/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.5124616]

Medieval philosophy appreciation thread.

There's a thousand years of exremely ambitious and diligent philosophers simply overlooked by most. Medieval philosophy is quite technical yet very fun because of its polemic open debate culture (despite some of your preconceptions!). What thinkers do you know and like? There's this one fellow, Al-Ghazali, who anticipated both Hume and Kant!

[Anonymous No.5124625]

> What thinkers do you know and like?

I mostly know that I'd like to know more. I've only heard of the big names, Aquinas, Averroes, Ibn Sinna.

You're right OP we overlook a millenia of exciting history because we're too lazy, arrogant and/or efficiency minded to bother with it.

Consider this an appreciative bump !

[Anonymous No.5124645]

I love Duns Scotus' argument on contingency:

"For as Avicenna puts it ... 'Those who deny a first principle should be beaten or exposed to fire until they concede that to burn and not to burn, or to be beaten and not to be beaten, are not identical.' And so too, those who deny that some being is contingent should be exposed to torments until they concede it is possible for them not to be tormented."

Straight laughed out loud when I first read that. I really need to read more of him.

[Anonymous No.5124651]

>>5124625
Thanks to the Hollywood jew, people look down upon the most peacefull, cultury rich, and interesting era of European civilisation, because "MUH dark ages, duh must have smelled awfull!"

[Anonymous No.5124670]

>>5124651
The Hollywood Jew had nothing to do with it, it was the Renaissance Italians

[Anonymous No.5124674]

>>5124625

Because medieval philosophers wrote alot it's not as easy as with the ancient greeks to read all of it.

As far as secondary works go, there's always Anthony Kenny's overview. Another more interesting book is by the German Kurt Flasch, I have a french translation but I don't think it exists in English. This work is very interesting because it pays alot of attention to the socio-historic events wherein the philosophers wrote. He also wrote the book in such a way to give life to the era in a very correct way: chapters usually overview a discussion between two thinkers. If anyone is interested I can give a listing of the chapters (so you know the topics and what thinkers are opposed/what discussions are mentioned).

[Anonymous No.5124679]

>>5124651
This >>5124670. I know that your conspiracies theories are fun and brighten your day, but they're generally a bad excuse for not having to think.

>>5124670
I think the Romantics (particularly Michelet, who was an historian with Romantic sensitivity) where responsible for strenghtening that trend. They were all too eager to praise the "darkness" and "irrationality" of the "dark age" as oppose the Enlightenment.

[Anonymous No.5124681]

>>5124674
> If anyone is interested

I am. Do you have original works in French to recommend ? I have The Invention of Purgatory in my library but that's all.

[Anonymous No.5124688]

>>5124679
A lot of people did. The Romantics, but also the Protestants, and the Enlightenment thinkers, and the liberals and nationalists, and everybody.

[Anonymous No.5124826]

I. Citer et insérer : la Renaissance carolingienne
1

1. Déclin de l'influence de l'Antiquité – Début d'une civilisation
1

2. Alcuin : philosophie et politique
4

3. Alcuin : notions philosophiques fondamentales. Application théologique et politique
7

II. Délimiter les frontières : l'Occident latin contre la Rome orientale. La rationalité carolingienne face au culte byzantin des images
17

1. Pourquoi étudier la philosophie médiévale ?
17

2. Rhétorique et éléments d'éthique
21

3. La critique du culte byzantin du pouvoir et des images
25

4. La fonction de la philosophie dans le monde carolingien
30

III. Autodétermination ou prédestination : Erigène contre Godescalc
33

1. Le soi-disant retour des problèmes : remarques sur la méthode
33

2. Godescalc et la prédestination divine
38

3. Erigène : un rapport embarrassant
42

4. Les problèmes philosophiques dans les cadres du pouvoir et de la tradition : retour au débat sur la prédestination
45

IV. Chose ou signe : Béranger de Tours contre Lanfranc
49

1. La fonction historique des débats autour des formules
49

2. La nouvelle dynamique du XIe siècle
51

3. Les arguments de Béranger
56

4. L'affaire Béranger : un tournant décisif
61

V. Insensé ou empiriste : Anselme de Cantorbéry contre Gaunilon
65

1. Les présupposés d'Anselme
65

2. Une nouvelle preuve de l'existence de Dieu
69

3. Les objections de Gaunilon
72

4. La réponse d'Anselme
75

VI. Liberté ou servitude à l'égard de la politique et de la culture : Manegold de Lautenbach contre Wolfhelm de Cologne
81

