|
Post by timoneill on Nov 18, 2010 2:56:04 GMT
P.S. I had a friendly discussion with Freeman at the other forum Yes, one where the guy reveals how monumental his ignorance of the Medieval period is. For example: Boethius’ Consolation of Philosophy was widely read but it hardly mentions Christianity. It is hard to know how vital Boethius work on logic was.I nearly fell off my chair laughing at that one. This is Boethius - the guy who did more than anyone to preserve key works of logic including those of Aristotle and to enshrine logic at the heart and core of the medieval syllabus - and Charlie says it's "hard to know" if his work on logic was "vital" or not!! And this clown is writing a book on the Middle Ages? It is to laugh. I can't wait to review that one.
|
|
|
Post by peterdamian on Nov 18, 2010 11:06:36 GMT
As you can see I gently followed this up with him. It was clear from some earlier remarks ('theological axioms') that he hadn't looked very carefully at this area. Then later in that thread he effectively admits that he hadn't - "I just find these texts so marginal to any form of actual life. I like things that actually relate to people’s lives which is why I have chosen relic cults" www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2010/a-truth-was-now-defined-and-enforced-by-law/#comment-63792 . My view is that if you are studying the history of ideas - and the history of scientific thought is clearly the history of ideas - then you have to read what these writers were actually saying. From secondary sources if you must, but primary are better, and in the original language best of all. (If the translation says 'metaphysics' does the original Latin say that, or something else ('prima philosophia', 'philosophia')? If the translation says 'science' does the Latin say 'scientia' or 'notitia'? That sort of thing). I'm not sure there is even an argument to be had here. It's clear we are looking at wholly different subjects. The study of relic cults is clearly very interesting and relevant to medieval culture, but it's not relevant to the history of scientific thought. Aquinas devotes a handful of his 400-odd questions to relics. He devotes more than 100 questions to his complex and difficult theory of human knowledge and intellection. He is very critical of Hannam's book, but I have now reached the 'Renaissance' part, and I find no serious fault. I think Hannam badly misunderstands Ockham's nominalism (see above); he tends to make sweeping summaries which are correct but not always backed up by sources; and in general there is strong reliance on secondary sources. But most of his observations are spot on.
|
|
|
Post by bjorn on Nov 18, 2010 11:54:11 GMT
Hopefully his reading of Franklin will change some of his understanding, even if he is not dealing with medieval (natural) philosophy as such (Franklin is mainly looking at the understanding of probability and statistics in decision making (e.g. gaming), though touching a lot of topics and aspects).
The comments about Paris is however beyond me.
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Nov 18, 2010 13:34:37 GMT
I think CF outlines one of the secondary arguments of his 'Relics' book here - see comments by anonymous. bedejournal.blogspot.com/2009/02/columbus-and-flat-earth.html'Robert Bartlett's The Hanged Man is excellent but the church still accepted the resurrection account there- and once Thomas was accepted by an ecclesiastical court as a saint who could do resurrections, lots more followed. Bartlett says 40- another account says 60! Bartlett's book on the Supernatural is also worth reading - he has an excellent example of how Christian 'rationality' disproved the possibility of the existence of other continents. I increasingly admire the ingenuity of the medieval mind but so long as God's power to intervene so widely was accepted as the norm 'scientific' thinking was bound to be limited which is why it is so hard to find any evidence of medieval thought actually underpinning the seventeenth century so-called scientific revolution - although Gaukroger in his The Emergence of a Scientific Culture (Oxford 2006) has some interesting things to say.'
|
|
deef
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 87
|
Post by deef on Nov 18, 2010 14:12:45 GMT
Great topic this. I don't have the knowledge to add anything to this discussion, so I just read.
