Scholasticism2 - Anselm Anselm Averroes Abelard Maimonides...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Anselm Anselm Averroes Abelard Maimonides great teachers schools flourished in northwestern Europe schools iinventing new teaching methods nventing methods to study new translations to translations of Greek and Arabic texts into Latin most translations were made in most Constantinople Toledo Sicily Paris Constantinople Constantinople James of Venice (mid-12th) and others translations from Greek of Aristotle of Toledo Toledo translations from Arabic by local church officials by Toledo Toledo Gerard of Cremona (1114-87) texts on the liberal arts and natural science; iin philosophy, Farabi and Aristotle n Toledo Toledo Dominicus Gundisalvi Dominicus and Abraham ibn Daud (late 12th) and texts on the soul by Muslims and Jews Avicenna, Kindi, Farabi, Ghazali Avicenna, Sicily and Toledo Sicily Michael Scot and others h early and mid-13tth century century translations from Arabic Averroes translations translations new philosophical material mainly Aristotle a few Neoplatonic texts, some of the Greek commentators a good deal of Muslim philosophy: Avicenna, Averroes, Kindi, Farabi, Ghazali Avicenna, and some Jewish philosophy: and Maimonides, Ibn Gabirol, Isaac Israeli translations translations new philosophical material a new textual basis for intellectual life in the West: almost all of Aristotle, not just the logic, also natural science, metaphysics, ethics; and the Muslim and Jewish Aristotelians translations translations new philosophical material almost no Plato; not much else except Cicero, Seneca except and a few other Latin authors, and as well as Priscian on grammar as Aristotle Aristotle the Philosopher: around 1200, just the logical works; by 1255, all of Aristotle, especially the natural sciences; especially with Averroes and other commentators with Aristotle Aristotle prohibitions in 1210 and 1215 of Aristotle’s non-logical works indicate that they were being read, along with Averroes; prohibitions ineffective by 1240 Aristotle Aristotle iin philosophy: n almost all the Aristotelian texts almost in theology: only Peter Lombard’s Sentences only Sentences Peter Lombard Peter declared official Church doctrine, Fourth Lateran Council of 1215: Fourth Later an orderly presentation of the right answers, but also a provocation for philosophy and a new philosophical curriculum universities universities this new curriculum evolved in a new institutional framework, the universities, developing and stabilizing the experience of the earlier schools universities universities Paris, chartered in 1200 Oxford Bologna Salerno Montpellier Cambridge universities universities northern universities: northern more theology more southern universities: more medicine and law more philosophy in the north universities universities in the north, all students were clerics, though not all intended to become priests universities universities some were members some of new religious orders: of Dominicans and Franciscans, the ‘mendicant orders,’ as distinct from the ‘seculars’ universities universities undergraduates: the arts course 7 years professional students: theology, law and medicine 15 years universities universities arts students arts entered at 15, entered most finishing only part most of the arts course of universities universities a student who finished the arts course was then required to teach it as a Master of Arts; likewise in theology universities universities students always involved in teaching students teach at various levels of the curriculum: many more people than stable jobs many jobs universities universities no stable structure for long-term university employment: very high turnover; seculars aggrieved by mendicants universities universities universitas: a guild of secular masters and students: regulate the curriculum; define and enforce professional standards through examinations and degrees; deal with the authorities, ecclesiastical and civil universities universities forms of teaching lectures (readings) disputations (debates) LECTURES LECTURES DISPUTATIONS DISPUTATIONS universities universities forms of teaching lectures (readings) cursory (expository) ordinary (analytical) universities universities forms of teaching disputations ordinary quodlibetal disputations disputations ordinary a master and his students