That's an argumentum ad hominem - not an intellectual reason for disagreeing with Scholasticism. You may not like organized religion, and indeed think organised religion is a problem for the world, but that has little or nothing to do with reasons for disagreeing with Scholasticism.Its inherent connection to organized religion — darthbarracuda
Emotional reactions - not valid intellectual reasons.My personal aversion to all-encompassing, systematic Theories of Everything — darthbarracuda
Okay so what? Scholastic philosophy itself has the means of distinguishing mistakes. For example, masturbation is an evil that is done only to oneself - you only harm yourself. Rape harms you and the person raped. Therefore rape is worse.I believe it was Aquinas who thought masturbation was basically as bad as rape — darthbarracuda
Homosexual sex may be immoral - what's wrong with that? Scholasticism doesn't argue someone having homosexual attractions is immoral, only that a certain activity - having sex with a person of the same sex as you - is immoral.Or that homosexuality was extremely immoral — darthbarracuda
I doubt many philosophers would agree that they subscribe to particular philosophical theses wholly or primarily on the grounds of aesthetics or emotional valence. However, ideas are not (generally) proven correct by surveys, so perhaps you are right.For most philosophies it is not possible to prove them correct or incorrect. If it were there would be far fewer philosophies around - maybe only one. Choosing between them is done mostly on an aesthetic basis - ie emotionally-based. — andrewk
Right now there's a multitude of books out that attempt to "re-frame" metaphysical, and even ethical, issues in an Aristotelian or medieval fashion, and a common trend it to assign blame on Descartes and the rationalists for fucking everything up — darthbarracuda
1.) Its inherent connection to organized religion. Does Scholasticism justify Catholicism? — darthbarracuda
My personal aversion to all-encompassing, systematic Theories of Everything. There is something about them that I find to be deeply oppressive and totalitarian, even if they offer comfort and security. It's nauseating — darthbarracuda
I believe it was Aquinas who thought masturbation was basically as bad as rape. Or that homosexuality was extremely immoral. Hence why I had previously said metaphysical systems, especially those espousing thorough essentialism, are oppressive. — darthbarracuda
Actually, Descartes mainly gets blame as 'the first of the moderns'. Ed Feser writes a lot (and very well) on the problems that were introduced by, and subsequent to, Cartesian dualism, chief of which was the bifurcation of mind and matter, and the subsequent elimination of mind or spirit altogether from the modern view of the world (culminating in Cartesian anxiety). — Wayfarer
1.) Its inherent connection to organized religion. Does Scholasticism justify Catholicism? Is Scholasticism truly impartial, or is it metaphysics-in-the-service-of-religion? In other words, would studying Scholastic philosophy lead you to Catholicism, or does it merely act as a psychological support structure for those already invested in the religion? It's not too difficult to find amateur philosophy enthusiasts touting around Scholasticism as the end-all, be-all solution to everything. Looking at history, wasn't Scholasticism basically tailored to Catholicism? — darthbarracuda
It was meant to be an observation of human nature rather than a philosophy, but I can see how it might have come across that way. Perhaps I should put it slightly more carefully as follows:But, by your own criterion, your philosophy of philosophy has no greater claim to truth than any other — Arkady
One thing I feel fairly confident about is that they do not do it on the grounds of which philosophy is most 'rational', because a philosophy is only irrational if it makes contradicting claims, and that sort of thing is likely to be noticed. — andrewk
I don't know that a philosophical thesis is irrational only insofar as it contains (internally) contradictory claims: for instance, I would regard solipsism to be a fairly irrational standpoint, even if it is wholly internally consistent. Under this category, I would also lump panpsychism.It was meant to be an observation of human nature rather than a philosophy, but I can see how it might have come across that way. Perhaps I should put it slightly more carefully as follows:
It seems to me that people choose philosophies, wittingly or unwittingly, mostly on aesthetic/emotional grounds.
