Talk:Scholasticism

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Deckhout.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Philosophy, or term of abuse?
"Scholasticism" isn't the term usually used in general discussions of medieval philosophy; "medieval philosophy" is. "Scholasticism" is actually often used as a term of abuse. This isn't to say that there aren't a lot of useful things to be said about Scholasticism, as a philosophical movement, just that it's debatable whether discussion of medieval philosophy should go under that name. The decision should await someone versed in scholastic/medieval philosophy. --Larry Sanger
 * you are correct, scholasticism is not a philosophical movement. It is a didactic system which has historically been applied to philosophy or theology, or any system of thought, as a means of answering questions and resolving contradictions within that system of thought, but it is not a philosophy in its self. Stbalbach 07:33, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Revert edits by 66.126.175.183 because it is less clear and changes the meaning. Scholasticism is not a "belief". Stbalbach 00:38, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Buckner
I'm still pondering the wisdom of having a medieval philosophy page distinct from a scholastic philosophy page.

A technique of arguing, a style of writing, and a world view (Catholic and Aristotelian), and lots of Latin.

Is there any medieval philosophy which is not also scholastic?

Early and middle periods of scholasticism are of course medieval. The late or "second Scholasticism" of the 16C, which still awaits an article, is not. There is also "Baroque Scholasticism" which was German. There are also the Paduan and Iberian scholasticism. Then there is neo-scholasticism and neo-Thomism. Dean.

There is also the question of whether scholastic logic is any different from scholastic philosophy. I'll pass on that one.


 * Scholasticism is not a philosophy it's a didactic system thats most famously been applied to philosophy, but many other things too. In any case Scholasticism certainly should have it's own article, yes Philisophy existed before Scholasticism. --Stbalbach 01:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Before we move to what it actually is, here are some definitions from authoritative sources


 * "the manner of philosophizing and the system of philosophy that prevailed during all the Middle Ages."
 * "The system of philosophy and theology and teaching that dominated medieval Western Europe and was based on the writings of the Church Fathers and from the 12C Aristotle."
 * The tradition which arose in the medieval universities ('the schools') and is associated with the methods and theses of the major philosophers of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries (Aquinas, Scotus, Ockham).
 * "The Catholic philosophical tradition dominant in the medieval universities of the 12-14C in Western Europe."
 * "a medieval Christian school of philosophy"
 * "a medieval Christian school of philosophy and theology whose high point coincided with the rise of universities during the 12th and 13th centuries."
 * "a term [that] came to be used as the general term for the project of reconciling reason and faith".
 * "the name usually employed to denote the most typical products of medieval thought."

user: dbuckner


 * Not sure what those authoritative sources are from, but I'm not surprised. It is a commonly held misperception that scholasticism is a philosophy, the words "medieval" "philosophy" and "scholasticism" have become synonomous for many. But I can assure you, through many "authoritative" sources, the Scholasticism is not a philosophy (sources that use more than a single sentence sound bite). Read the article here, it explains the system. If you want somthing authoritative, read the Encyclopedia Britannica entry (not the 1911 version but the latest). --Stbalbach 22:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

These are from The oxford companion to philosophy, Penguin encyclopedia, then other older sources. None of them say it is a philosophy. It is a method of doing philosophy, it is also a tradition, it is a school, and it is also a project (of reconciling reason with faith).

Which in particular of the definitions I have cited do you actually disagree with?

user: dbuckner

I've consulted many more books on this. There are differences, obviously, but nearly all agree that the distinguihing features of Scholasticism are

1. The project of reconciling faith with reason 2. In particular, reconciling Aristotelian philosophy with medieval Christian beliefs (and as a result, helping to shape those beliefs, of course). 3. A particular style of teaching 4. A particular style of writing (Latinate - this was mainly the reason for the derisive attitude later taken towards the scholastics. 5.  A system arranged round certain books - the sentences, the organon &c 6.  A characteristic set of questions in which they were interested.  The most famous being the question of universals.

Any article which is to be taken seriously should mention and discuss these features of scholasticism.

> to reconcile the philosophy of the ancient classical philosophers with > medieval Christian theology

This is partly correct

> a tool and method for learning which puts emphasis on dialectical reasoning

That is one element of Scholasticism, yes. But Costelloe's research shows that the scholastic style of teaching survived in England long after scholasticism was defunct.

