Scholasticism

Scholasticism, derived from the Latin adjective scholasticus ( " school ", " belonging to the study ") is the scientific way of thinking and method of proof, which was developed in the Latin -speaking scholarly world of the Middle Ages.

This method is an outgoing of the logical writings of Aristotle process for all scientific questions using theoretical considerations. In this case, an allegation is investigated by first and for speaking against them arguments are presented in succession, and then hit and justified a decision about their accuracy. Allegations are refuted by being proven as either illogical or as a result of conceptual confusion or by showing that they are incompatible with evident or already proven facts.

The today most well known part of the scholastic literature deals with theological issues. Scholasticism was by no means limited to theological themes and objectives, but included the whole of the scientific enterprise. The scholastic method was considered as the scientific method par excellence.

Scholasticism developed from the High Middle Ages, the scholastic method was fully developed in the 13th century and dominated from then on the whole higher education system in which she was instrumental in the early modern period. Since the scholastic method in the universities and in " studies " mentioned educational institutions of the mendicant orders was practiced, it is called " scholasticism " and especially of " scholastic theology " also in the sense of defining the university theology of the monastic ( in monastic religious communities tended ) Theology.

Moreover, the term " scholasticism " also used to denote the epoch of philosophy and theology, in which the scholastic method prevailed and the higher education system is coined. The chronological boundary of the era and its three phases ( early, high and late scholasticism ), however, is unclear and therefore problematic. Go especially as regards the start of scholasticism apart the approaches; in research is called " Vorscholastik " as one the early scholasticism preparatory phase in the early Middle Ages, but can not be counted in the proper sense of the scholastic era.

• 3.1 Textbooks
• 3.2 Task
• 3.3 Courses
• 3.4 Comment beings
• 3.5 sums

• 4.1 opponents of scholasticism
• 4.2 Neuzeitliche late scholasticism and neo-scholasticism

Concept and conceptual history

In ancient times, the adjective scholasticus designated since Cicero everything that had to do with the school system, particularly with education and rhetoric. From the early Middle Ages was called a schoolmaster, the head of a cathedral or monastery school, scholasticus. As in ancient times, the adjective for everything was also used in medieval times, what learning, education and scholarship was concerned, not specifically for what is today understood scholasticism. When delimiting self-designation of scholastics the noun scholasticus played no role in the Middle Ages, the scholastics did not see themselves as a special group or school of thought.

The German term " scholasticism " came on in the later 18th century and designated in the broader sense, sweeping the whole of medieval theology and philosophy, in the strict sense, all attempts to found the Church dogmas of Catholicism rational philosophical means. The German word " scholastic " is attested since the 17th century. According to a then widespread negative medieval image that expression was from the beginning, often pejoratively used ( " narrow-minded ", " pedantic ", " dogmatic "). Even today, this involves among other things the notion of limited, one-sided " book learning ", schematic, realistic foreign thinking, over-emphasis on theory, splitting hairs and quibble. Even Luther had in 1517, fought teachings of the scholastics in a Latin disputation, which was later given the title of " Disputation against Scholastic Theology "; he described it as " erlogenes, damn, devilish chatter ".

Although the terms " scholasticism " and " scholastic " originally referred only to the Middle Ages, they are also used for the attitudes of other eras, which are of late medieval scholasticism or claimed to be similar. Occasionally, they are even transferred to other crops, such as the Indian history of philosophy. If the pejorative meaning is intended, one also speaks of " scholasticism ".

However, the modern science of the Middle Ages ( Medieval Studies ) uses the term " scholasticism " in another, more accurate sense, which is neither judgmental nor specifically related to theological or philosophical topics. In this sense, the word means " scholasticism " is not a specific direction or doctrine, nor is it limited to certain subjects. It is, rather, a kind of argument and evidence, which has been practiced in all areas of knowledge equally, so in medicine and natural science as well as in theology and metaphysics.

Method

Content, the opinions of the scholastics went to the discussed issues are often far apart. The only commonality of all scholastics was the use the scholastic method, the only time in the university system as a scientifically accepted procedure. It consisted in a further development of the ancient dialectic, the doctrine of right ( scientifically correct ) Discuss. Since the scholastic method of understanding of science and the logic of Aristotle was marked and his writings were the main textbooks, the influence of this philosopher was very large. But you can not be equated with Aristotelianism scholasticism. There was among the Scholastics also Platonist and Aristotelian critics. In principle, a scholastic could represent every point of view, when he founded it only methodically clean. Practically, it was expected that they took on the teachings of the Church regardless of what the majority of the scholastics did.

