This is interesting...earlier on in probably a different religious tradition than that you are describing, wasn't a big part of Aquinas that even though divine law came to us through revelation, we could still contemplate natural law through reason and that we had the ability to moral self-perfect ourselves through God-given free will? Either Augustine or Aquinas said that this was the case with Aristotle and that he did not go to hell for this reason. How did this change into what you are describing in later thinkers?
-
Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .
Ask a Philosopher!
- Thread starter Fifty
- Start date
This is interesting...earlier on in probably a different religious tradition than that you are describing, wasn't a big part of Aquinas that even though divine law came to us through revelation, we could still contemplate natural law through reason and that we had the ability to moral self-perfect ourselves through God-given free will? Either Augustine or Aquinas said that this was the case with Aristotle and that he did not go to hell for this reason. How did this change into what you are describing in later thinkers?
It really came about with the rediscovery of ancient scepticism in the sixteenth century. People like Montaigne used the arguments of the Academics and (above all) Sextus Empiricus to attack "dogmatic" philosophy such as that of the scholastics. Montaigne's friend Pierre Charron was a very important figure who used this sceptical approach to defend Christianity. So it was a sort of side effect of the re-emergence of scepticism as an important philosophical tradition. Charron was widely read throughout the seventeenth century and became very influential (Bayle gives him a glowing write-up in his dictionary). In the second half of the seventeenth century, most sceptical philosophers turned their attention to Cartesianism rather than scholasticism, but the basic approach was the same. Huet, for example, wrote a demolition of Cartesianism that was so popular it became a set text in Cartesian universities (for students to criticise), and he also argued at length that scepticism is the only philosophy that is really consistent with Christianity.
MagisterCultuum
Great Sage
That doesn't sound like Augustine at all to me. It sounds closer to Justin Martyr's concept that Christ is the Divine Logos as so philosophers like Aristotle who sought the Logos were Christians unaware.
I agree - I'm sure Augustine didn't say anything like this and I can't recall Aquinas doing so. Justin mentioned a number of pagan philosophers as "anonymous Christians", including Socrates and Heraclitus, but not Aristotle (Aristotle was unpopular among early Christians).
Aquinas thought that Aristotle shows the way to perfect natural virtue, but not theological virtue - perhaps that's what pau17 is thinking of.
Plotinus said:
Sorry, I tried to remember where I had heard/read this and I couldn't; I guess it's just an erroneous particle that got stuck in there somehow. Thanks for the correction.
But if Aquinas thought what you said about Aristotle, what was Aristotle's "status" then per se?
Well, for Aquinas, Aristotle was a pagan philosopher who was pretty much bang on the money on all non-religious matters. He was, however, still a pagan and not infallible. I don't know if Aquinas said anything explicitly about Aristotle's salvation status but I assume he would have held what was the orthodox position at the time, namely that such pagans would not be saved.
If you mean what was Aristotle's "status" in general at the time (rather than in Aquinas' eyes), then that was much more tenuous - Aristotle was very controversial in the thirteenth century, with plenty of people thinking he was a Very Bad Thing altogether (and a fair few people going to the opposite extreme and making him practically an infallible authority). It was awkward, though, since so much of medieval philosophy was based on Aristotle. Even before the "rediscovery" of his metaphysical, physical, and ethical works in the late twelfth century, Aristotle's logic was virtually the only ancient philosophy that anyone in western Europe knew; the Categories was by far the biggest influence on early medieval philosophy. So when the new works turned up and proved highly controversial, it was still the case that even people who wanted nothing to do with them, and tried to ban them or the ideas associated with them, were basing their philosophy on other texts of Aristotle.
In the final third of the thirteenth century Aristotle was even more controversial - the condemnation of some of Aquinas' doctrines at Paris in 1277 was a big blow to the reputation not only of Aquinas himself but of Aristotelianism in general. Figures such as Henry of Ghent or Matthew of Aquasparta led a sort of anti-Aristotelian resurgence of Augustinianism. Here again, though, we find them citing Aristotle constantly in their works, because all medieval philosophy, even the most anti-Aristotelian kind, was still pretty much based on Aristotle.