> The primary purpose of scholasticism was to find the answer to a question or resolve a contradiction

Nonsense. The primary aim was to reconcile Christianity with Aristotle. Resolving contradictions was a means to achieving this, yes.

>>>> For example, the Bible contains contradictions for Christians (ie. kosher laws) and these contradictions have been examined by scholars ancient and contemporary, so a scholastic would gather all the arguments about the contradictions, looking at it from all sides with an open mind. >>>>

This is misleading. If you go through the questions in the greatest scholastic work (Aquinas Summa Theologica), you get a sense of the questions he finds important, and which define the whole subject. Of the nature of God, of angels, of sin and grace, of the nature of the Trinity &c. Dietary observance is not central to his theology and philosophy.

I've looked through your contributions to WP and they are of consistently high quality. So I don't know why you are defending this article. My sense is that scholastic philosophy is not your main subject. Am I right? user: dbuckner


 * Please contribute! We may agree on more things than you think. I disagree though that the article should be refocused on theology. Scholasticism was not a theology or philosophy, it was a tool, a means to an end, a didactic system. Theology is why the tool was created and is central, but we should not be discussing those issues here. Many sources discuss the two as one and the same, but they are not. Scholasticism was applied to other things besides theology/philosophy. --Stbalbach 20:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

There isn't really any mention in the article of Protestant Scholasticism. A significant number of Protestant divines of the post-reformation period (c. late 16th to early 18th) used Scholastic Philosophy in the construction of a specifically Reformed metaphysical system and in extended polemics with Romanist authors (mostly Jesuit and Dominican). One well known example of such an inter-confessional debate occurred between the English theologian William Whitaker and Cardinal Robert Bellarmine. Most of Protestant Scholasticism was Calvinist, centred particularly in the Netherlands, although there were also Lutheran, French and English exponents.

On the web a good place to start for information about Scholasticism, particularly in its Counter-Reformation form is http://www.ulb.ac.be/philo/scholasticon/ (I think that this is the best such theological site on the web). For Protestant Scholasticism there are several key works by Professor Richard Muller including 'After Calvin' (OUP 2003) and the remarkably comprehensive 'Post Reformation Reformed Dogmatics' (4 vols, Baker Academic 2003). There is an increasing amount of interest in Post Reformation Scholasticism in the top universities, and the kind of theological debates associated with scholastic reasoning cannot be said to have properly declined until the advent of Cartesianism and Spinozism in the later 1600s. Johannalouw 23:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Yo - scoped this page, is it appropriate and even truthful to include anti-scholastics in this? I have yet to find a reputable source to say that Descartes was against the scholastic movement, almost the contrary.


 * Most Humanists were 'anti-scholastic', notably, Michel de Montaigne in his 'Of the Education of Children'. We might also include Milton and his 'Of Education'.Cariel 20:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Name of the Rose
Why not include a link to Umberto Eco's novel in this article? Too tenuous perhaps?

Section created by anon IP (and expanded by others) moved here for discussion
This strikes me as irrelevant to the article. It's a diatribe against postmodernism etc. I think one could develop a section on scholasticism as a contemporary term of derision, and perhaps a much shorter version of the following could be included.

"The Canadian essayist John Ralston Saul has argued in his books that much of what passes for post-modernist discourse in universities today is nothing more than a contemporary version of scholasticism. Today's auctores would be the post-structuralist canon consisting of such people as Michel Foucault, Jean Baudrillard, Jacques Lacan, Jean-Francois Lyotard, Jacques Derrida etc. The post-structuralist deconstruction method can be seen as the exercise of this current scholasticism's version of disputatio. Saul is highly critical of this 'revival', stating that the mediaeval scholastics did nothing more than tie up debate in irrelevant details, and that the current version does nothing more than create a variety of technocratic dialects that separates intellectuals from reality through relentless abstraction. However, what clearly distinguishes the so-called post-modern and/or post-structuralist writers such as Derrida, Foucault, Lyotard etc. from medieval scholastics is their denial of an authoritative source, such as God, that presumably lies outside discourse and that endows statements about the world with truth. Contrary to medieval scholastics, so-called post-modern and/or post-structuralist writers do not see themselves bound by non-discursive doctrines, let alone questions of faith."