master on a set topic on session 1: session students as opponent v respondent students session 2: master summarizes and ‘determines’ disputations disputations quodlibetal quodlibet = ‘whatever’ by whomever about whatever same format disputations and lectures disputations oral events: written versions before and after; recorded as ‘questions’ disputations and lectures disputations theology llectures on Lombard’s Sentences ectures Sentences heard in years 1-6 of the theology course given in year 9 given in disputations and lectures disputations theology after the 15 year course the master writes up his lectures as a revised ordinatio; as ordinatio a reportatio, an unrevised transcript, reportatio might also circulate disputations and lectures disputations theology the comprehensive summa of theology, the summa which uses the question form, was not meant for university teaching did not follow Lombard’s Sentences did Sentences SCHOLASTICISM SCHOLASTICISM • • • • • • • Aristotle Averroes Latin translations Sentences arts course theology course students • • • • • • • masters university mendicants seculars lecture disputation question the first great scholastics the William of Auvergne Robert Grosseteste Roger Bacon Bonaventura Albert the Great scholasticism scholasticism Notebooks by an arts master, David of Dinant, on Aristotelian natural science burnt in Paris in 1210 burnt scholasticism scholasticism another arts master, anonymous, taught that each human soul has an active intellect, attributing this view (falsely) to Averroes attributing scholasticism scholasticism ‘Averroism’ became a problem: the arts masters in Paris absorbed the new Latin Aristotle: a threatening naturalism, interpreted by Muslim Aristotelians scholasticism scholasticism the context in which scholasticism emerges: created by arts masters masters of theology and their students in dispute about the same new texts scholasticism scholasticism the arts masters are attracted by Aristotelian naturalism and Averroes; the theology masters are more loyal to the Platonism of Augustine and Avicenna of scholasticism scholasticism William of Auvergne (d. 1249), Paris, secular favors Avicenna over Aristotle but challenges Avicenna: removes the Active Intellect as an intermediary in cognition scholasticism scholasticism Robert Grosseteste (1168-1253), Oxford; Bishop of Lincoln, secular, taught Franciscans: understands cognition as illumination in the way of Augustine, while making a comprehensive study of Aristotelian natural science scholasticism scholasticism Roger Bacon (1214-94), Oxford, Paris Franciscan ambitious study of Aristotelian science innovations in philosophy of language scholasticism scholasticism Bonaventura (1217-1274), Paris (Giovanni di Fidanza), Franciscan Minister General of the Franciscans, Cardinal not a committed Aristotelian Augustine, Dionysius, Ibn Gabirol, Avicenna Augustine, scholasticism scholasticism Bonaventura (1217-1274), Paris The Mind’s Journey to God (1259): mystical approach to cognition as access to Ideas in the mind of God in an elaborate framework of metaphysics and psychology scholasticism scholasticism Albert the Great (1200-80) Paris, Cologne, Dominican deeply engaged in the new texts of Aristotle and the Muslim Aristotelians scholasticism scholasticism Albert the Great (1200-80) an original Neoplatonist Aristotelian system, sharply distinguishing philosophy from theology, focusing on creation and God’s eternity as problems for the standard view of emanation scholasticism scholasticism Albert the Great (1200-80) also studies Averroes on the soul, promoting his importance while drastically revising his conclusions: the intellect is individuated in the individual soul, but is not individuated in grasping universals but scholasticism scholasticism Albert’s best student Albert’s was Thomas Aquinas was Thomas Aquinas Thomas 1224 1224 1229 1239 1244 1245 1248 1252 1252 1259 1268 1272 1272 1274 1323 born near Naples, noble family born Naples sent to the Abbey of Monte Cassino studies at the University of Naples jjoins the Dominicans; kidnapped by his family oins Dominicans University of Paris, as a Dominican University Paris Cologne with Albert the Great Cologne Paris, teaching the Bible and the Sentences Sentences Italy, teaching theology Paris, teaching theology; Averroist controversy Paris, Naples, teaching theology dies on his