< < <
Date Index > > > |
Re: MI, RP's, and the Problem of Scholastic Scientia by francesco ranci 19 June 2002 09:14 UTC |
< < <
Thread Index > > > |
Dear Luke Rondinaro, any "theological-scientifical" mix is like a glass of oil and water: they don't go together. Best wishes, Francesco Ranci --- Luke Rondinaro <larondin@yahoo.com> wrote: > Dear WSN. > Before I break off the listserv discussion on > Misleading Indicators, the “Mirror” metaphor, and > “Real Principles” (and continue the conversation via > private email between myself and Ranci) I wanted to > say that anyone who’s interested in reading the > ongoing discussion between us on this topic is > welcome to get in touch with me at > larondin@yahoo.com and as the discussion continues > I’ll make sure to CC you. Otherwise, I’ll end it on > the WSNforum at this point. In the meantime, please > do consider the following caveat/question piece I > wrote up on the issue of Scholastic > scientia/philosophy in scholarship. If you would, > please respond by private email to me and not WSN > unless you believe its a worthwhile point for > everyone to read. Thanks. > > ********** > > In my continuation pieces regarding the Misleading > Indicators, the “Mirror” metaphor and “Real > Principles” I went into a short explanation of the > matter I was discussing (i.e., the parsing of > Shostak’s particular sentence that was cited and the > conceptual basis of it) and I talked about it in > terms of Thomistic-Scholastic Epistemology and > Ontology [Metaphysics], the study of Being as Being. > > But, just so we’re clear, I want to make absolutely > sure I make this point. Even though I like the > character and the methodology of Scholasticism a > great deal, and even though I think its theoretic > potential and technical, precision terminology is > wonderful, it’s not a perfect conceptual system and > it’s certainly not without its problems. > > The first obvious problem is Legalism. Now whether > the problem came out of the decline of Scholasticism > from its original Aristotelian-(Thomistic-Scotistic) > conception or whether the problem was there from the > very beginning, its roots in this factor or that > factor aren’t my concern. What is my concern is > that, whether I like it or not, all subsequent > Scholastic thought was shaped – and indeed – sullied > by the problem of Legalism. > > Yet, even so, this “legalism” of sorts seemed to > have served a purpose. In a way that neither > Platonic idealism - or other systems of thought > before and after the late Medieval period – could, > Scholasticism was able to (in a reasoned philosophic > system) achieve a level of systematization and focus > on fine circumstantial details that (was/is), at its > highest aspired heights that could ever be the true > counterpart of empirical science. Despite its > downfall as a refined system of thought, and despite > its many pitfalls as a field of intellectual > inquiry, Scholasticism is one of the few systems > which can get at both at the sharp linguistic base > of ideas that are tied into factual content (with > all the shades of meaning and nuance and symbolism > implied therein) and the actual level of analytical > focus involve in [empirical/logical] inquiry. [To > your own knowledge, can you think of any other > system of thought that can make a similar claim to > fame or an even better one? I’d be interested in > hearing about such if there is . . . As far as I > know Scholasticism still carries of air of > distinction to itself because of these > aforementioned qualities] > > In any event, all this is important to me because it > challenges the conventional wisdom about knowledge, > ideas, and communicational systems. If the standard > of written English of the New York Times is the > ideal we should be striving for in our scholarship, > then why does it seem like Aquinas’s writing and > that of the other Scholastics is able to > conceptually say so much more about its content and > through its subject matter than today’s writing can? > Today’s popular writing is supposedly simpler and > clearer and so much better than the writing of the > Scholastics; why then in spite of its “airy” > philosophy (understand at its essentials as a > personal, subjective belief system) could the > writing of Aquinas and his contemporaries get its > main points across so much better (without > misinterpretation) than the envisioned ideal of > today’s written work as embodies in the New York > Times or Newsweek? Shouldn’t today’s ideal of good > written work conceptually trump the writing of the > Scholastics (and other philosophic systems of the > Past & around the world – Greco Roman Classics, > Christian Patristics, Renaissance Humanists, etc.)