|
|
|
Post by James Hannam on Nov 18, 2010 14:42:34 GMT
He is very critical of Hannam's book, but I have now reached the 'Renaissance' part, and I find no serious fault. I think Hannam badly misunderstands Ockham's nominalism (see above); he tends to make sweeping summaries which are correct but not always backed up by sources; and in general there is strong reliance on secondary sources. But most of his observations are spot on. Thanks Peter. Would you rather be Edward? I do like the logic museum. When I get to looking at the edits for the US edition, I'll try to correct the problem with Ockham and, if you don't mind, check back with you then. What I say about humanists is controversial, unlike the medieval stuff where I'm following other people rather than my own research. So, I'd be interested in what you think. On the wider subject, I suggest that the metaphysical background is what distinguished the West from other civilisations where science did not fully develop. When I get a moment I'll flesh this out but the argument is spread through GP as well. Best wishes James
|
|
|
Post by peterdamian on Nov 18, 2010 17:59:08 GMT
He is very critical of Hannam's book, but I have now reached the 'Renaissance' part, and I find no serious fault. I think Hannam badly misunderstands Ockham's nominalism (see above); he tends to make sweeping summaries which are correct but not always backed up by sources; and in general there is strong reliance on secondary sources. But most of his observations are spot on. Thanks Peter. Would you rather be Edward? I do like the logic museum. When I get to looking at the edits for the US edition, I'll try to correct the problem with Ockham and, if you don't mind, check back with you then. What I say about humanists is controversial, unlike the medieval stuff where I'm following other people rather than my own research. So, I'd be interested in what you think. On the wider subject, I suggest that the metaphysical background is what distinguished the West from other civilisations where science did not fully develop. When I get a moment I'll flesh this out but the argument is spread through GP as well. Best wishes James 'Peter' is fine! The humanist stuff seems OK but I am NOT a specialist in this area. My only quibble is whether Aristotle did fall from grace as early as you suggest in Cambridge. I have a useful book (The Scholastic Curriculum at 17th Century Cambridge) which is well sourced (from primary sources - college records) that suggest Aristotle was on the curriculum. 'If at any time in your disputation you use the Authority of Aristotle, bue sure you bring his owne words & in his owne language. In your answering refect not lightly the Authority of Aristotle, if his owne words will permitt of a favourable, and a sure interpretation'. (James Duport, in Trinity MS O 10a 33). Duport taught Isaac Barrow, who taught Isaac Newton. [edit] The mention of Barrow led me to check out Palo Mancosu's excellent *Philosophy of Mathematics and Mathematical Practice in the Seventeenth Century*. There is a section on Barrow there, whose philosophy of mathematics is clearly derivative of the scholastic method. Hardly surprising if his MA tutur was Duport. Interesting also that Barrow had both a classics and a mathematics education. [edit] Further reading suggests a strong connection between Aristotle's Posterior Analytics, which as some of you know I have been discussing here ocham.blogspot.com/search/label/posterior%20analytics and what was happening in mathematics at the end of the 16th century. Some of these philosopher-mathematicians were reacting to Aristotle. But that alone suggests an important continuity. To react to a thinker, you have to have carefully studied them. Note that Locke also shows a detailed knowledge of Aristotle's work. All this suggests that Aristotle was very much a part of the curriculum until the end of the 17th century. It was only later that reaction turned into neglect.
|
|
|
Post by himself on Nov 18, 2010 20:26:57 GMT
he has an excellent example of how Christian 'rationality' disproved the possibility of the existence of other continents.
What was the example?
|
|
|
Post by James Hannam on Nov 18, 2010 21:20:46 GMT
Hi Peter,
Did I say that Aristotle was banished from Cambridge? That would be a dreadful mistake! The scholastics were indeed banished, but replaced by the Greek Aristotle without any medieval advances or accretions. The syllabus in the seventeenth century was not scholastic but humanist.