Thoughts? --Anthony Krupp 03:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok with me. Seems kind of esoteric anyway, probably better off in an article on post-modernism, it is just an analogy of scholasticism, and not actual scholasticism -- Stbalbach 15:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Islam
Regarding the recent additions about Islamic scholasticism. This needs further clarification as it is being presented that Muslims practiced scholasticism, which I am fairly confident is not the case - I'm sure they had something similar, but was not the same thing. This article deals with the western European school. It describes in detail the method and genres and individuals and dates and times and places.. etc.. if there is a Muslim school of scholasticism, what was it called? I suppose it could be mentioned in this article under an "origins" section, but that needs a lot of development from what is currently here. -- Stbalbach 11:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Anti-scholasticism??
Notable anti-scholastics are mentioned, but how did the opposing view(s) reason? Said: Rursus 21:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The only key anti-scholastics that can be verified from Wikipedia itself is Bernard of Clairvaux, and only regarding the theological application of scholastics. The section on anti-scholastics seems to confuse scholastics with Roman-Catholicism, theological application of scholastics or some such. I believe there is no opposing view, in the sense of the word. Said: Rursus 21:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Renes Descartes was anti-Scholastic. Even St. Dominic was opposed to formal education, in a manner similar to St. Bernard. But so was St. Francis of Assisi. This is why it is so amazing that so many Franciscans and Dominicans ended up in the universities within a generation of the founding of the orders. Perhaps, even Roger Bacon, of Oxford, and an early empiricist might have been technically "anti-Scholastic". He called Aquinas "a school man yet to be schooled." The rise of empiricism, (experiment based on physical testing) wrote the end to formal Scholasticism, in a medieval sense. A E Francis 00:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Luther seems correctly classified as an anti-scholastic: "Among the most influential Protestant mystics was the Lutheran pastor Johann Arndt (1555-1621). Luther himself, while not a mystic, used mystical themes in his writings . . . (and) praised some mystical authors . . . over the dry scholastic theology that he felt had undermined the true understanding of the Gospel. In the generations after Luther's death, however, many Lutheran and Reformed theologians adopted the methods of the scholastics. . . . Arndt was a leader of the opposing group, which argued that merely intellectual knowledge of Christ was not sufficient." (Bernard McGinn, Essentials of Christian Mysticism, New York: The Modern Library, 2006, p. 276). 76.173.180.55 01:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)BillMcCarty


 * This section needs a description and some citations. Otherwise, there's not much to it, besides name-dropping, some sort of implicit argument from authority. Mdotley 21:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * FYI, the German article mentions not only humanists as scholasticism's greatest opponents. It says that what basically broke the backbone of scholasticism in science (as opposed to being only a didactic method) during early Modernity (1500s and onwards) was the rise of empiricism, as scholasticism in science had been relying exclusively on logic and, especially, Scripture. So the scholastic view had been that if man perceived something he found empirically or logically contradicting the Bible or ecclesiastic doctrine, it was due to man's innate fallacy and weakness, while empiricism said that experiments are just as important as pure logic. --TlatoSMD (talk) 14:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

General Orientation of the Article
I think the frequent assertion in this article that Scholasticism is not a philosophical or theological system in itself is greatly misleading. Scholasticism may refer either to the philosophical school that includes Aquinas, Scotus, etc. or to the method of dialectical disputation characteristic of it. It is incorrect to suggest that it refers exclusively to the latter. I do not see a source referenced throughout the article that affirms the notion that Scholasticism is not a philosophy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.122.89.132 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC) (UTC)

List of scholastics
Why are there two distinct lists of scholastics? There are lists by era in the History section, then another list, again by era, in the "Famous Scholastics" section. Any reason not to combine the two? Mdotley 21:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is Julian of Norwich included as a late scholastic? She was a mystic and visionary, not a scholastic. That goes for several of the others. Xxanthippe 08:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC).

