1985 translation of John of St. Thomas's Tractatus de Signis, available gratis online.
I've been waiting for St. Augustine Press to republish Deely's translation...
I thought they did in 2008: click here.
It was scheduled to be published then, but St. Augustine has been behind in its schedule? Mr. Fingerhut said it might be available this Summer, but I have not received anything yet.
According to this they released it 4 days ago.
Thank you for the notice; I will see if I receive anything in the next few days...
Mr. Aversa, I exchanged e-mails with Mr. Fingerhut today -- the book won't go to the printer until October, and he will be contacting Amazon so the page can be updated.
Post a Comment