Re: MI, RP's, and the Problem of Scholastic Scientia

 I’d agree with you up to a point … Problem is, it’s a little more complex than the difference between “oil” and “water” that doesn’t mix.  The operative distinction that must be drawn between “faith” and “reason” requires we answer the question, “what are ‘faith’ and ‘reason’ ?”

One can’t just say “reason” is a matter of the “head” and “faith” is a matter of the heart.  Because, if we look closely at the writings of the Apostle Paul, the works of Tertulian and Origen, the scholarship of Augustine and Ambrose, and then onward right up until the Scholastics come on the European intellectual scene, we find that all this Christian tradition was as much about the “head” and intellectualized religious matters as it was about (if not more so) the “heart.”  In fact, the very distinction of the soul as being made up of Intellect and Will (a traditional, pre-Thomistic clarification in Christian thought) seems to leave small place for religious and spiritual “matters of the heart” that center mostly on emotionalism and affective concerns.  This is especially so regarding Patristic treatment of the “passions” and how these should be defused and/or re-routed before they led to the spiritual and physical downfall of people unusually stirred up by them. 

Spiritual (and religious) matters themselves were interpreted in terms of the Intellect and Will, and non-physicalities also were discussed in the same metaphysical fashion.  Spirituality was the act of putting yourself in the proper receptive state to accept religious truths that were taught to you and/or that came to you – or were more deeply revealed – via your prayers and meditations.  Theology, was the scientia  or broad-based of God and the things of God; more of an scholarly and speculative field and then only secondarily a field concerned with priestly formation and pastoral; it was never the same as “Religion” or “Doctrine” – it consisted of a scholarly extension of them. (…)

And, then, Scholasticism comes on the scene in the Latter Middle Ages and it unites “faith” and “reason” in a new form.  But, in light of what I just said, what is these “reason?”  It was Greco-Roman rationalism and more specifically, Aristotelian rationalism.  But here’s the catch!  The pre-Scholastic priest-intellectuals of the Christian tradition also believed in the harmony of the intellective function with Faith.  They however choose Plato as their patron, and not Aristotle (and in other cases many of the other Greco-Roman thinkers whose intellectual contributions were not lost to the Medieval/Western tradition).  The difference comes though to this.  Neoplatonism was made a function of their Christian-Catholic theology and not the other way around.  The truly revolutionary character of Scholasticism not only put faith and reason on an equal synthesized footing; it actually reinterpreted the entire Judeo-Christian tradition, Revelation, Scripture, and Doctrine in the light of the rationalist, Aristotelian universe.  The God of the Hebrews and the Apostles, the God who called himself “I AM WHO AM” was the Prime Mover of the Philosophers, was Pure Act, and so forth.  The universe (spiritual and physical) fell into place from there.  That was the revolutionary genius of the Scholastic movement in the Later Middle Ages; and in a very real way it opened the flood gates and gave birth to the European Renaissance.

**********

Now that I’ve said this, it’s time to move back to the heart of what I was talking about in my previous posting.  In terms of its logical, scientiaefic method and in terms of its philosophic base of ideas, how should Scholasticism be assessed in the light of modern Science and Social Science?  Based on its legalized structure as a framework of intellectual principles, how should it be assessed?  And, what sort of comparison/contrast should we draw between it and the modern study of Law.  And, here’s the clincher; is Scholasticism in its formulated ideas and presentation closer to the modern study of Law or the Sciences/Social Sciences?  (Note, I’m not talking necessarily about experimental/empirical methodology; what I’m talking about is how each of these field’s puts together its ideas) … From a world(-)systems perspective, how should we assess these larger issues?

I look forward to your insights on this matter.

All the best!

Luke R.

  francesco ranci <francescoranci@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Dear Luke Rondinaro, any "theological-scientifical"
> mix is like a glass of oil and water: they don't go
> together. 
>
> Best wishes,
> Francesco Ranci

---

Do You Yahoo!?
Sign-up for Video Highlights of 2002 FIFA World Cup