In the fourteenth century, with the canonisation of Aquinas, the moderate view of Aristotle that he championed became more and more standard. Philosophically speaking, theories associated with Aristotle also became generally accepted at this time (I'm thinking especially of his theories of knowledge and perception - the rival Augustinian theory of "illumination" was comprehensively annihilated by Duns Scotus, after which Aristotelianism held the field in that department for centuries). This continued through the "silver age" of scholasticism and right into the seventeenth century, when scholasticism lost its pre-eminence in western philosophy. However, it should be remembered that scholastic philosophy survived and is still done today - just read Bernard Lonergan if you want to see what modern scholasticism looks like (it looks exactly like medieval scholasticism). Aristotle remains by far the biggest single influence on scholastic philosophy.
If you mean what was Aristotle's "status" in general at the time (rather than in Aquinas' eyes), then that was much more tenuous - Aristotle was very controversial in the thirteenth century, with plenty of people thinking he was a Very Bad Thing altogether (and a fair few people going to the opposite extreme and making him practically an infallible authority). It was awkward, though, since so much of medieval philosophy was based on Aristotle. Even before the "rediscovery" of his metaphysical, physical, and ethical works in the late twelfth century, Aristotle's logic was virtually the only ancient philosophy that anyone in western Europe knew; the Categories was by far the biggest influence on early medieval philosophy. So when the new works turned up and proved highly controversial, it was still the case that even people who wanted nothing to do with them, and tried to ban them or the ideas associated with them, were basing their philosophy on other texts of Aristotle.
In the final third of the thirteenth century Aristotle was even more controversial - the condemnation of some of Aquinas' doctrines at Paris in 1277 was a big blow to the reputation not only of Aquinas himself but of Aristotelianism in general. Figures such as Henry of Ghent or Matthew of Aquasparta led a sort of anti-Aristotelian resurgence of Augustinianism. Here again, though, we find them citing Aristotle constantly in their works, because all medieval philosophy, even the most anti-Aristotelian kind, was still pretty much based on Aristotle.
In the fourteenth century, with the canonisation of Aquinas, the moderate view of Aristotle that he championed became more and more standard. Philosophically speaking, theories associated with Aristotle also became generally accepted at this time (I'm thinking especially of his theories of knowledge and perception - the rival Augustinian theory of "illumination" was comprehensively annihilated by Duns Scotus, after which Aristotelianism held the field in that department for centuries). This continued through the "silver age" of scholasticism and right into the seventeenth century, when scholasticism lost its pre-eminence in western philosophy. However, it should be remembered that scholastic philosophy survived and is still done today - just read Bernard Lonergan if you want to see what modern scholasticism looks like (it looks exactly like medieval scholasticism). Aristotle remains by far the biggest single influence on scholastic philosophy.
holy king
Deity
what do you think of zizek in general?
This question remains unanswered.
Citation needed. (AFAIK Aztec thinking did not separate the theological from the philosophical, which seems like a necessary prerquisite for labelling something philosophy.)
A problem with Chinese philosophy (apart from a strong theological component) is that until modern times it wasn't a separate academic study/field as it was and is in Indian/Western philosophy.
A question that apparently hasn't been asked before: What makes Marx a Great Philosopher?
GoodGame
Red, White, & Blue, baby!
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2004
- Messages
- 13,725
What do you think about people coming on the internet and asking other people to prove that they exist (as if proof could actually be demonstrated through an internet forum)?
Is it a pointless example of solipism, honest philosophical inquiry, or something else?
Is it a pointless example of solipism, honest philosophical inquiry, or something else?
ArneHD
Just a little bit mad
Slightly related to the above: is it possible to prove that I exist to myself? I.E. How can I be certain of my own existence?
MagisterCultuum
Great Sage
Pretty much all I know about Aztec philosophy comes from Charles C. Mann's 1491: New Revelations of the Native Americans Before Columbus, which I read only once 4 years ago. From what I recall Mann seemed to think that even though many leading Aztec philosophers were priests their philosophies had no more to do with their religion than Greek philosophy had to do with the worships of the Olympian Pantheon.
Smellincoffee
Trekkie At Large
Is your approach to philosophy more academic or practical? That is, do you prefer to know the thoughts of philosophers, or do you attempt to live in a philosophical manner -- in the pursuit of virtue or virtuous pleasure, like the Stoics or Epicureans?
_random_
Jewel Runner
Speaking of Epicureans, why do they get such a bad rep?
Short version:
After the official approval of Christianity by Constantine, Epicureanism was repressed. Epicurus' materialist theories that the gods were physical beings composed of atoms who were unconcerned with human affairs and had not created the universe, and his general teaching that one's own pleasure, rather than service to God, was the greatest good were essentially irreconcilable with Christian teachings. The school endured a long period of obscurity and decline.