way to France dies on canonized Aquinas Aquinas Summa theologiae Theological Summa Summa contra gentiles Summa Summa Against the Heathens Summa Aquinas Aquinas Summa Against the Heathens (SCG) 1264 1264 purpose not clear, possibly a manual for missionaries possibly to convert Muslims and Jews in Spain Muslims still ruled in some places Aquinas Aquinas Summa of Theology (ST) 1265-1273 never finished for beginners not easy Aquinas Aquinas Summa of Theology (ST) 3000 pages, five volumes Part I, about 20% about God God’s creatures God’s angels humans Aquinas Aquinas Summa of Theology (ST), Part 1 Summa Part 1. God and his attributes (25%) 2. procession of the persons of the Trinity 3. production of creatures 4. angels 5. the created universe 6. human beings 7. God’s government of creatures Aquinas Aquinas Summa of Theology (ST), Part 1 Summa Part 1. God and his attributes (25%) subdivisions 1. Theology as a body of knowledge 1. 2. That God exists 3. How God exists a. What is God’s essence i. Simplicity ii. Perfection iii. Infinity iv. Immutability v. Unity b. How God is known by us c. What are God’s names 4. God’s operations a. Knowledge i. What kind of knowledge God has ii. Ideas iii. Truth iv. Falsity v. Life b. Will i. What kind of will God has ii. Will alone iii. Will and intellect c. Power d. Blessedness Aquinas Aquinas Summa of Theology (ST), Part 1 Summa Part 119 questions divided into articles each article constructed as follows, using the ‘question’ form Aquinas Aquinas 1 title 2 objections objections 3 contradiction of objections often by biblical authority often 4 brief statement of position (sometimes omitted) 5 long statement of position with arguments 6 responses to objections often with citations of authority Aquinas Aquinas Summa of Theology (ST), Part 1 Summa Part Article 3 Article ‘Whether God Exists?’ Whether of Question 2 of ‘The Existence of God’ Aquinas Aquinas Summa of Theology (ST), Part 1 Summa Part Question 2 Question ‘The Existence of God’ The Article 3 Article ‘Whether God Exists?’ the title of each article the a question question the implied answer the answer is affirmative is Aquinas Aquinas ST I.q2.a3 “Objection 1. It seems that God does not Objection exist because…” exist an objection is raised to the implied an objection affirmative answer affirmative Aquinas Aquinas ST I.q2.a3 “Objection 2. Further, it is superfluous …” another objection is raised another objection Aquinas Aquinas ST I.q2.a3 “On the contrary, it is said….” an authority, often the Bible, contradicts an authority often contradicts the objections the Aquinas Aquinas ST I.q2.a3 “I answer that….” Thomas answers briefly with his own view Thomas briefly Aquinas Aquinas ST I.q2.a3 “The first and more manifest way is the argument The from motion…. The second way is from the motion…. nature of the efficient cause…. The third way is efficient …. taken from possibility and necessity…. The fourth possibility …. way is taken from the gradation to be found in things…. The fifth way is taken from the government of the world….” government Thomas answers with a longer version Thomas answers of his own position, supplying arguments arguments Aquinas Aquinas ST I.q2.a3 “Reply to Objection 1” Thomas responds to the first objection, Thomas responds often citing authorities authorities Aquinas Aquinas ST I.q2.a3 “Reply to Objection 2” Thomas responds to the second objection Thomas responds Aquinas Aquinas 1 title 2 objections objections 3 contradiction of objections often by biblical authority often 4 brief statement of position (sometimes omitted) 5 long statement of position with arguments 6 responses to objections often with citations of authority Aquinas Aquinas ST I.q1 people need to know more than philosophy people need systematic knowledge of God people theology is systematic knowledge of God theology Aquinas Aquinas ST I.q1 God is the object of theology; theological knowledge can be acquired by argument; by the Bible uses language that can be the interpreted rather than read literally interpreted Aquinas Aquinas ST I.q2 God’s existence is self-evident only in a qualified way; only God’s existence can be demonstrated, proved by argument proved Aquinas Aquinas ST I.q2.a1 God’s existence is self-evident in itself, but not to God’s in but not us, says Thomas us God’s existence is absolutely self-evident without God’s qualification, even to