Scholasticism is not a philosophy or theology
This is a very common source of confusion. Scholasticism is NOT a philosophy, and it is NOT a theology. It is a method, like the scientific method, for deriving the truth of the world. Calling it theology would be like calling the scientific process "physics". It makes no sense. As well it is not a philosophy, for the same reason. Scholasticism was applied most famously to theology and philosophy, which is why it is so often and easily confused, but it was not limited to the two things, nor is it equatable to them. Green Cardamom (talk) 04:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

"Post-Scholastic Thomism," not "Post-Thomistic Scholasticism"!
Scholasticism never stopped being Thomistic. Rather, Thomism stopped being Scholastic. Post-Scholastic Thomism came first with Chenu, Gilson, Maritain, Fabro, etc., and later with Kenny, Stump, etc., who started doing Thomism in veins other than through the Scholastic method (i.e., by doing 'existentialist' Thomism, 'historical' Thomism, and 'analytic' Thomism). --187.133.14.232 (talk) 23:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Has Scholasticism REALLY left the Academic Scene?!
It is not true that Scholasticism has completely left the academic scene and survives only in internet groups. There are some scholars today--not a whole lot, but some--who still employ the Scholastic method in their teaching and even in their research, for example, Steven Long (of Ave Maria University, Florida), Ansgar Santagrossi (of Our Lady of Guadalupe Seminary, Nebraska), Francisco J. Romero Carrasquillo (of Universidad Panamericana, Guadalajara), and Alexis Bugnolo (independent scholar). There is also the International Society of Scholastics (http://www.societyofscholastics.org/), which is a growing intellectual association that offers courses and funds and supports research projects related to Scholaticism. --187.133.14.232 (talk) 23:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Two problems
The edits I made yesterday were reversed. I assume it happened because an user didn't like the new images or their positions (and he was probably right in this regard, something happened here - in my home - and I ended up inserting the images without much reflection...). On the other hand, some textual changes from a previous edit were reversed as well. Now, I'd like to point two of the problems I tried to address in that edit:

In Portuguese, (my native language), quotation marks are sometimes used with a pejorative, derogatory intent. If this is the case here, or if there is a chance readers will interpret the quotation marks as pejorative, it should be amended.

Who says that? I think we need a citation for this kind of statement. Without a reliable source, I think it is necessary to change the text. (For example, by adding "some of the..." in the beginning of the sentence.) --Leinad-Z (talk) 13:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Anti-"Modernism" bias
The statement "at the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council the proponents of what previous popes had termed "Modernism" were able to gain the upper hand" is extremely biased. Modernism is more a pejorative term for "a miscellaneous bunch of ideas Pope Pius IX didn't like than anything else. I am changing it to "after the Second Vatican Council, other theological schools came to the fore". JHobson2 (talk) 12:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a joke (or worse). I have marked this article as NPOV
My professor: "Thursday, the research on Anselm, the founder of Scholasticism"

Wikipedia: ''Anselm is sometimes misleadingly called the "Father of scholasticism," owing to the prominence accorded to reason in his theology. Rather than establish a position by appeal to authority, he used argument to demonstrate why what he believed on authority must be so.''

Sources:
 * Jacques Le Goff. The Birth of Europe:400-1500. John Wiley & Sons, 2009. p. 129.
 * Britannica Educational Publishing. The 100 Most Influential Philosophers of All Time. The Rosen Publishing Group, 2009. p. 96.
 * Julián Marías. History of Philosophy. Courier Dover Publications, 1967. p. 143.
 * Encyclopedia of Philosophy. MobileReference, 2007. p. 1384.

There are at least 50 sources. --2.33.180.78 (talk) 08:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Jewish Scholasticism
Shouldn't we mention here Jewish scholasticism? Here is an excerpt on the subject from the public domain 'Jewish Encyclopedia'

In the Arabic-Jewish philosophy four distinct types or tendencies may be discerned, all, however, dependent upon Greek models.

Tendencies of the Philosophy. (1) The first of these is the rabbinical Kalâm (theology or science of the word), appearing first with Saadia, attaining its highest point with Maimonides in literary development, and with Ḥasdai Crescas in speculative attainment, and sinking with Joseph Albo to the level of mere pulpit-rhetoric.... As Boethius among Christian scholastic philosophers was alluded to as "the author," so Aristotle came to be termed, the philosopher par excellence among Arabic and Jewish thinkers. This tendency toward Aristotle was no less marked in the Byzantine and Latin-Christian scholasticism than in the Arabian and Jewish systems, the last of which conformed to the Arabic....; in the last the ascent was through Saadia, BaḦya ben Joseph Ibn Paḳuda, Judah ha-Levi, Abraham ibn Daud, Maimonides, Gersonides, and Crescas. Throughout this school Aristotle remained the model and arbiter.