Best wishes
James
|
|
|
Post by peterdamian on Nov 19, 2010 8:30:53 GMT
Hi Peter, Did I say that Aristotle was banished from Cambridge? That would be a dreadful mistake! The scholastics were indeed banished, but replaced by the Greek Aristotle without any medieval advances or accretions. The syllabus in the seventeenth century was not scholastic but humanist. Best wishes James My apologies I completely misread p. 217. Yes, Costello's book confirms that Cromwell's revised curriculum prohibits only the scholastic commentaries on Aristotle. He quotes Statuta Regis Henrici Octavi, an. xxvii regni sui, 22 Oct. 1535, Statuta Antiqua Cantabrigiensis, admonishing Cambridge lecturers to use Aristotle primarily, and after him the German scholastics Agricola, Melanchthon "and men of this stamp". They were to guard students "from the darkness worse than chimaera, from the frivolous questiuncula, and from the blind and obscure glosses of Scotus, Burleius [Walter Burley], Anthony Trombeta, Thomas Bricot [mentioned in GP p217-8], George of Brussels and others of that pack". Looking at the chapter on sciences at Cambridge, it seems they were studying the theory of substantial forms will into the 17th century. This was clearly an obstacle to progress, given the medieval advances and accretions that they had thrown away.
|
|
|
Post by bjorn on Nov 19, 2010 9:03:08 GMT
he has an excellent example of how Christian 'rationality' disproved the possibility of the existence of other continents. What was the example? I have the book somewhere, though can't find it at the moment... There is of course the discussion about the antipodes (in Augustin and others) about whether such beings existed at all, and whether they had part in the Fall and Salvation. As it was impossible to cross the heated zone around equator (it was thought) the conclusion tended to be that either Antipodes didn't exist or was not part of the fallen human race. I don't think much was said about continents in this context though, and there was a greek tradition for placing a large continent in the southern hemisphere as things had to be "balanced" between north and south. We find this also on maps from the 14/1500's, prior to the discovery of Australia and Antartica. So he may be a bit confused...? I'll check the book, though
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Nov 19, 2010 11:37:46 GMT
You will be able to read the disparaging examples of Christian 'rationality' in a new tome entitled 'The Reawakening of the Western Mind' - according to 'he who cannot be mentioned' it is still in the synopsis mode at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by James Hannam on Nov 19, 2010 12:51:34 GMT
Scotus, Burleius [Walter Burley], Anthony Trombeta, Thomas Bricot, George of Brussels and others of that pack. Hi Peter, Glad we sorted that out. Why do you think it was those five whom Cromwell picked on. There is little doubt he drafted the 1535 ordinances himself, but would have consulted. The list is the basically the same for Oxford. Dun Scotus's inclusion is no surprise. Bricot was a popular textbook at Oxford so again, maybe understandable. But he was no Scotist. The other names just seem to be picked at random. I think Stephen Brulifer rather than George of Brussels is the final name but there are various drafts of the injunctions in existence. Pages 106 - 7 of my thesis refer if anyone is interested: www.dspace.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/1810/218820/1/james%20hannam%20phd%20thesis.pdf Best wishes James
|
|
|
Post by peterdamian on Nov 19, 2010 13:11:09 GMT
I read those pages with interest. When I get time I will look at the whole thing (I still find a book easier than a screen). Has there been any other comprehensive study of 1535? It seems in a way as important as 1277, though for different reasons. As you say, it looks like 'an assault on scholasticism'.
[edit] Your comment on Costello is interesting. This is what confused me at first. Costello is representing the curriculum as *scholastic* whereas it is really *Aristotelian*. That said, the techniques of learning and writing such as the disputatio and the quaestio could hardly have changed overnight.
|
|
|
Post by bjorn on Nov 19, 2010 13:30:16 GMT
he has an excellent example of how Christian 'rationality' disproved the possibility of the existence of other continents. What was the example? I have the book somewhere, though can't find it at the moment... Which was undestandable, as the book I had by him was "The Hanged Man". Bartlett's book on the Supernatural is not in my library...
|
|