a fool, says Anselm Thomas restates Anselm’s argument Thomas in order to refute it Aquinas Aquinas ST I.q2.a1 that God exists does not follow from hearing the that word ‘God’ and understanding its meaning word that God exists is not self-evident in the way that propositions about wholes and parts can be selfpropositions evident God’s existence is not self-evident to us God’s not to Aquinas Aquinas ST I.q2.a1 since Thomas rejects since Anselm’s ontological argument ontological he needs other ways he to prove God’s existence; to he proposes five ways – he cosmological and teleogical proofs teleogical Aquinas Aquinas ST I.q2.a2 first way more obvious than the others argument from motion resembles Aristotle resembles SCG SCG clearer than ST ST 1 That some things are moved is obvious from observation through the senses. 2 Everything which is moved is moved by something else that moves it. 3 Therefore, there is something, Z, which is moved by something else, Y, that Therefore, moves it. moves 4 This mover, Y, is either (i) moved or (ii) not moved. 5 If (i) Y is not moved, then (ii) Y is an unmoved mover, which is God. 6 But if (i) Y is moved, then (ii) Y is moved by something else, X. 7 This other mover, X, is either (i) an unmoved mover, which is God, as in (5iii), i), or (ii) yet another moved mover, A, as in (6ii). or 8 If (7i) is true, X is God. 9 But if (7ii) is true, there is yet another moved mover, A. 10 But the process cannot just keep going through B, C, D and an infinity of other moved movers because the series of movers cannot extend to infinity. other 11 Therefore, the series must stop with an unmoved mover, which will be God. 1 That some things are moved is obvious from observation through the senses from 2 Everything which is moved is moved by something else that moves it something 3 Therefore, there is something, Z, which is moved by something else, Y, that moves it moved 4 This mover, Y, is either (i) moved or (ii) not moved or 5 If (i) Y is not moved, not then (ii) Y is an unmoved mover, un which is God 6 But if (i) Y is moved, But then (ii) Y is moved by something else, X 7 This other mover, X, is either This (i) an unmoved mover, which is God, (i) unmoved as in (5iii), i), as or (ii) yet another moved mover, A, mover, as in (6ii) 8If (7i) is true, X is God 9 But if (7iii) is true, i) there is yet another moved mover, A mover, 10 But the process cannot just keep going 10 can through B, C, D through and an infinity of other moved movers and because a series of movers because cannot extend to infinity 11 Therefore, the series must stop 11 with an unmoved mover, which will be God Aquinas Aquinas ST I.q2.a2 first way argument from motion SCG version 1 That some things are moved is obvious from observation through the senses. 2 Everything which is moved is moved by something else that moves it. 3 Therefore, there is something, Z, which is moved by something else, Y, that Therefore, moves it. moves 4 This mover, Y, is either (i) moved or (ii) not moved. 5 If (i) Y is not moved, then (ii) Y is an unmoved mover, which is God. 6 But if (i) Y is moved, then (ii) Y is moved by something else, X. 7 This other mover, X, is either (i) an unmoved mover, which is God, as in (5iii), i), or (ii) yet another moved mover, A, as in (6ii). or 8 If (7i) is true, X is God. 9 But if (7ii) is true, there is yet another moved mover, A. 10 But the process cannot just keep going through B, C, D and an infinity of other moved movers because the series of movers cannot extend to infinity. other 11 Therefore, the series must stop with an unmoved mover, which will be God. 2 Everything which is moved is moved by something else that moves it 10 But the process 10 cannot just keep going through B, C, D and an infinity of other moved movers because a series of movers cannot extend to infinity Aquinas Aquinas ST I.q2.a2 one proof of (2) from Aristotle: one act and potency act potency as correlative states of substance Aquinas Aquinas ST I.q2.a2 potency: the capacity or ability the of one substance to become a different substance or the same substance or with new properties Aquinas Aquinas ST I.q2.a2 act: the realization of a potency either the process of either process actualizing a potency actualiz potency or the result of that process, or result the actualization of a potency potency Aquinas Aquinas ST I.q2.a2 an egg has the potency to be a