(2) The second school was that of the Karaite disciples of the Kalâm. An analogous development is discernible with them. While David ben Merwan al-Moḳammeẓ (about 900), and especially Joseph alBasri, found their system exclusively upon the Motazilite Kalâm, the latest straggler of them all, the philosophizing Karaite, Aaron ben Elijah of Nicomedia (fourteenth century), reverts, in his '"Ez Ḥayyim," to Aristotle.

(3) A place by himself must be assigned to Avicebron (Avicebrol), long venerated as an authority by Christian scholasticism, but proved by Munk to be identical with the Jewish poet—philosopher Solomon ibn Gabirol (died about 1070). Gabirol was influenced by Plato exactly as Maimonides was by Aristotle

...Ibn Gabirol's relation to Plato is similar to that of Philo, and that without his suspecting even the existence of the Alexandrian thinker. Characteristic of the philosophy of both is the conception of a Middle Being between God and the world, between species and individual. Aristotle had already formulated the objection to the Platonic theory of Ideas, that it lacked an intermediary or third being (τρίτος ἄνθρωπος) between God and the universe, between form and matter. This "third man," this link between incorporeal substances (ideas) and idealess bodies (matter, the μὴ ὄν), is, with Philo, the "Logos"; with Gabirol it is the divine will. Philo gives the problem an intellectual aspect; while Gabirol conceives it as a matter of volition, approximating thus to such modern thinkers as Schopenhauer and Wundt. For the rest, Gabirol suffered precisely the same fate as his predecessor, Philo; his philosophy made not the slightest impression on Judaism. Among Jews he is esteemed as a poet; while Christian scholasticism, in the persons of its two chief representatives, Albertus Magnus and his pupil, Thomas Aquinas, defers to him quite as frequently and gratefully as in their time the Gnostics and the Church Fathers—particularly Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Ambrose—did to the Logos doctrine of Philo.

.... As among the Arabs, Ibn Sina and Ibn Roshd leaned more and more on Aristotle, so among the Jews did Abraham ibn Daud and Moses Maimonides, whose "Moreh Nebukim" has remained the text-book for Arabian-Jewish Aristotelianism. The commentaries on the "Guide for the Perplexed" are always in Hebrew (by Falaquera, Ibn Caspi, Moses Narboni, and Isaac Abravanel), and are beyond the scope of an article dealing with Arabian-Jewish philosophers; these thinkers do not belong to Moorish Spain, but to Provence or Portugal. For similar reasons, the Aristotelian, Levi b. Gershon (RaLBaG) (1288-1345) who wrote "MilḦamot Adonai" (Wars of the Lord), can not be discussed here: he was a denizen of Bagnols, in southern France, and wrote in Hebrew. Among scholastics, Levi b. Gershon (Gersonides) was by far the most advanced; for he, and he only, had the courage to place reason above tradition, or, to express it differently, to oppose the theory of creation out of nothing. Similarly, Ḥasdai Crescas (13401410), another writer in Hebrew, combated another dogma of Judaism, the freedom of the will, so energetically that he may be considered a rara avis among Jews; and so valiantly did he break a lance for fatalism that he enjoyed the honor of being appreciatively quoted by Spinoza. His "Or Adonai" (Light of the Lord) is one of the most original and independent works of scholasticism in general and not of Jewish scholasticism alone. Apart from its hardihood in openly and unreservedly attacking Maimonides' claims of infallibility for Aristotle in all matters pertaining to the sublunary world, it has the merit of projecting the problem of causes into the very foreground of philosophical thought. The mental heights of Crescas were by no means maintained by his pupil Joseph Albo, the last Jewish scholastic in the Spanish peninsula. In his '"Iḳḳarim" (Fundamental Doctrines) he sinks to the level of an ordinary philosophizing rhetorician and moralist. It is difficult perhaps to penetrate the depth of thought and deft language of Crescas; but it is just as difficult to work one's way through the pitiful shallows of Albo's unctuous commonplaces. These lastnamed philosophers wrote in Hebrew, and therefore can hardly be reckoned among Arabic-Jewish philosophers. The chief representative of Arabic-Jewish scholasticism, Maimonides, must now receive attention.

