What to expect when you're expecting the 14th century
Here’s a preview of the upcoming season of podcasts on medieval philosophy: the 14th century. This will start with episode 265, after several episodes on Scotus (who I am considering first as a bridging figure; he died in 1308). Note that this list does not include interviews. Some figures will be covered in thematic episodes; a not necessarily complete guide to this is provided in brackets. Suggestions of course welcome!
Introduction to the Fourteenth Century
Marguerite Porete
Dante Aligheri
Later Medieval Political Philosophy [Giles of Rome, Scotus, Dante]
Marsilius of Padua
William of Ockham: Life and Political Thought
Ockham’s Nominalism
Responses to Ockham [Burley and Chatton]
The Problem of Divine Foreknowledge [Ockham, Auriol, Bradwardine, Gregory of Rimini]
Fourteenth Century Logic [Kilvington, Heydesbury, Swineshead etc]
Fourteenth Century Science [Burley, Ockham, Francis of Marchia]
John Buridan: Nominalism
Buridan on Science
Nicole Oresme
Concepts and Mental Language
Angels in Medieval Philosophy
Meister Eckhart
The German Dominican school [Dietrich of Freiberg, Berthold of Moosburg, Johannes Tauler, Henry Suso]
Nicholas of Autrecourt
English Mysticism [Julian of Norwich, Cloud of Unknowing]
Chaucer and Piers Plowman
Medieval ideas on Gender and Sexuality
John Wyclif and the Lollards
Scholasticism’s Spread Across Europe [Marsilius of Inghen]
Humanism Before the Renaissance [Boccaccio and Petrarch]
Jean Gerson
In reply to Dear Peter, by mehmet
Hi there- that topic is one I
Hi there- that topic is one I will be looking at in great detail in the Renaissance episodes. Actually there is no death of scholasticism, what you have is a continuous development of scholasticism alongside humanism as a rival tradition. The "second scholastic" is more a highpoint of the continued scholastic tradition than a rebirth (at least that's my impression at the moment but I will have to read up a lot on this for the future episodes).
In reply to Hi there- that topic is one I by Peter Adamson
The School of Salamanca did a
The School of Salamanca did a lot of important and ground-breaking work in political philosophy and economics. In fact some have argued that they have more of a true claim to having founded economic science than Adam Smith, and (I think convincingly) that Smith actually botched a lot of what they got right, not to be recovered until Karl Menger and the revolution of subjective value in the 19th century.
Another important scholastic was Juan Poinsot, better known as John of St. Thomas. I heard a really interesting paper at a conference last year that argued that his mostly neglected work on semiotics holds the key to bringing Thomism into the postmodern era.
In reply to The School of Salamanca did a by Thomas Mirus
Great, thanks for the tips -
Great, thanks for the tips - obviously will be covering their thought when I get to the Renaissance.
In reply to Great, thanks for the tips - by Peter Adamson
Speaking of the School of
Speaking of the School of Salamanca, I imagine they had a lot in common with Oresme. His treatise on money was the first ever written, containing a trenchant moral critique of the debasement of coinage by rulers. Despite the differences in our modern monetary system, he would have a lot to say to our inflation-mad states and central banks, and they wouldn't be happy to hear it. Looking forward to his episode!
In reply to Speaking of the School of by Thomas Mirus
Actually, apart from
Actually, apart from economics, I think the school of salamanca must have also been very important in metaphysics.. I have seen a lot of remarks indicating that Descartes was inspired a lot by Suarez, and one particular author I knew used the word "stole".. :-)
Scholasticism after 14th century is a black hole.. Most textbooks totally ignore it, jumping directly from Ockham to Ficino-Mirandola-Bruno, and then from there they jump directly to Descartes. One feels that a lot of things are skipped/swept under the rug. Even Ficino & company are covered very half-heartedly, because these guys dabble with magic, astrology, alchemy, necromancy etc as much as they dabble with "pure" philosophy. This is all a pity, of course, because this period was one of the richest in the history of western thought, where a plurality of worldwiews were in competition with each other.. The parting of ways came only towards 1700's.. After that, science, religion, philosophy and medicine went to their separate ways, occult sciences died with Bruno and Fludd, and everything was simplified..
I hope that HOPWAG will continue its high standards and give this period its due.
In reply to Actually, apart from by mehmet
That's the plan! To give you
That's the plan! To give you some idea of what I have planned, there will be a whole book's worth on Byzantium plus these Renaissance figures (before, or distinct from but contemporaneous with, the Reformation figures who will be a new series and book). Thanks for the encouragement.
In reply to Hi, by mehmet
Yes, I wanted to mention him
Yes, I wanted to mention him as background for the episode on 14th c science.