1. Éloge de l'auteur moyen
81

2. Dans le labyrinthe de Macrobe : cosmologie, doctrine de l'âme, spéculation sur les nombres
85

3. Dispute dans le jardin d'un monastère à propos de cosmologie et de politique
94

VII. Science traditionnelle ou renouveau : les traditionalistes contre Abélard
103

1. Le rôle historique des polémiques
103

2. Les innovations d'Abélard dans un contexte historique ouvert
108

3. Les objections des traditionalistes
113

[Anonymous No.5124830]

>>5124826
VIII. Scepticisme et piété ou métaphysique et science : Averroès contre Al-Ghazali
123

1. Le Moyen Âge et le monde arabe
123

2. Une autre fonction de la philosophie médiévale : défendre la religion par une critique de la métaphysique
127

3. Les objections d'Al-Ghazali contre la rationalité philosophique : la volonté, cause du monde
133

4. Autres objections d'Al-Ghazali : le problème du temps. Possibilité et réalité
137

5. Averroès : critique de la critique de la métaphysique
141

IX. L'immortalité individuelle ou le retour à l'esprit universel : Albert le Grand contre Averroès
153

1. Le contexte du XIIIe siècle
153

2. Le débat autour de l'intellect : Aristote – Averroès
157

3. La structure « scolastique »
163

4. Échec d'Albert le Grand sur le problème de l'individualité et de la personnalité
168

X. La cité de Dieu ou la paix sur terre : la réhabilitation de la philosophie politique dans sa lutte contre la suprématie politique de la papauté
175

1. L'ambivalence de l'aristotélisme
175

2. La doctrine politique d'Aristote et son utilisation par Thomas d'Aquin en faveur de la papauté
179

3. Dante et la théorie de la monarchie universelle
183

4. Marsile de Padoue : le « Défenseur de la paix »
187

XI. Conciliation ou critique : les objections de Lutterell contre Guillaume d'Ockham
195

1. Le conflit entre la science et la papauté au XIVe siècle
195

2. La critique des abstractions
198

3. Critique de la connaissance sensible
205

4. Le Dieu d'Ockham
209

5. Ockham : le maître d'une nouvelle rationalité et d'une nouvelle méthode
213

XII. Semence du diable ou philosophie de la filiation divine : la défense de Maître Eckhart devant le tribunal de l'Inquisition
219

1. Rationalité et « mystique » à la fin du Moyen Âge
219

2. L'apologie d'Eckhart : sa condamnation et le changement de climat
223

3. L'intention d'Eckhart : une philosophie de la filiation divine
226

4. Une nouvelle philosophie et une nouvelle théorie du christianisme adaptée à une société nouvelle
233

XIII. Savoir ou docte ignorance : Jean Wenck contre Nicolas de Cues
239

1. L'évolution entre le XIVe siècle et le XVe siècle : le nœud du conflit avec l'aristotélisme
239

2. Les conditions de la conception aristotélicienne de la science
244

3. L'apologie de Nicolas de Cues : le retour de Socrate
250

[Anonymous No.5124888]

>>5124826
>>5124830
that sounds interesting as coitus, particularly the second part.

[Anonymous No.5125012]

I fucking love medieval philosophy. Duns Scotus is a good one >>5124645 , as is William of Occam if you want a totally contrary viewpoint on the Problem of Universals.

Going a little further back, Anselm is great, as is John of the Cross, and as is Bonaventure, who doesn't get nearly enough love.

You can also argue that Augustine is the first medieval philosopher. He's sort of the dividing line between classical and medieval thought.

[Anonymous No.5125722]

Eckhart is dat nigga.

[Anonymous No.5127063]

bump for interest

[Anonymous No.5127085]

>>5124826
What's the title of the French translation?