chicken the to a chicken no longer has chicken the potency to be a chicken to the chicken’s act is being a chicken the is the chicken has other potencies the potencies Aquinas Aquinas ST I.q2.a2 a substance which is a chicken in act which in comes from comes a substance substance which is a chicken in potency which in Aquinas Aquinas ST I.q2.a2 the proof of premiss (2) the depends on a definition of motion motion in terms of act and potency, act potency using ‘motion’ broadly for both change and movement for 2 Everything which is moved is moved by something else that moves it that 2.1 (Definition) Motion or change is the act of something, C, which is in 2.1 potency to something else, H, insofar as C is in potency to H. potency 2.1.1 (Explanation) If F is in act to H, F is already H or some aspect of H. But if C is in potency to H, C is not H or an aspect of H. In fact, if and only if C is not H can C come to be H or some aspect of H. If C is in potency to H, C cannot be H but must be able to be H. in 2.1.2 (Example) When heated by fire (F), the act of a cold piece of wood (C), which is hot in potency, is to change to a hot piece of wood (H), which is then hot in act. But the fire (F) had to have been already hot (H) in act. hot 2.2 Whatever is moved to H must be in potency to H (by 2.1). 2.1 2.3 Whatever moves something to H must be in act to H (by 2.1.2) 2.1.2 2.4 Nothing can be both in potency and in act to the same thing in the same aspect: being in potency to H requires not being in act to H (2.1.1), 2.5 Therefore (from 2.2 and 2.3), nothing both moves and is moved in 2.2 2.3), the same process of motion or change. the 2.6 Therefore (from 2.4), nothing which is moved moves itself. 2.4 2.7 Therefore (from 2.5), everything which is moved is moved by 2.5), something else (2). something 2.1 (Definition) Motion or change is the act 2.1 act of something, C, which is in potency to of something else, H, insofar as C is in potency to H to burns burns • in concrete terms, when a piece of wood • something cold (C) • becomes something hot (H) 2.1.1 (Explanation) If F is in act to H, F is 2.1.1 already H or some aspect of H. But if C is in potency to H, C is not H or an aspect of H. potency If and only if C is not H can C come to be H or some aspect of H. If C is in potency to H, C cannot be H but must be able to be H. cannot • concretely, concretely, F might • H something • C something cold something be fire; hot; 2.1.2 (Example) When heated by fire (F), 2.1.2 the act of a cold piece of wood (C), which is hot in potency, iis to change to a hot piece of s in wood (H), which is then hot in act. But the in But fire (F) had to have been already hot (H) in act. act 2.2 Whatever is moved to H must be in 2.2 potency to H (by 2.1). 2.1 2.1 Motion or change is the act of something, C, which is in potency to something else, H, insofar as C is in potency to H. to 2.3 Whatever moves something to H must 2.3 be in act to H (by 2.1.2) 2.1.2 2.1.2 When heated by fire (F), the act of a cold piece of wood (C), which is hot in potency, iis s in to change to a hot piece of wood (H), which is then hot in act. But the fire (F) had to have in But been already hot (H) in act in 2.2 Whatever is moved to H must be in 2.2 potency to H (by 2.1). 2.1 2.3 Whatever moves something to H must be in act to H (by 2.1.2) 2.1.2 2.4 Nothing can be both in potency and in 2.4 act to the same thing in the same aspect: being in potency to H requires not being in act to H (2.1.1). to 2.1.1 If F is in act to H, F is already H or some aspect of H. But if C is in potency to H, C is not H or an aspect of H or 2.5 Therefore (from 2.2 and 2.3), nothing both 2.5 2.2 2.3), moves and is moved in the same sense in the same process of motion or change same (‘‘moves’ = ‘changes,’ transitively) moves’ transitively 2.2 Whatever is moved to H must be in potency in to H. 2.3 Whatever moves something to H must be iin act to H. n to 2.6 Therefore (from 2.5), nothing which is 2.6 2.5), moved moves itself. moved 2.5 Nothing both moves and is moved in the same sense in the same process of motion or change change 2.7 Therefore (from 2.6), everything which is 2.7 2.6), moved is moved by something else (2) moved 2.6 Therefore, nothing which is moved moves itself 2.7 Therefore (from 2.6), everything which is 2.7 2.6), moved is moved by something else (2) moved 2.6 Therefore, nothing which is moved