A scholastic textbook usually begins with questions of philosophy of science and science system. When it comes to, for example, the doctrine of the soul, the light of the relevant font Aristotle's De Anima ( On the Soul ) is represented, will first be asked: Can there ever a science of the soul? What exactly is the subject of this science be? To what extent this article is likely to be scientifically studied? How reliable statements can be made ​​available through the soul? Is the science of the soul a natural science? Where is this science fit into the hierarchical system of the sciences? Then they turned to concrete details, such as: If the soul is a substance? What does it consist? The nature of the interactions between it and the body? What skills she has? Is the soul a unit or its parts are independent souls, namely vegetative, the metabolism and growth controls, a sensitive, responsible for sensations and feelings, and an intellective (reason)? How does that relate to plants and animals?

Argument structure

Basically, the principle of dialogue between two representatives was opposing views, from which the solution to the problem posed revealed by the other refuted one. This principle came in the defense and in Quaestionenkommentar advantage. It was normally proceed according to a fixed scheme. First, the question was presented: It is asked if ... Then the arguments were just the one, then listed the other side. The arguments were in the sense of Aristotelian syllogism structured, the major premise propositional maior and the subset propositio minor was called. Then the question in one sense or another decided ( conclusio or solutio ) and the rationale for the decision was given. Subsequently, the refutation of the individual arguments of the losing side followed. Was refuted by either contest a premise (by interemptionem ) or by contesting its applicability to the present case.

Deductive principle

The typical Scholastic was an almost unlimited confidence in the power and reliability of deduction, closing from the general to the particular. It was assumed that the error-free run deduction can lead to the realization of all rationally knowable and eliminate any doubt. Condition was the correct application of the rules of Aristotle, particularly his theory of fallacies. They went out of certain general principles of, to be accurate they were convinced, and then began to reason, to explain a phenomenon or to prove a thesis.

The principle, which you took as a premise in the syllogism, came very often by Aristotle. Such principles were such as Nature does nothing in vain; everything they produce has a meaning and purpose or: Nature always produces the best they can produce. More generally accepted principles were Man is the noblest beings and nature will take care of the Higher over to the low range. Now it was about a phenomenon that the apparently contradicts, for example, this: There are in humans ( the scholastics opinion ) often congenital abnormalities or disabilities than in animals, and come with plants from none at all. The scholastics now wants to show that the principles nonetheless vote. Nature has, as always sought the best, but could for some reason that will be explained, does not achieve anything better, because in each of these cases, certain conditions were very unfavorable. The result was the best that could be reached under such circumstances. Just because the man is the noblest creatures, he is also the most complex and thus störanfälligste. The result was, that all principles are correct, and it was thought to have understood how disabilities come about, although nature is the greatest difficulty in these cases.

The scholastics were convinced that theoretical knowledge which is derived logically clean out general principles, the surest knowledge is that it can give. Observations can be false or deceptive or be misinterpreted, but a logical consequence of a clean general principle is necessarily free from error. Therefore had to phenomena that seemed to contradict such a conclusion are interpreted to mean that they could fit into the framework set by this principle and its consequences. This was the preservation of the phenomena called and played especially in physics and astronomy a central role. Resulted from a generally recognized principle conclusions that contradict those from another principle, so efforts were made to show that the contradiction exists only in appearance, and is based on a misunderstanding.

Dealing with authorities

Event of discrepancies between statements of recognized authorities they tried mostly to show how one can interpret the points so that it comes out that both statements are true. The scholastics had sufficient opportunities to resolve contradictions, without sacrificing generally accepted tenets:

• There are different levels of interpretation; some statements are only meant symbolically or should only serve a specific purpose ( a didactic example ) and are not necessarily to be construed as statements of fact.
• A term can have different meanings depending on the context. The question of whether it is ambiguous or clearly on the site in question, is vital for understanding.
• Most statements do not claim absolute validity ( simpliciter ), but are only in certain ways and under certain conditions ( secundum quid ) be true. A theorem can therefore be saved by precise limiting its scope.

But some master tried not to harmonizing interpretations, but disagreed individual doctrines of the authorities ( even Aristotle ) sharp. In the dynamics we departed from the Aristotelian physics and developed alternative ideas ( impetus theory, internal resistance than movement inhibiting factor ).

Scholastic Teaching

Scholasticism is - their origin and nature - intimately linked with the lessons. Its basis was the existing textbooks, which originated mostly from antiquity, but were partly medieval works.

