< < <
Date Index > > > |
Re: MI, RP's, and the Problem of Scholastic Scientia by francesco ranci 24 June 2002 09:42 UTC |
< < <
Thread Index > > > |
You are not totally convincing in saying that Scholasticism, by way of chosing Aristotle against Plato opened the way to the European Renaissance. Galileo was a Platonist, for example, and so were many others in Tuscany during the Renaissance. They were actually neo-platonists, opposing scholasticism. At any rate the crucial factor of the Renaissance was the re-discovery of Ellenistic authors and works through the Arabs (by Leonardo da Vinci and of course others). "Fauth" and "Reason/Science" have been matter of great debates. They are opposite to each other in that if I believe something I am not going to check on that, while if I want to be reasonable or rational, I'll do the check. If I say: "I believe Mary loves me", as opposed to "I know she loves me", I refuse to positively check on that (or at least try, for example by asking or observing her more carefully). That's why I think tha any speculation about God is a matter of faith, and not of science - or even reason. Because in the end you can never be sure of anything in that area. Francesco Ranci --- Luke Rondinaro <larondin@yahoo.com> wrote: > > 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 __________________________________________________ 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 > > > |