Customer Reviews

Scholasticism: Personalities and Problems of Medieval Philosophy

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Written prior to the recent interest in medieval studies, this book still gives a fine introduction to the era, and explains the significance not only of the great Scholastics, but also of lesser known figures like Cassiodorus, Pseudo-Dionysius, John of Salisbury, and Siger of Brabant. Both the fundamental problematic of the Scholastic--to unite the deliverances of faith and reason, in accordance with the motto "Credo ut intelligam"--and the attempts of different philosophers to carry out this project are detailed and explained clearly and in simple language. This book does not, however, discuss philosophical problems in any detail, and can only serve as a general introduction. Still, its brevity, clarity, and self-contained approach make it a good starting place for the philosopher interested in this topic.

Jospef Pieper wrote a concise book on the Age of Scholasticism which clearly explained the thinking and the achievements of those Catholic scholars who were part of the Scholastic Era. Peiper also gave the Moslem and Jewish scholars due respect as did many of the Scholastics including St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274).

Peiper started this book with an approximate date for the origins of Medieval Philosophy and Theology. Peiper used the date of 529 AD when the Byzantine Emperor Justinian (527-565) closed the Plato Academy because it was Pagan. In 529, Theodoric (471-526)ruled a section of the Latin Roman West and ruled from the city of Rome. One of Theodoric's major political advisers was Boethius (480-525) who was Roman whereas Theodoric was Gothic. Theodoric was well aware of Roman and Greek Civilization which he appreciated even though he was Gothic. Theodoric did not have Romans in charge of his armies, and he did not have Goths in government positions. Boethius was Roman and rose to a position of privledge abd consider power and wealth until he was accused of treason and sentenced to death.

Peiper made a good case that Boethius' work was a connection between Classical Ancient Civilization and the origins of Scholasticism. Some historians chose St. Augustine (354-430) as the precursor of Scholasticism. Peiper disagreed. St. Augustine live in the mileau of the Roman Empire albeit a disintengrating Roman Empire. St. Augustine lived when educated men knew of Lucretius (99-55 BC), Seneca (4-65 AD), Plato (c.427-347 BC), Aristotle (384-322 BC), etc... Boethius, who was knowledgable of the work of these men lived in an age which Ancient Classical learning was in retreat. Boethius' work was written under different historical circumstances than St. Augustine. Beothius wrote his work titled THE CONSOLATION OF PHILOSOPHY while awaiting execution and after having lost everything. His CONSOLATION is bascially a work of a desparate man who has nothing left but contemplation of the Great Unknown. He wrote this work to inform men that the Ultimate Being (or possibly God)was much more than wealth and privledge and in an imaginary diologue with Lady Philsophy in which such problems as good, evil,and ultimate destiny are discussed. According to Peiper THE CONSOLATION helped redefine philosophy for both the Romans, Greeks, and the new conquerors.

One theme that Peiper made is that while Boethius' CONSOLATION is a serious work re philosophy and theology, there are no biblical quotes. As Peiper noted THE CONSOLATION is bascially a work of logic an analysis which was fundamental to Scholastic Philosophy and Theology. This is not to say that the later Scholastic philosophers and theologians did not cite the Bible which they indeed did.

One of the disagreements later scholastics debated was the status of The Pseudo Dionysisus. Dionysisus is mentioned in the Bible (Acts 17: 34), and later Scholastics accepted written work that was attributed to him. Yet, careful investigation revealed that the work was written by someone else c. 500 AD. Some Scholastics rejected the work of the Pseudo Dionysius while others accepted it. St. Thomas Aquinas accepted this work and did not care about the original authorship.

Peiper had interesting sections on St.Anselm (1033-1109), Peter Lombard (1100-1160), Peter Abelard (1079-1142), St. Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153), etc. Many Medieval histotrians have titled St. Anselem as The Father of Scholasticism. Readers may think this title contradicts Peiper's treatment of Boethius. However, Boethius was a "bridge" between Ancient Greek/Roman learning while St. Anselm began to symtematize Green and Roman learning to somehow make the Catholic Faith reasonable and sensible. St. Anselm well knew that the Faith needed a reasonable defense if it were to make sense. Even though St. Anselm may have been a mystic, he was aware that the Faith without some logical explanation could be superstition. Peiper was clear that some historians have misinterpreted Peter Abeland who wrote a text titled SIC ET NON (YES AND NO). As this reviewer noted in another review, this text was deisgned to make students think about apparent contradictions in the Bible, the decisions of the Church Fathers,etc. Abelard did not write this work to embarrass the Church or the Faith. Abelard had trouble because he speculated too much on the Trinity. St. Bernard of Clairvaux chided Abelard for Abelard's speculation on the Holy Trinity because St. Benard argued that such speculation would eventually trivialize the Trinity. Peter Lombard's massive work titled THE FOUR BOOKS OF SENTENCES is considered by some scholars as an attempt to explain the above mention contradictions.

Peiper's later sections dealing with St. Albertus Magnus (1193-1280)and St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)are clearly written and well done. Peiper stated that St. Albert helped to improve scientific study by careful observation and experimentation. St. Albert easily disproved many of Aristotle's conclusions by actual scientific invesigation. For example, men thought that eels ate mud, but St. Albert ovserved that eels eat plant life and dead fish. Both St. Albert and St. Thomas Aquinas wanted to reconcile Fides and Ration (Faith and Reason).As important as St. Aquinas' works titled SUMMAS THEOLOGICA and SUMMA CONTRA GENTILES were, Peiper stated that Aquinas' titled QUAESTIONES DISPUTATAE(DISPUTED QUESTIONS) may be more important. These were debates involving St. Thomas and his students whereby St. Thomas said any issue "under the sun" was open for debate. The debates were not to decide "winners and losers" but to determine the truth of the disputed question. St. Thomas and his students knew very well that they could solve all questions and know all that could be learned. But they also knew that men could learn more even by correcting errors. Yet, the condemnation of St. Thomas Aquinas in 1277 may have started the end of the Age of Scholasticism. Religion and science were suppoesdly considered separate, and that debate continues with unreasonable fanatics on both sides of the debate.

The last section of the book dealt with relevance of Scholasticism. Peiper argued that in an age that is so politicized and corrputed by agendas and childish political correctness, that men and woman who want bona fide teaching and learning could should create institutions similar to the monks, nuns, and friars (monastaris, convents, religious houses)to escape the childish distractions.

Joseph Peiper's book is historically sound and is well written. The book is easily accessible to beginning students and is useful for those more informed. If readers have knowledge re Scholasticism, the historical anecdotes are instructive. This is a solid book.

James E. Egolf

March 27, 2010