[Anonymous No.5127089]

>you will never be a comfy Irish Neo-Platonist

What are some good books that engage with or try to extend the theories of medieval philosophers? I know I could work through bibliographies on SEP but I'm hoping someone here has some recommendations.

[Anonymous No.5127097]

10 posts into a medieval philosophy thread and no mention of Nicolas of Cusa?

>based learned ignorance
>Coincidentia Oppositorum is needed to understand divinity
>anticipated Copernicus in his non-geocentric world view
>wrote reviews in Latin about the Koran
>invented counting of pulse
>came up with the Borda count before Borda
>ordered Jews of Arnhem to wear identifying badges, Germans gonna Germ

[Anonymous No.5127110]

>>5127089

Analytical Thomism is pretty cool. There are a bunch of links on the wiki page to current researchers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytical_Thomism

There are also a bunch of contemporary logicians who research medieval logics. Stuff like Supposition theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supposition_theory

Books:

Modal Syllogistics in the Middle Ages by Lagerlund.

Medieval Formal Logic by Yrjonsuuri.

Language and Logic in the Post-Medieval Period by Ashworth.

Formalizing Medieval Logical Theories. Suppositio, Consequentiae and Obligationes by Novaes.

[Anonymous No.5128141]

Don't die on me thread!

[Anonymous No.5128175]

>tfw you're trying to revive medievalist conceptions of Truth and Form as a kind of replacement for postmodernism

Or I suppose, more precisely, that I'm trying to revive the more popular subsets of medievalism, such as Aquinas and Duns Scotus. It's slow going so far, but I think I'm making progress.

[Anonymous No.5129542]

bumping for recs

[Anonymous No.5129629]

Bumping.

Anyone /latin/ here? I'm trying to think of what to read first to get my feet wet. Maybe just Einhard.

[Anonymous No.5129688]

>>5124616
In what manner and to what extent does Ghazali anticipate Hume and Kant?

I've read some Ghazali. He is much more lovable than Augustine. I kind of see how he criticizes reason and Kant did the same thing but I'm still at the Greeks so I haven't read Kant yet.


Augustine is a trip too. I've only read his Confessions, and I wish he talked about his personal life more because he gets really theological at the end. He is really unlovable at points. Ghazali comes off as a cool guy his whole life if you read his biography, Muniq al-Dalal, Deliverance from Error.

[Anonymous No.5129696]

What would you recommend for medieval political philosophy, both Christian and Muslim sources. As well as the Jews, if there is any worthwhile. Maybe Maimonides?

[Anonymous No.5129703]

>>5129696
For Christian, definitely read De Monarchia and Bartolus, and maybe City of God, though that's of a much earlier time period.

[Scuba Steve No.5129727]

>>5129688
>>5129696

Bump?

[Steve Scuba No.5129739]

>>5129727

I read a history book that says that the Byzantines were really good at philosophy and the Arab Muslims at poetry. He said the Western Christians had something else going on, I forget what but any recommendations of Byzantine philosophy and Muslim World poetry?

[Anonymous No.5129793]

>>5124616
Don't fucking assume things you fuckhead. I'm going to read medieval philosophy.

[Anonymous No.5129849]

>>5124616
>Everyone thinks the Game of Thrones stereotype aesthetic is an accurate portrayal of Medieval life.
>When Neil DeGrasse Tyson says al-Ghazali single-handedly stopped scientific discovery in the Muslim world because al-Ghazali was a religious fundmentalist, no one even bats an eye-lash.
>People actually think people in the middle ages said "bless you" because they thought a person's soul left their body when they sneezed
>"They thought the world was flat!"

Is there a greater victim of character assassination than the Middle Ages?

[Anonymous No.5129862]

>>5127089
>tfw you will never be a hugely respected Irish philosopher

[Anonymous No.5129870]

>>5129849
>tfw no-one cares about the contribution of Irish monks to scholarly tradition

[Anonymous No.5129873]

>>5129849
>Everyone thinks the Game of Thrones stereotype aesthetic is an accurate portrayal of Medieval life.
>Is there a greater victim of character assassination than the Middle Ages?