Maimonides the Chief Scholastic. Maimonides holds tenaciously, as against Aristotle, to the doctrine of creation out of nothing. God is not only the prime mover, the original form, as with Aristotle, but is as well the creator of matter. Herein Maimonides approaches more closely the Platonic "Timæus" than the Stagirite. Of God, the All-One, no positive attributes can be predicated. The number of His attributes would seem to prejudice the unity of God. In order to preserve this doctrine undiminished, all anthropomorphic attributes,such as existence, life, power, will, knowledge, —the usual positive attributes of God in the Kalâm —must be avoided in speaking of Him. Between the attributes of God and those of man there is no other similarity than one of words (homonymy), no similarity of essence ("Moreh," i. 35, 56). The negative attributes imply that nothing can be known concerning the true being of God, which is what Maimonides really means. Just as Kant declares the Thing-in-itself to be unknowable, so Maimonides declares that of God it can only be said that He is, not what He is.

Finally, it may be stated that in the question of universals—the chief problem of scholasticism—Maimonides takes strict Aristotelian ground ("Moreh," i. 51, iii. 18; treatise on "Logic," ch. 10), in so far as he denies reality to the human species, but admits its true essence to exist only in the individual (according to the formula "Universalia in re"). In his "Ethics" (as systematized by D. Rosin, 1876) he follows the Stagirite in consistently insisting upon the "fitting mean" (μεδóτης) as well as in the elevation of the intellectual virtues over the ethical. Thus, the Arabic-Jewish philosophy presents the same endeavor as the contemporary Arabian, Byzantine, and Latin-Christian scholasticism, namely, to bring about from the standpoint of the knowledge of the day a reconciliation between religion and science.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/1685-arabic-jewish-philosophy-general-view-of

RK (talk) 04:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

"The impact of Scholasticism upon Jewish philosophy in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries
Article "The impact of Scholasticism upon Jewish philosophy in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries" pp. 345-370, By T. M. Rudavsky printed in The Cambridge Companion to Medieval Jewish Philosophy, Edited by: Daniel H. Frank and Oliver Leaman, Cambridge University Press

Chapter description "In a classic article, Shlomo Pines argued that post-Thomistic Scholasticism, most notably Duns Scotus and the school of Parisian physics (e.g., Jean Buridan, Nicole Oresme), had a strong impact upon fourteenth- and fifteenth-century Jewish philosophy. Pines pointed in this article to the “interest displayed by contemporary Jewish thinkers in the new problems under discussion, or in the old problems in a new formulation unfamiliar to the Arabic-Jewish tradition.” In what follows I shall explore Pines' thesis against the backdrop of specific issues in Jewish philosophy. More specifically, I shall claim that Scholastic influences upon fourteenth- and fifteenth-century Jewish philosophy can be seen in the increased attention paid to Scholastic logic, in increased analysis of the logical and theological status of future contingents, in metaphysical concerns having to do with identity and individuation, and in the development of non-Aristotelian physics. Before turning to the issues themselves, however, I would like to situate this study by briefly examining important developments within the world of Christian Scholasticism."

RK (talk) 04:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Arabic Thought and its Place in History, by De Lacy O'Leary, [1922], at sacred-texts.com
Article on Jewish scholasticism http://www.sacred-texts.com/isl/ath/ath12.htm

A number of Jewish philosophers active in Spain and Italy in the second half of the 15th century (Abraham Bibago, Baruch Ibn Ya'ish, Abraham Shalom, Eli Habillo, Judah Messer Leon) wrote Hebrew commentaries and questions on Aristotle. In these works, they reproduced the techniques and terminology of Late-Medieval Latin Scholasticism, and quoted and discussed Latin texts (by Albert the Great, Thomas Aquinas, William of Ockham, John Duns Scotus, and other authors) about logic, physics, metaphysics, and ethics. All of these works are still unpublished, and they have not yet been either studied, or translated in modern languages.