? > … > > I recognize that Thomistic-Scholastic thought has > its many problems – and many of you on this list > could precisely detail these problems for me, but > how would you answer my objections? [concerning the > writing of then and the writing of now, the > conceptual basis of both and the talent of writers > in the past for getting their meaning across and > then some in terms of shading latent meanings in > what they said, the difference between then & now > regarding the meaning of philosophy – (scientia & > scientific reasoning) versus the modern definition > of philosophy given above, and the (conceptual, > idea-logical power of today’s writing - via Ockham’s > Razor - to give simpler sentences & paragraphs > without altering the meaning of a text) versus the > more complex writings of the past which seem to > conceptually trump today’s more simplified textual > material . . . ] > > ******* > > Here’s the oddity, however; despite all of this, I > do see (in systematic social science and especially > in World (-)Systems theory and modern world > historical studies) a continuation of a rigorous > integrative, analytical tradition as such was > developed under Greco-Roman thought and perfected > via the Scholastics. And, as such is the case , > there is it seems this connecting thread between the > Sciences, the Social Sciences, and systematic > Scholastic Philosophy. But it should stand to > reason that there wouldn’t be. Shouldn’t it? … > After all, Science is empirical and Scholasticism is > legal-philosophic-theoretic. How then can there be > a connection? … And if that were not enough, Social > Science in general and World(-)Systems Analysis and > World History in particular, have a concrete set of > facts and (even) a practical level of content and > issues in their analytical toolkits that > properly-speaking (at least according to modern > standards of what philosophical study consists of) > Scholasticism shouldn’t have. So why does it seem, > then, that upon a close textual analysis of > Scholastic works that the field does have such > characteristics held in common with modern > systematic social science? … It does not make > sense, but the textual evidence in Aquinas’s “Summa > Theologiae”, to give a more particular example, > seems to suggest both a specified practicality to > the work (content-wise and issue wise) as well as a > level of factually-oriented depth. How can this be, > and furthermore (if it “is), then what does this > connection between Scholasticism, Science, and > Social Science actually consist of? > > I personally see World-Systems Theory and Modern > World Historical Studies as carrying on in a great > intellectual tradition that Scholastic philosophy > aspired to as well from its beginning onward (i.e., > the idea of maintaining that all-important balance > between macro-level, system-wide, systematic > analysis and more detail-oriented, content-based > studies in one’s overall methodology). But is that > scholarly tradition itself older than Scholastic > philosophy, and if so, where do the roots of such a > tradition lie? With the Classical tradition in > Greece and Rome or someplace else at an earlier > period of Intellectual History? > > And, supposing legalism is the key here to my > questions about Scholasticism versus Science, how > would the legal-philosophic tradition of Scholastic > study compare with and differ from the character, > philosophy, and written presentation of the legal > profession, itself, today? How much of a difference > would there be in establishment and laying out of a > fact or facts (pick any sociological or economic > fact you can think of, and use that as an example > for the point I’m trying to get at here in this > discussion) be between a legal analysis and > presentation of such factual content and an > empirical, scientific or social scientific > exposition of that same content? … [Would Shostak’s > “Misleading Indicators” article itself be an example > of this kind of legalized, (socio)economic approach > to factual content?; What do you think?] > > From a world systems perspective, how would any of > you on this list answer these questions of mine? … > I look forward to your responses on this matter. > > All the best! > > Luke Rondinaro > > p.s., it seems to me that a proper way to understand > and analyze matters of this sort requires we combine > the techniques and methods of a literary approach, > linguistic analyses, as well as the more > standardized social-scientific and technical > epistemologies of scholastic-styled, scientiaefic > reasoning from late Medieval to 19th century > philosophies. Toward that end, my own ideal has > been to try and combine what I can learn from the > best === message truncated === __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
< < <
Date Index > > > |
World Systems Network List Archives at CSF | Subscribe to World Systems Network |
< < <
Thread Index > > > |