moves itself QED 2.7 Therefore (from 2.6), everything which is 2.7 2.6), moved is moved by something else (2) moved 2.6 Therefore, nothing which is moved moves itself QED quod erat demonstrandum 2 Everything which is moved is moved by something else that moves it. it. 10 But the process cannot just keep But going through B, C, D and an infinity of other moved movers because the series of movers cannot extend to infinity. infinity. Aquinas Aquinas ST I.q2.a2 several proofs of (10), several from Aristotle from a series of movers cannot extend into infinity cannot Aquinas Aquinas ST I.q2.a2 distinction: original v. secondary or instrumental: original a blacksmith uses a hammer blacksmith to make a bronze sphere Aquinas Aquinas ST I.q2.a2 hammer: a secondary, instrumental cause or secondary, mover (M ), a tool; mover si blacksmith: the original cause or mover (M ) (M ) 10.1 (Postulate) Every mover (M) of something else is either its original 10.1 Every secondary (Mo) or a (M ) mover of original it. or secondary si 10.1.1 (Explanation) A mover (M ) that moves something else that si secondarily, as an instrument, is an instrument of and secondary to another(Explanation) A secondary, instrumental mover (M ) might o). original mover (M another 10.1.2 might be si either one or one in a series of such movers. one one 10.2 If (i) the series of movers can extend to infinity, then (ii) beyond the series infinity beyond every case (iiithere canover is a becondary i,nstrument (M ) of the one mover, in always se another more another which mover ) every m always secondary more original of which every si beyond if (i) every mover is a secondary instrument (M ), then (ii) no it. beyond 10.3 But every secondary no si mover ut (by 10.1.1-2) a secondary instrumental mover (M ), or a series original (Mo). original 10.4 B 10.1.1-2 is econdary s ), si 10.1 (Postulate) Every mover (M) of 10.1 something else is either its original (Mo) or a something or secondary (M ) mover of it secondary si 10.1.1 (Explanation) A mover (M ) that 10.1.1 that si moves something else secondarily, as an instrument, is an instrument of and secondary to another original mover (Mo) secondary 10.1.2 (Explanation) Such a secondary, 10.1.2 instrumental mover (M ) might be either one instrumental might on si or one in a series of such movers of 10.2 If (i) the series of movers can extend to 10.2 the infinity, then (ii) beyond every mover there infinity, beyond can always be another, more original mover, in which case (iii) every mover is a in every secondary instrument (M ) of the one secondary of si beyond it beyond 10.3 But if (i) every mover is a secondary 10.3 every instrument (M ), then (ii) no mover is original instrument no si (Mo) 10.4 But (by 10.1.1-2) a secondary 10.4 10.1.1-2 secondary instrumental mover (M ), or a series of such instrumental ), si movers, needs an original mover (Mo), to movers, ), which it is secondary and of which it is an instrument instrument 10.5 Thus, there are no movers (M) at all, 10.5 and hence no motion and 10.5.1 since (by 10.3[ii]), there is no original 10.5.1 since 10.3 ]), no mover (Mo); mover 10.3 But if (i) every mover is a secondary every secondary instrument (M ), then (ii) no mover is instrument si original (Mo) 10.5.2 and (by 10.3 and 10.4), there are no 10.5.2 and 10.3 10.4), secondary movers (M ). secondary si 10.3 But if (i) every mover is a secondary every instrument (M ), then (ii) no mover is original instrument si (Mo) 10.4 But (by 10.1.1-2) a secondary instrumental 10.1.1-2 secondary mover (M ), or a series of such movers, needs mover ), 10.6 By (1), however, there is obviously 10.6 ), motion, so (10.2[i]) is false. motion, 10.2 If (i) the series of movers can extend to infinity, the then (ii) beyond every mover there can always be then beyond another, more original mover, in which case (iii) every another, every mover is a secondary instrument (M ) of the one mover of si beyond it beyond 10.7 But if (10.2[i]) is false, the series of 10.7 ]) movers cannot extend to infinity (10). movers QED QED with the proofs of (2) and (10), the proof from motion is complete and the existence of God is proved ...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 02/24/2010 for the course PHILOSOPHY 100B taught by Professor Copenhaver during the Spring '10 term at UCLA.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online