Hebrew Scholasticism in the Fifteenth Century
"Hebrew Scholasticism in the Fifteenth Century: A History and Source Book" (Amsterdam Studies in Jewish Philosophy) 2006th Edition by Mauro Zonta

The aim of this book is to give an idea of the extent and character of this hitherto neglected "Hebrew Scholasticism". After a general historical introduction to this phenomenon, and bio-bibliographical surveys of these philosophers, the book gives complete or partial annotated English translations of the most significant Hebrew Scholastical works. It includes also critical editions of some parts of these texts, and a Latin-Hebrew glossary of Scholastical technical terms.

http://www.amazon.com/Hebrew-Scholasticism-Fifteenth-Century-Philosophy/dp/1402037155

RK (talk) 04:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You could've organized that better (or used the same time to format something to actually include in the article) to have the content show up over the last decade but, yes, the influence of the Jewish scholars in and via Spain should absolutely be mentioned. Similarly the influence of Aquinas & co. on Jewish theology and (on some readings) on Christian justification for Jewish persecution.


 * The article shouldn't treat Maimonides & co. as themselves part of Aquinas's project or school, though. That bit needs its own separate article (albeit one that should be mentioned and linked to from here). — Llywelyn II   19:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Early Scholasticism
The section "Early Scholasticism" seems to draw heavily from How the Irish Saved Civilization, which does not establish many of its facts with references and has been repeatedly denounced as historical nonsense. "Charlemagne, advised by Peter of Pisa and Alcuin of York, attracted the scholars of England and Ireland." The Wikipedia page on the Carolingian Renaissance mentions one scholar from Ireland and one from England, but more from Italy and Spain. If there were many scholars from Ireland, why was Johannes Scotus Eriugena called "the Irishman" (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scottus-eriugena/)? "During this period, knowledge of Ancient Greek had vanished in the west except in Ireland." Odd, considering that Greek was still the native language of Byzantium. I'd like someone to add the sources that MacManus cited for making that claim, if he cited any. Philgoetz (talk) 00:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a pretty popular book, & not very reliable. Plenty of people in Italy spoke Greek, which was still the language of the streets in much of southern Italy, but the difficulties Charlemagne's court had with Greek are illustrated by the story of the Libri Carolini. Johnbod (talk) 04:58, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * While the book likely has a bias in favor of Ireland, the key word in "Ancient Greek" may be the "Ancient" part. While the Greek language has been alive for millennia, it has underwent several changes. Medieval Greek, the language of the Byzantine Empire, involved changes in phonology, grammar, and vocabulary. Some ancient words changed meaning, or were abandoned completely in favor of new forms. Greek also adopted loan words from Latin and other languages, particularly Arabic, Persian, Slavic, Italian, and French.


 * Koine Greek, the Hellenistic version of the language which was used by the Septuagint, the New Testament, and various Roman/Byzantine Church Fathers, continued to be used by the Church throughout the period and influenced the writing style of most Byzantine writers. It was already innovative in comparison to older versions, but was likely vary different from the vernacular of the Middle Ages.


 * Attic Greek, the language of Classical Athens and the version used by playwrights Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, and Aristophanes, was long dead as a spoken language. But continued to have an influence in the written form of the language, because the Roman and Byzantine literati and intellectuals admired this version for its supposed "purity". They studied it, and rejected the major changes the language had underwent as supposedly "corrupt" forms. Resulting in several archaisms resurfacing in Byzantine texts. Even Homeric Greek, the version used by Homer, continued to be studied and occasionally imitated. Never mind that it was dead for more than a millennium and alien to the vernacular form of the language.


 * In other words, a working knowledge of Medieval Greek was no guarantee that one could comprehend older Greet texts. Dimadick (talk) 14:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's some long paragraphs of relative silliness. The Byzantines absolutely had copies of the main Greek philosophers, however poorly any random cleric might parse them or however badly any random scholar was obliged to misunderstand them in the name of orthodoxy. Similarly, whatever knowledge the early medieval Irish might've had of ancient Greek wasn't 'corrupted' by its later development in Egypt and Constantinople, which they had absolutely no exposure to.


