Consorting with other blogs
Check out my recent post on the Blog of the American Philosophical on teaching non-canonical material in university philosophy classes.
Indeed, any number of
Any number of medieval philosophers might have claim to fame (perhaps, as you mention, varying depending on which sub-area we emphasize). But the podcast has yet to communicate (to me, at least) the idea that ancient philosophy can be added to this mix. I have the overall impression that referring to the middle ages as 'dark ages' accurately captures something about the ideas of that period, whether in the Islamic or Latin-Christian world. The podcast has left me with the impression that philosophy after Christianity is more monotonic and less insightful. And I am also left with the sense that the dark ages appear dark measured against a tiny sample of the surviving ancient texts.
A philosophically rewarding lens through which to view these dark ages would be through Neoplatonism (if Neoplatonism were the only thing to come from the ancient world--and that wouldn't include Plato himself, then the middle ages might keep pace and seem to progress); but there seems nothing as creative or philosophically rich as Plato’s own dialogues or the surviving Aristotelian cannon. Even the limited remaining texts from the stoics, epicureans, and skeptics shine brighter than the last 150 episodes, and I have the impression that I could apply this topically to medicine, law, natural philosophies, and so on.
The podcast is a helpful reminder that the multifaceted middle ages offer more than mere theology, and there are exciting highlights that modern philosophy can learn from, but the philosophical questions they ask are overwhelming shaped by varieties of monotheism, with different Neoplatonic seeds occasionally bearing new fruit. Perhaps I have whiggish sentiments (judging past in light of present) that bias me too much to fully appreciate the middle ages. But I picture someone like Lawrence Krauss starting at episodes 118 and continuing to the present and saying, “just as I thought, I can just lump philosophy and religion together and trash em in my books.” I’ll just finish by saying I feel I’ve added a heavy pinch of salt to help get a subtle point across, so the flavor of my comment is grossly exaggerated.
In reply to Indeed, any number of by DH
Thanks for this comment,
Thanks for this comment, which is a much more thoughtful critique of medieval philosophy than one usually hears - I guess in a sense I could almost say "mission accomplished" because it sounds like you have come away from the podcasts with nuanced reasons for being less impressed. Of course I am more enthusiastic than you are; here are a couple of reasons why.
First, it may be unfair to compare what they are doing to what the ancients did, in that the ancients are sort of operating with a blank slate and can do things like invent metaphysics (Parmenides) or postulate immaterial substances for the first time (Plato?), or have a first go at developing a theory of ethics based on virtue (Aristotle). Medieval philosophy is certainly less revolutionary. However, it does offer many detailed advances within these same areas - which is sometimes hard to bring across in a podcast, like when the advances have to do with technical aspects of logic or philosophy of language. For a good example though, stay tuned for the upcoming episode on speculative grammar; or think of the older episodes on the problem of universals or individuation. As a result contemporary, especially analytic philosophers can easily find medieval philosophy _more_ rewarding: it is much more like the kind of philosophy done today than ancient philosophy was, in this respect. (Of course not everyone would take this as a compliment, but it shows one potentially appealing feature.
Second, in a sense the theological context placed on Latin medieval philosophy make it more interesting, not less, because you see philosophers operating with their ingenuity in a constrained intellectual setting, pushing the boundaries in various ways, etc. The next few episodes on the condemnations and "Latin Averroists" look at one of the most exciting examples.
Third, and sort of running counter to the first point, if (like many) you think that philosophy should have a spiritual or "affective" side and not just be about technical distinctions and so on, then medieval philosophy has a lot to offer, not just the obvious "mystical" authors like Eriugena, Hildegard, or Meister Eckhart but the Augustinian tradition represented by Anselm and Bonaventure, for instance.
By the way I think Islamic/Jewish/Arabic Christian philosophy is a very different kettle of fish. I would argue for the importance and interest of the Islamic world material in different ways, so for instance I don't think that they were nearly as constrained by the religious context as Latin Christian authors were.
Thanks again for your comment!
In reply to Thanks for this comment, by Peter Adamson
Oops I'm sorry for the double
Oops I'm sorry for the double post, i was getting error messages (I must have submitted 1/2 dozen versions trying reduce the # of characters).