Dear Peter, I have one last
Dear Peter, I have one last question about the upcoming 14th century podcast series:
The philosophical/mystical system of Rhineland mystics, particularly that of Eckhard, are frequently compared with the system of Ruysbroeck.. For example, this article:
"complete mysticism: does ruysbroeck transcend eckhard?", Maria Lichtmann, www.jsor.org/stable/20716762
Will we have some discussion of Ruysbroeck in connection with Rhineland mystics/Eckhard/German Dominicans?
Thanks again, Mehmet.
In reply to Dear Peter, I have one last by mehmet
Thanks, that's a great
Thanks, that's a great suggestion - helps make the point about the vernacular. Actually there is a problem here for me since there are SO many Dutch and German mystics and I don't want to get derailed into a mini-series on this phenomenon, but really keep it to Eckhart plus one other episode about the general phenomenon. But I think Ruysbroeck would be at least worth mentioning, thank you.
Hi Peter,
Hi Peter,
I have to say I'm really looking forward to these episodes. Like most people I'm pretty much totally ignorant of the period, and so I look forward to (hopefully!) changing that. One thing I've found by just quickly googling all the names is that a surprisingly low number seem to have died of the Black Death. On this list, Ockham and Bradwardine seem to be the only exceptions. Given that it's often said to have killed 30-60% of Europe's population, and especially given that urban areas were the worst affected, I find this quite frankly to be really, really surprising. I've even heard it said that the Black Death was so devastating as to "bring about a near collapse of intellectual structures and continuity of thought in England". Is this simply not true? I know you often dislike narratives of decline in historiography of philosophy, but the impact of such a pandemic seems (at least to my extremely ill-informed eyes) like something that almost couldn't possibly not have caused a major decline.
I say almost because, at least in the public consciousness, we tend to think of the Black Death as an event that seriously challenged traditional social, religious, medical and, of course, philosophical views. In that case, it could have had some positive impact on philosophy if it spurred innovations - although I'm not sure if that's actually the case.
Anyway, this brings me to my suggestion/question about the possibility of an episode on the Black Death. Unless my speculations are completely off base (in which case, I must apologise for making you read such tripe), it seems like an event significant enough in the history of philosophy to merit at least an episode. Even if my speculations are off base, I would at least be interesting in hearing why. Although, in that case, I would agree that it probably wouldn't deserve an episode.
Thanks again for all your hard work and good luck with the episodes.
In reply to Hi Peter, by Jack
Thanks, that's a really
Thanks, that's a really interesting question and one I thought about too. I don't really get into this in the upcoming intro episode on the 14th c., but the Black Death will come up in an interview with Monica Green on medieval medical theories.
In terms of its impact on intellectual life, it is notable that there are more thinkers (especially in the scholastic context) in the first half of the century than in the second half, which is consistent with the idea that it did have a negative effect since the Black Death hits around 1350. But also, falling population opened opportunities: university enrollments stayed pretty constant I believe, but pulling from a wider social range of students. So the intellectuals were able to replace their numbers, apparently. Courtenay talks about that in a book I'm mentioning in next week's episode.
In reply to Thanks, that's a really by Peter Adamson
Sounds interesting. I look
Sounds interesting. I look forward to hearing about it!
Hi,
Hi,
Will Paul of Venice be covered, or are you leaving him to 15th. century philosophy? I am asking this because I keep on seeing many references to him, especially in Duhem's book "medieval cosmology".
In reply to Hi, by mehmet
Right, he is one of the many
Right, he is one of the many scholastic thinkers who is pretty important but not going to get his own episode. I think he will appear in either a general episode on 14th c logic or as background for discussion of Wyclif. By the way the Stanford Encyclopedia has a helpful page on him:
In reply to Right, he is one of the many by Peter Adamson
I know the SEP page, but
I know the SEP page, but listening it in HOPWAG is a totally different experience.. :-) SEP pages wont even compare.. :-)
Add new comment
- Add new comment
- 16328 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)
Dear Peter,
Dear Peter,
I am no expert on history of philosophy, but as far as I know, scholastic philosophy "died" at some point between the end of 14th and beginning of the 15th centuries, and replaced by the renaissance philosophy, whose nature was quite different.. So, is it possible to have an episode which investigates the final fate of scholasticism and reasons for its abandonment? I always had a weak spot for scholastic method of thinking and really wonder about why it went out of fashion..
Also, there is the second scholastic period, with the famous figure of Francisco Suarez. I believe you will cover it under the episode series "renaissance philosophy"..
As usual, thanks for enriching us with these marvelous podcasts..