I am certainly open to observations about other criteria people use to choose between philosophies. One thing I feel fairly confident about is that they do not do it on the grounds of which philosophy is most 'rational', because a philosophy is only irrational if it makes contradicting claims, and that sort of thing is likely to be noticed. Further, for any two philosophies that are not irrational in that sense, I can't see any way of supporting a claim that one is 'more rational' than the other. — andrewk
1.) Its inherent connection to organized religion. Does Scholasticism justify Catholicism? Is Scholasticism truly impartial, or is it metaphysics-in-the-service-of-religion? In other words, would studying Scholastic philosophy lead you to Catholicism, or does it merely act as a psychological support structure for those already invested in the religion? It's not too difficult to find amateur philosophy enthusiasts touting around Scholasticism as the end-all, be-all solution to everything. Looking at history, wasn't Scholasticism basically tailored to Catholicism? — darthbarracuda
Not at all. It is, as I've said, an observation - a casual opinion, no more emotionally charged than my observation-based opinion that all live animals with hearts also have kidneys. I would happily (nay, eagerly!) adjust either opinion based on new data.By your own criterion, I must assume that you believe this for emotional/aesthetic reasons, and thus it carries no probative force. — Arkady
Well that brings us to one of the key fault-lines in consideration of philosophy - between those who believe that a necessary criterion for being a good philosopher is to be knowledgeable about most major philosophical streams, and those who believe instead that necessary criteria are having wisdom about how to live, and being able to communicate that wisdom effectively.To be a good philosopher requires one to read much philosophy. — Metaphysician Undercover
Well that brings us to one of the key fault-lines in consideration of philosophy - between those who believe that a necessary criterion for being a good philosopher is to be knowledgeable about most major philosophical streams, and those who believe instead that necessary criteria are having wisdom about how to live, and being able to communicate that wisdom effectively. — andrewk
It's academic vs moral philosophy (or life philosophy), Kripke vs Comte Sponville. I am of the latter group of partisans - my favourite philosophers being people like the Dalai Lama, Mohandas Gandhi and the Buddha, with the only academic philosophers that really interest me being the ones that had useful and inspiring things to say about ethics. But I think there is as much hope of attaining agreement between the two sides as there is of obtaining agreement between Idealists and Materialists. — andrewk
Moreover, according to medieval science food is transformed into living flesh; in the case of an anthropophagus who has fed on other human bodies, this would have to mean that in the resurrection one single matter would be reintegrated into several individuals. — StreetlightX
Well Agustino, Darth did say they were just personal criticisms he had of Scholasticism. Emotional reasons are perfectly valid from that standpoint. He did not, at least on my reading of his text, adduce them as arguments that Scholasticism is mistaken. — andrewk
For most philosophies it is not possible to prove them correct or incorrect. If it were there would be far fewer philosophies around - maybe only one. Choosing between them is done mostly on an aesthetic basis - ie emotionally-based. — andrewk
If the philosophy was not consistent it would be rejected and not taught. Any principles maintained would be consistent, and therefore viewed by us as being used to support the religion. So if you are interested in learning some of these ontological and metaphysical principles, without the Catholic influence, I suggest you read the work of Aristotle and Plato directly. Then, after a good understanding, if you proceed to study the Scholastics, you can judge for yourself how well the Church remains true to the masters, or if they distort the principles to support their religion. — Metaphysician Undercover
Part of why I find scholastic philosophy so fascinating is precisely because it so rigorously tries to make a place for God, while at the same time trying to 'get things right' at the level of the world. This kind of double imperative, stretched between the two poles of God and world, lit a fire of intense philosophical creativity which resulted in all sorts of philosophical permutations that tried to strike the 'right balance', as it were, between the two. The entire spectrum of scholastic thinking can be mapped onto the various articulations between (the) transcendence (of God) and (the) immanence (of the world). — StreetlightX
One can be all the more secure in one's thinking if one can properly coordinate or triangulate just where one stands with respect to the many strands of scholastic thought that exist out there. — StreetlightX
And apart from all of that, all the theological puzzles are just so interesting! — StreetlightX
because it comes across as advocating the "final word" and not an ongoing exercise in inquiry. It seems dogmatic. — darthbarracuda
I certainly agree that different philosophies will suit different people, from which it follows that - perhaps unless internally inconsistent (and maybe not even then?!) - philosophies are not wrong or right.Even the question "how to live" is extremely complicated. We're all different, with distinct aspirations, so the answer of that question for you will be different from the answer of that question for me. Remember Plato's Republic, justice is claimed to be each person doing one's own thing, without interfering with the others. For me, to answer that question "how to live" requires an understanding of what it means "to live". For some though, perhaps you, as long as they're told the "how" part, they feel the question is answered. — Metaphysician Undercover
For the Scholastics like Aquinas, metaphysics was basically some kind of sublime activity that brought one closer to God in virtue of studying creation and all that. Without God, the world exists, but there's no independent, transcendent reason to study it. It's not inherently valuable or intrinsically important, or perhaps more specifically, obviously valuable. — darthbarracuda
Without God, the world is not required to be perfectly rational or intelligible or even good. — darthbarracuda
But I think it is more accurate to use the more banal-sounding form 'What shall I do?' That 'do' includes not only bodily actions, but also speech acts, thoughts and spiritual practices. Expressed in that way, the verb 'to live' is not part of the question, and one does not need to dissect it in order to answer the question. — andrewk
I wonder, did that rejection shape them? Would the proponents have come up with the same philosophy if they had not been spurred on by ideas they wanted to refute? It's a little like the question of whether Kant would have written CPR if he hadn't been goaded into it by wanting to try to refute Hume (his attempts to refute Hume - unsuccessful IMHO - are the least interesting part of CPR, and yet there is so much value in the work in other parts, that may never have been written if he had not been spurred into action by Hume). — andrewk
But I'm interested in this question of whether the value of some philosophies may be in goading others to attempt refutations, which may contain helpful elements. — andrewk
I'm not sure if I would call them interesting, in my opinion at least. They're kind of silly for someone who isn't totally into the whole God thing. And the silliness of them makes me doubt the legitimacy of theology in the first place. Hair-splitting and tangles all over the place. — darthbarracuda
6. Like you, I'm not a huge fan of how the scholastics welded Natural Law ethics to theology in order to provide justification for their faith-based ethical percepts. That said, I think that the main idea behind Natural Law theory (ethics in accord with the principles of natural reason) could possibly bear interesting philosophical fruit if allowed to develop unencumbered by the presuppositions of Christian theology. I'm sure there are probably some thinkers who have charted some territory in this domain, but I haven't taken the time to research it. — Aaron R
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.