Re point 1: Philosophy of language and logic are good examples; maybe we could add mathematics. I think Quine was the first to open my eyes to this. And (your podcast shows) the islamic world offered new ideas on perception and subjectivity. But I'll have to ponder more your point about how to compare the ancients to others. (How much more of a blank slate were the ancients working with? If we subtract the 'invention' aspect, do the ancients still seem to offer more?)
Re point 2: I'll try to keep this in mind as a listen.. I wasn't raised with monotheism so it stands out for me how much it has shaped the podcast. re point 3: I'm biased by the fact that I have simply read so much more of the ancients than any medieval author (availability heuristic!), so I'll have to read more of the medievals i 'spose. I'm trying to read more women in philosophy, so Ive started on Hildegard's letters :)
In reply to Oops I'm sorry for the double by DH
Well, I'd say that Plato and
Well, I'd say that Plato and Aristotle at least were operating with quite a blank slate. It's hard to compare other philosophers with them - "footnotes to Plato" and all that. But if you leave them aside as a kind of freak of history with the two greatest philosophers appearing more or less simultaneously, then I think the medievals can hold with the ancients: Avicenna, Aquinas, and Scotus stack up reasonably well with Plotinus, Augustine and Chrysippus (for my money the three other greatest ancient thinkers, maybe also Epicurus). But as I say it depends what you like and besides my original post was arguing that you miss a huge amount if you only go after these supposedly biggest names. Of course you are not alone in having read very little medieval philosophy!
Add new comment
- Add new comment
- 12312 views
Blog Archive
- March 2024 (1)
- February 2024 (2)
- December 2023 (2)
- November 2023 (2)
- October 2023 (3)
- September 2023 (3)
- August 2023 (1)
- July 2023 (1)
- June 2023 (2)
- May 2023 (3)
- April 2023 (3)
- March 2023 (6)
- February 2023 (2)
- January 2023 (5)
- November 2022 (3)
- October 2022 (1)
- September 2022 (1)
- August 2022 (1)
- July 2022 (6)
- May 2022 (3)
- April 2022 (2)
- March 2022 (3)
- January 2022 (3)
- December 2021 (1)
- November 2021 (3)
- October 2021 (1)
- September 2021 (3)
- August 2021 (4)
- July 2021 (2)
- June 2021 (3)
- May 2021 (2)
- April 2021 (4)
- March 2021 (4)
- February 2021 (1)
- January 2021 (2)
- December 2020 (3)
I've been following your
I've been following your podcast series from the start, and I get the impression that any number of medieval philosophers might have claim to fame (perhaps, as you mention, varying depending on which sub-area we emphasize). But the podcast has yet to communicate (to me, at least) the idea that ancient philosophy can be added to this mix. I have the overall impression that referring to the middle ages as 'dark ages' accurately captures something about the ideas of that period, whether in the Islamic or Latin-Christian world. The podcast has so far left me with the impression that philosophy after Christianity is more monolithic, and less insightful. And I am also left with the impression that the dark ages appear dark measured against a tiny sample of the surviving ancient texts. The Greek and early-to-middle Roman world offer so much depth and variety even when we only have a sample of surviving works; the dark ages try to keep pace in depth, but fail to offer any comparable variety.
A philosophically rewarding lens through which to view these dark ages would be through the Neoplatonism lens (if Neoplatonism were the only thing to come from the ancient world--and that wouldn't include Plato himself, then the middle ages might keep pace and seem to progress); but there seems nothing as creative or philosophically rich as Plato’s own dialogues or the surviving Aristotelian cannon. Even the limited remaining texts from the stoics, epicureans, and skeptics shine brighter than anything covered in the last 150 episodes, and I have the impression that I could apply this topically to medicine, law, natural philosophies, ethical theories, and so on.
The podcast is a helpful reminder that the multifaceted middle ages offer more than mere theology, and there are exciting highlights that modern philosophy can learn from, but the philosophical questions they ask are overwhelming shaped by varieties of monotheism, with different Neoplatonic seeds occasionally bearing new fruit.
Perhaps I have some whiggish sentiments (judging past in light of present) that bias me too much to fully appreciate the middle ages. But I picture someone like Lawrence Krauss starting at episodes 118 and continuing to the present and saying, “just as I thought, I can just lump philosophy and religion together and trash em in my books.”
I’ll just finish by saying I feel I’ve added a heavy pinch of salt to help get a subtle point across, so the flavor of my comment is grossly exaggerated.