Sounds like "Everyone" these days is a victim of character assassination too. There were a lot of dumbasses in the middle ages just as there are a lot of dumbasses now, quite a lot probably did think the earth was flat back then as there was little to contradict that idea, especially as learning and major new TV series with graphics weren't common back then.

[Anonymous No.5129880]

>>5129696
http://www.historyofphilosophy.net/ancient-christianity
http://www.historyofphilosophy.net/islamic-world

[Anonymous No.5129893]

>>5129873
>muh golden middle
Please.

No one from the bronze age and on thought the Earth was flat. It's a modern myth.

[Anonymous No.5129924]

>>5129849
Yes

[Anonymous No.5129926]

>>5129924
Well played.

[Anonymous No.5129978]

>>5129849
>Is there a greater victim of character assassination than the Middle Ages?

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.5129997]

>>5129978
The little girl? I don't get it.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.5130023]

>>5129997
Oh wait, I see it now. Sorry, I forgot to take my meds this morning.

[Anonymous No.5130035]

>>5129924
I would actually say this. But people seem to be coming around as of recent.

[Anonymous No.5130063]

>>5129849
Liberalism.

[Anonymous No.5130070]

Aquinas' solution to the Problem of Universals- which is also more or less Duns Scotus' solution- is the most artful of them all. We should all be moderate realists.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.5130074]

>>5130023
Joke went over your head?

>>5130035
Seriously? In what circles?

[Anonymous No.5130143]

>>5124616
>There's a thousand years of exremely ambitious and diligent philosophers simply overlooked by most.
Medieval philosophy contributed absolutely nothing to modern understandings, probably because medieval philosophy is almost all theology, and not actual philosophy.

Also, Muslim thinkers were all incredibly dull, pre-modern technocrats, and their best, Ibn Khaldun, was only remarkable for how far he distanced himself and his works from that backwards faith.

[Anonymous No.5130178]

>>5130074
>Seriously? In what circles?
Both egalitarians and conservatives. So nearly everyone.

[Anonymous No.5130191]

>>5130035
Nietzsche was always a gigantic faggot

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.5130218]

>>5130191
>Poo flinging monkeys

Somebody call the zoo.

[Anonymous No.5130223]

>>5130143
>Medieval philosophy contributed absolutely nothing to modern understandings

Except, you know, laying the foundations for the development of science and the scientific method, the crown jewel of European civilization.

You're right that the Muslim thinkers are worthless though. Muslims generally are.

[Anonymous No.5130245]

>>5130223
>Except, you know, laying the foundations for the development of science and the scientific method, the crown jewel of European civilization.

This is a discussion of philosophy, not vulgar computation. Additionally, the "foundations" of that low discipline you claim as Europe's pride were laid long before the Medieval period, or even Rome. As in all other aspects, the Medieval period was simply transitional.

[Anonymous No.5131384]

>>5129893
what about heliocentric model

[Anonymous No.5131406]

>>5130218
ironic

[Anonymous No.5131414]

Who was Nietzsche's favourite medieval philosopher?

iirc he liked some mystic

[Anonymous No.5131429]

Would it be right to assume the majority is written in Latin? So you could read a millenia of philosophy in its original language relatively easily, that's pretty cool.

[Anonymous No.5131472]

>>5131384
>what about heliocentric model

Ancient Greeks had worked out the relative sizes of the earth, sun and moon and came to the conclusion that there's no fucking way everything circled round the earth. There's this one guy named Aristotle who had the looney idea of everything going 'round the earth (otherwise he was a pretty smart guy) and a little group called the Catholic Church pretty much worshiped him as a demi-god so we ended up with Europe thinking the sun went round the earth for near a millennium until the C.Churches own preist-astronimers started poking holes in it.

[Anonymous No.5131481]

>>5131384
heliocentric model is bogus

the geocentric model is correct

I know that that's hard to believe but bear in mind there's been a lot of shills over the past centuries trying to push a "Universe is an empty wasteland devoid of meaningless, better masturbate and rebel against your society" agenda.

[Anonymous No.5131486]

>>5131481
devoid of meaning*

[Anonymous No.5131714]

>>5131481
After all the red pills I've swallowed I'm more or less willing to give this one a shot, shoot me some youtube videos.