 * The key word in "vanished in the west" was "west", which didn't include the Byzantine Empire as a general thing from roughly the collapse of Justinian's reconquest until the knock-on effects from the Crusades started to pile up. — Llywelyn II   18:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)


 * The Irish bit might bear cleanup and downtoning but the more patent bit of nonsense in this section was "Theologians have religion-based morals that reformed the economy and started capitalism and btw are mostly Christian":


 * In the early 13th century, a syndicate of priests and scholars collaborated and sketched a rough draft of a raw market economy. These scholars and priests fostered Christianity and addressed the philosophical issues of an early economic thought. Christianity being the fundamental faith that shaped moral attitudes of these groups was primarily transitioned from the patristic Christology. The early set of rules for trade were first introduced by Christian theologians. Theologians had spiritual beliefs with morals driven by religion. Early theologians, mainly Christians accepted certain set of rules from Christian Bible as their model of outlook. Spiegel (1991) highlights that scholastics economic thought had its principle sources in the Bible. He further emphasizes on the teachings and writings of the Father of the Church which designed the groundwork for exercising economic and moral thoughts. Later, in the ages, the scholastics used the writings of Aristotle to shape their philosophical perspective. Greek Philosophy was deemed foundation for early moral principles which the scholastics exercised. Preaching of such principles was mainly transitioned from Italian to European localities. Greek philosophy became the initiating stance of high scholasticism.


 * There might be something tangentially related to reality and/or scholasticism in there but I'll leave it for others to puzzle it out. I left the sourced bits about scholasticism supposedly deriving directly from Patristic Christianity and pointedly not deriving from reconsideration of Plato and expanded contact with Aristotle but that obviously represents either a misunderstanding of the sources or a viewpoint that shouldn't be given  focus in the article. —  Llywelyn II   18:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Dogma begat scholasticism
The lead is pretty vague (or perhaps, not particularly accurate) in its description of the outgrowth and origins of scholasticism. The lead says;

"It originated as an outgrowth of and a departure from Christian monastic schools at the earliest European universities.[1]"

Well, it did, but more particularly, it originated as an outgrowth of Christian theology that took place within the monastic schools. Edward Grant writes that scholasticism was a product of Anselm's rigorous theological work, eventually transitioning to a science by further work of 12th-13th century theologians;

"Anselm’s application of rigorous reasoning to theology has earned him the title “father of scholasticism.” He was apparently the first to treat theology in a manner sufficiently rigorous to lay the foundations for its conversion to a science by twelfth- and thirteenth-century theologians." (source: God and Reason in the Middle Ages. Cambridge University Press, 2004, 56)

Clifford Backman similarly describes the origins of scholasticism;

"An entire intellectual movement begun in the cathedral schools and universities, and hence called scholasticism, confidently asserted its ability to provide rational proofs and explanations for literally every tenet of Christian faith." (Worlds of Medieval Europe. Oxford University Press, 2003, 304)

So I think the language of the lead needs to be fixed. Several paragraphs down in the lead, the page says "As a program, scholasticism began as an attempt at harmonization on the part of medieval Christian thinkers, to harmonize the various authorities of their own tradition, and to reconcile Christian theology with classical and late antiquity philosophy" -- so I see no reason why the very beginning of the page should be any less clear. 70.49.181.61 (talk) 05:50, 18 November 2018 (UTC)


 * OK, I've made the edit. Since this is a good page, and there's apparently a problem with its lack of inline citations, I'll add a few in.70.49.181.61 (talk) 15:50, 18 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Just fixed it entirely.70.49.181.61 (talk) 17:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)


 * There should be a section on the influence of scholasticism. It was essentially a forerunner of modern science. 70.49.181.61 (talk) 00:56, 19 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, that's certainly untrue for most values of 'scholasticism'. The 12th-century renaissance was a lot of things happening at once and in early scholasticism (eg) William of Conches's theology certainly informed his interest in and understanding of "natural philosophy" but it wasn't the same thing as his natural philosophy (the actual forerunner to science). Classical big-S Scholasticism like Aquinas have essentially zero scientific content aside from saying that observation of nature shouldn't be condemned as heretical out of hand the way (eg) Bernard of Clairvaux had been trying to play whack-a-scholar in his time. That said, yeah, the influences were profound and important, however much they shouldn't be oversimplified and misstated. — Llywelyn II   18:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)