Long version: Plotinus?
After the official approval of Christianity by Constantine, Epicureanism was repressed. Epicurus' materialist theories that the gods were physical beings composed of atoms who were unconcerned with human affairs and had not created the universe, and his general teaching that one's own pleasure, rather than service to God, was the greatest good were essentially irreconcilable with Christian teachings. The school endured a long period of obscurity and decline.
Long version: Plotinus?
Epicureanism had a bad reputation long before the Christians came along. The Christians merely inherited the attitude to Epicureanism that the Stoics and Platonists had already developed. You are right to highlight the Epicureans' attitude to the gods and their ethical theories as the source of this negative attitude, though. To other philosophers the Epicureans were barely distinct from atheists, and their belief that pleasure is the good was ridiculed as a sort of crass hedonism. In fact of course the Epicureans believed that the best pleasures were moderate and simple, but the Stoics in particular had a diametrically opposed concept of the good.
Epicurean physics was also unpopular because of the way it apparently sought to explain everything materialistically, through the movement of atoms. This removed not only the gods (as spiritual beings) but also the soul (as a spiritual substance). Obviously it was primarily Platonists who objected to this, as neither Stoics nor Aristotelians were much bothered, especially the Stoics, who were materialists themselves. The Christians, however, were Platonists in this regard. However, it was Epicurus' physics, and especially his atomism, which led to something of a revival of Epicureanism in early modern times, notably by Gassendi.
There's nothing particularly incompatible about Epicureanism and Christianity. The Epicureans' downgrading of the pagan gods should have been quite palatable to the Christians, and I don't think there's anything in Christianity to rule out a hedonistic ethic, although historically speaking such an ethical theory has not generally been very popular among Christians. The incompatibility was with Platonism, which the Christians had adopted as their preferred philosophy.
Also, I'm sure that Epicureanism wasn't repressed by Constantine or his immediate successors, although its popularity - which had never been great given the popular misconceptions about it - obviously declined as Christianity became more popular. Epicurus' Garden, like Plato's Academy, remained operational until the time of Justinian.
Epicurean physics was also unpopular because of the way it apparently sought to explain everything materialistically, through the movement of atoms. This removed not only the gods (as spiritual beings) but also the soul (as a spiritual substance). Obviously it was primarily Platonists who objected to this, as neither Stoics nor Aristotelians were much bothered, especially the Stoics, who were materialists themselves. The Christians, however, were Platonists in this regard. However, it was Epicurus' physics, and especially his atomism, which led to something of a revival of Epicureanism in early modern times, notably by Gassendi.
There's nothing particularly incompatible about Epicureanism and Christianity. The Epicureans' downgrading of the pagan gods should have been quite palatable to the Christians, and I don't think there's anything in Christianity to rule out a hedonistic ethic, although historically speaking such an ethical theory has not generally been very popular among Christians. The incompatibility was with Platonism, which the Christians had adopted as their preferred philosophy.
Also, I'm sure that Epicureanism wasn't repressed by Constantine or his immediate successors, although its popularity - which had never been great given the popular misconceptions about it - obviously declined as Christianity became more popular. Epicurus' Garden, like Plato's Academy, remained operational until the time of Justinian.
Er, well, Epicurus was later than both Plato and Aristotle, so any counter-factual success of Epicureanism wouldn't have affected them, although it might have affected the later development of the traditions they founded. I'm not sure that Epicureanism would have led to great advances in chemistry though. Epicurean "atoms" didn't have much in common with the "atoms" of modern science other than the name; in fact what we call "atoms" are emphatically not "atoms" as ancient philosophers understood them, since the principal property of ancient atoms was that they were indivisible.
Murky
Deity
Do you think people would care more about the environment and sustainability if they believed in reincarnation?
GoodGame
Red, White, & Blue, baby!
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2004
- Messages
- 13,725
True in the sense of quanta, etc... It would make an interesting What if in terms of chemical empiricism. Didn't it take until the Ibn's for chemical empiricism to develop? I'm pretty sure that didn't involve any sense of what the atoms were composed of (bread-pudding, orbitals, whatever).
Thanks for pointing out my error in the timeline. Curious how atomic theory might be incorporated into Aristolean theory, especially on influence on church deistic philosophies.
Similar threads