[Anonymous No.5131766]

>>5131384
According to the scholarship of the time, the geocentric model was correct.

It needed Galileo to revolutionize science with theoretical experiments instead of observation of reality to show they were wrong.

You know, the kind of revolution in science, new methodology that nowadays would be called "pseudo-science" by dogmatists.

[Anonymous No.5132040]

>>5131481
>heliocentric model is bogus
>the geocentric model is correct
>>>/x/
>shills
>agenda
>>>/pol/
>>>/b/

[Anonymous No.5132054]

>>5132040
>Differentiating between /x/ and /pol/ because of the word "shill"
>Non-ironically shitposting an pretending to be any better than those people

Newfag, srsly, pls

[Anonymous No.5132058]

It's a really interesting period and overviews of philosophy usually skip over it and mention the most famous names everyone knows about. Would definitely like to learn more but where do I start?
>tfw going to a jesuit school mostly because I see a whole bunch of subjects that will probably deal with Christian medievals

[Anonymous No.5132060]

>>5131481
>the geocentric model is correct
wat

any physics to back this up or is this just muh aluminaddy?

[Anonymous No.5132089]

>>5132054
/x/, /pol/, and /b/ are filled with the same people, all of them quite loathsome. More importantly, it's the conduct encouraged on those boards that's toxic. Angrily claiming grand conspiracy without any argument or evidence is juvenile contrarianism. Your defense of that basic idiocy is maybe even more vile.

[Anonymous No.5132108]

>>5132089
>Being this much of a faggot
Stop spamming hyperlinks.

[Anonymous No.5132146]

>>5131429
>relatively easily

[Anonymous No.5132427]

>>5130223
>You're right that the Muslim thinkers are worthless though. Muslims generally are.

Even /pol/ infects /lit/ nowadays.

[Anonymous No.5132439]

>>5132427
Never once has someone been able to explain why muslims don't actually suck. The only thing that ever happens is you pussy's get offended on their behalf and ignore that their entire zone of the planet is shitty and only remains at the level of "less shitty than we could be" because the most used resource in the world literally oozes from the ground where they live.

[Anonymous No.5132558]

>>5132439
>Never once has someone been able to explain why muslims don't actually suck.

Is it right to smear a person based on their beliefs? Their are many muslims who are not raving lunatics ready to detonate bombs against anyone or to cut head of kuffar. There are many muslims who integrate quite readily into whatever society baring minor cultural dispositions e.g. not eating pork, not drinking alcohol, many who get decent jobs as doctors and so forth.

And the issues in the middle east are far more complex than just 'it's Islam'. At one point did the modern jihad against the west really start - pre-WWII and in the days of the ottoman empire where was this terror from the middle east scaring the west?

[Anonymous No.5132575]

>>5132558
>Is it right to smear a person based on their beliefs?

If said belief is organized religion then yes it is absolutely right.

[Anonymous No.5132627]

>>5132558
Islam isn't bad because of "muh terrorism".

Muslims believe in things which are stupid and often harmful, and the foundation for this is even worse. There is no defense of Islam except an assault on its detractors, plain and simple.

[Anonymous No.5132688]

>>5132575

[Anonymous No.5132756]

>>5132575
Absolutely. For example, muslims, Protestants, mainstream Catholics, neo-pagans, Buddhists and Wiccans are all degenerate trash in one way or another.

Traditionalist Catholics, Orthodox, and some occultists are bro-tier.

Judaism is barely a religion, just a nepotistic tribe which has preserved the customs of their ossified near-Eastern temple cult as in-group signifiers.

[Anonymous No.5134864]

bump

[Anonymous No.5134869]

>>5132558
The "terror from the Middle East" is a longstanding cultural thing in the west dating back to the Byzantine Empire and the Crusades, that lingered long into the relative decline of Islam under the later Ottoman rulers. It's irrational by this point, but so deeply ingrained that a lot of people just can't get past it. The modern jihad against the west, if you want to call it that, is largely unrelated to the actual original Muslim/Christian conflict. It just dresses itself up the same way.

[Anonymous No.5134883]

>>5127097
He was not the first to favour a non-geocentric view.