Textbooks

In the Faculty of Liberal Arts ( Faculty of Arts ) is concerned with logic and grammar ( speculative grammar as a theory of language ), natural science, metaphysics and ethics. The main textbooks were the relevant works of Aristotle, that the Organon ( his writings on logic), Physics, On the Heavens, Meteorology, About the Animals, On the Soul, Metaphysics, Nicomachean Ethics, etc. In the Faculty of Theology was studied except the Bible especially the sentences of Peter Lombard; it was expected of any theologians to comment on the sentences. In the Medical Faculty of the works of Galen, Ibn Sina ( Avicenna ) Canon of Medicine and Isaac ben Solomon Israeli writings ( Isaac Judaeus ) were determined based on the lessons in the first place. For lawyers the basic works were the Corpus iuris Civilis ( Roman law ) and the Corpus iuris Canonici ( Canon Law ).

Task

The first and fundamental task was to make the content of the textbooks of course, so to explain what was meant there, and to eliminate possible ambiguities and misunderstandings. Especially with the works of Aristotle that was urgently needed, because in the then present Latin translations, they were difficult to understand and therefore required the commentary. Then it should be proved that the content of the textbook well -founded and in itself was consistent and no contradictions evident facts or other recognized textbooks templates. The next step was to ask questions and independently to solve that arose from reading the textbook. A further step was to take the textbook only as cues for all kinds of questions that you found interesting. Here, the scholastics opportunity to present in detail his own philosophy bot.

Courses

The scholastic instruction consisted of lecture ( lectio ) and disputations. The holding of these courses was solely for the Magisters. The regularly held in all departments under the direction of a single Magister disputations served to address and resolve issues ( Quaestionen ) to certain previously announced topics ( Quaestiones disputatae, Quaestiones ordinariae ). Place twice a year instead of the disputation de quolibet, a (sometimes several days ) structured discussion event about any problems, that is about all that was likely to be the subject of scientific debate. The main arguments and results of the disputations were held and published writing.

Comment beings

Since you went out of the textbooks, whose thorough knowledge and proper understanding was primary objective remained the scholastic science commenting in the first place. A very large part of the works of the scholastic scholars consisted of commentaries on the textbooks. The simplest type of commentary were glosses: Man wearing in the textbook between the lines or at the edge explanations of words and other, sometimes detailed instructions and notes on a. The next stage were explanatory text, paraphrasing comments, who set out the structure of the textbook, presented his thoughts in systematically structured form and its contents reproductions in other words. Then there was " Quaestionenkommentare ", the questions about the textbook and contained their discussion and eventual clarification with the evidence and refutation of counter-arguments. These types of comments (there were also mixed forms ) corresponded to the genera of the courses: the simple textauslegende comment corresponded to the lecture, the Quaestionenkommentar of defense.

Buzz

The sums were used for comprehensive, systematic manual -like representation of large areas of knowledge, such as grammar, logic, or even the entire theology. As early as 1146 the grammarian Peter Helie (or Helias ) Summa super had written Priscianum, a summary of the teachings of the ancient grammarian Priscian, for the speculative grammar ( linguistic theory ) of scholasticism was pioneering. Peter Hispanus wrote the Summulae logicales, a very popular logic textbook that was often placed to the 18th century. Among the sums of the theology of Thomas Aquinas those achieved the strongest aftereffect ( Summa contra gentiles Summa theologiae and ). Even with the lawyers major strands of the substance were presented in sums. In particular, the Dekretisten ( canon lawyer who studied the Decretum of Gratian and interpreted ) emerged as a writer of sums, some had also comment character in them.

History

As epoch of early scholasticism the eleventh century (or even the second half) and at least the beginning of the twelfth is considered. In the course of the 12th century is said to have been a slow transition to Scholasticism. Also unclear is the substantive definition of high and late scholasticism; chronologically to the border somewhere in the early 14th century.

A precursor of the scholastic mindset encountered in Anselm of Canterbury († 1109 ) in his quest to find compelling philosophical arguments for theological statements ( proof of God ), and in its use of dialogue. Peter Abelard († 1142 ) explained and demonstrated in his book Sic et non a methodical handling of contradictions between authorities. Played a decisive role, which began in the second quarter of the 12th century, in the thirties of the 13th century largely completed translation of the writings of Aristotle into Latin. End of the 12th century were also translations of the works of the Muslim philosopher al -Kindi, al -Farabi, Avicenna and al -Ghazali ( Latinized Algazel ) prior to 1235 and the comments of Aristotle Ibn Rushd († 1198 Latinized Averroes ). Averroes practiced on the Latin medieval philosophy of great influence and was simply referred to as " the commentator ", was just as Aristotle called just " the philosopher ". This literature coined henceforth the University teaching, and thus began the scholastic science in the West in the true sense. The most significant factors and developments were:

• The replacement of the traditional, dominated by the Platonic -influenced views of the church father Augustine theology and philosophy by the Aristotelianism. Albertus Magnus († 1280 ) target nor a synthesis of Platonic and Aristotelian ideas, his pupil Thomas Aquinas († 1274), the founder of Thomism, eliminated the Platonic elements and ensured the victory of an adapted to the needs of the Catholic faith Aristotelianism.
• Roger Bacon ( † around 1292 ) astutely recognized the weaknesses of the scholastic academic life, especially his extreme Theorielastigkeit, and tried to create by increasing the involvement of acquired knowledge compensate. He rushed with its end pointing to the future concept of empirical science ( scientia experimentalis ) and a wealth of bold, new ideas ahead of his contemporaries. But he made ​​himself by his tendency to rugged, relentless criticism widely unpopular, and his approaches were not taken up, as it would have been necessary for a comprehensive reform of scholasticism.
• Among the Franciscans formed a flow ( Franciscan School ), although they took the scholastic method, but limit the influence of Aristotelianism and preserve traditional Platonic- Augustinian ideas wanted, especially in anthropology. Leading representatives of the movement were Robert Grosseteste, Alexander of Hales, Bonaventura, and finally John Duns Scotus († 1308), the founder of Scotism. Franciscans, especially Scotists, were the main opponents of Thomism.
• There was a flow of radical Aristotelians that followed the views of Aristotle and Averroes in the points in which they were hardly compatible with the Church's teaching (see Averroism ). This led to repeated violent reactions of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, which prohibited the dissemination of such views. The Averroists contributed stubbornly silent resistance.
• William of Ockham († 1349 ) was the champion of a revolutionary conception which had been sporadically represented in the 11th century in a slightly different form. They radicalized the Aristotelian critique of the idea of Plato by the ideas ( universals ) no real existence zubilligte ( nominalism or conceptualism other terminology ). This view was incompatible with the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity. The triggered thereby universals between nominalists / conceptualist and Universalienrealisten ( Platonists ) was a major theme of the scholastics. Among the leading nominalist / conceptualist counted John Buridanus. At the universities were called later the nominalism / conceptualism via moderna in contrast to the via antiqua of (some radical, some temperate ) Universalienrealisten. In fact, the contrast between nominalists and realists was still far deeper than the antagonism between Thomists, Scotists and other nichtnominalistischen directions.

Opponents of scholasticism

Scholasticism had three types of opponents:

• Conservative anti-dialectician as Rupert of Deutz, Gerhoch of Rich Mountain, and Bernard of Clairvaux, which displeased the whole direction. They said that the application of the method could lead to theological questions about conclusions that were inconsistent with the doctrine of the Church.
• Prominent humanists such as Petrarch and Erasmus. They attacked the whole scholastic science with great sharpness, because it is sterile and their issues and solutions are useless and irrelevant. The humanists believed that the scholastics Aristotle could not understand, because they knew him only from poor translations and considered from the perspective of Averroes. In addition, the humanists despised the language of the scholastics, the late medieval Latin, with its many scholastic technical terms. They wanted only antique, classic Latin apply.
• Pioneers of modern scientific understanding in the early modern period. The criticism of the conservative anti-dialectician and the humanists was little impact of scholasticism, because they did not offer constructive scientific alternatives. In the early modern period, but was a third type of opposition that has brought about the end of scholasticism in a long process. They wanted to no longer be content to interpret observations so that they were compatible with predetermined principles and their consequences and a consistent theory revealed. Instead, they began to proceed empirically, so that the knowledge and experience to give priority and, if necessary, to modify or abandon, so to accept as scientific method in addition to the deduction and induction principles. This criticism was aimed at the main weakness of deductive scholastic method, namely the fact that the results of the scholastics, despite all the sagacity could not be better than the premises from which they emanated. In addition, the early modern natural science replaced the quality-related thinking of the scholastics in part by a quantity related. In this development, especially Francis Bacon played a significant role as an opponent of the scholastic tradition.

Latter-day late scholasticism and neo-scholasticism

The scholastic method was still used by some theologians and jurists in the early modern period. Under the modern or late scholasticism Second scholasticism refers to a theological- juridical movement that continues in Thomas Aquinas. It had its origins in Paris and was continued in the Spanish School of Salamanca (Francisco de Vitoria, Domingo de Soto ). Therefore it is also called " Spanish Late Scholasticism ". In the late scholasticism central principles of international law and criminal law ( punishment ) have been developed.

Under neo-scholasticism refers to a flow in Catholic theology since the 19th century that continues in late medieval and early modern ideas. Here, the neo-Thomism plays by far the most important role. This development was facilitated by the encyclical Aeterni Patris of Leo XIII. , Which emphasized the crucial importance of scholasticism for the Catholic philosophy.

Renowned scholastics

See list of known scholastics