/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6602227]

What was the transition period between Medieval Aristotelian view that there is a good life worth seeking and, once found, should be spread to the masses and the common view now that people should simply live as they want and find their own way?

Did the latter come about in a reactionary way or was there an actual refutation of Aristotle's view?

[Anonymous No.6602240]

>>6602227
rousseau and locke, the cancer of the west

[Anonymous No.6602246]

>>6602227
The means of production changed gradually, creating the new class of the bourgeoisie. Their economic condition made them embrace an individualism constrained by moral prohibition, instead of a communitarianism based on virtuous commandment.

This development certainly preceded any philosophical critique of aristotelian values. Furthermore, I do not believe that medieval man based his views on an actual understanding of Aristotle, as medieval man typically couldn't read.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6602249]

Existentialism being the culmination of what you're talking about, I'd have to say the obvious transition period is secularization and modernism

>>6602240
I don't think you've read Rousseau, but you're right about Locke

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6602254]

>>6602246
Medieval men couldn't read, but they had [some of] their values instilled in them by the Catholic Church. Milbank said the Church was the conduit between the academic and the popular

[Anonymous No.6602262]

>>6602246
>Their economic condition made them embrace an individualism constrained by moral prohibition, instead of a communitarianism based on virtuous commandment.
Could you explain what you mean by this

[Anonymous No.6602270]

>>6602254
>Milbank
>literally "we should embrace christian theology because I like it": The Theologian

[Anonymous No.6602277]

>>6602254
True. It is not a coincidence that the advent of modernty came with a new version of christianity, protestantism.
>>6602262
What I mean is that as more and more people started living a life that was urban and unconstrained by bondage to a lord, their outlook changed. Instead of looking at society as something that gave them a fixed position with a distinct purpose, as a lord, a peasant and a cleric did, they mostly interacted with people who were their legal equals, free, urban men. This required a morality based on facilitating commerce between such equals, not about knowing your place, but knowing limits that applied to everyone.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6602295]

>>6602270
No, his argument is based on gemological method he borrowed from Nietzsche., except he traces the origin of secularism in the humanities and social sciences as a product of a change in the definition of ownership ("dominium"). But anyway, aside from that, his scholarship on history and philosophy is staggering, there's nothing wrong with referencing him here.

>>6602277
>True. It is not a coincidence that the advent of modernty came with a new version of christianity, protestantism.
Which Milbank considers ultimately born of secular discourse.

[Anonymous No.6602301]

Personally, I feel like Aquinas reacted to greek skepticism. Everything he did seemed to bury doubt. He's like the Greek killer. Not until Descartes does it reemerge, but reworked, turned on its head. Best to start with things in their heads. Like African philosophy, witgenstein, Captain Romanga, Vivisyzecks, Terramasu, etc.

[Anonymous No.6602307]

>>6602295
>Which Milbank considers ultimately born of secular discourse.
Well Martin Luther was a monk, so I sort of doubt that. Then again, a theologian would obviously have trouble admitting that authentic theological discourse may be subject to processes of societal change. What does he say about the counter-reformation?

[Anonymous No.6602312]

>>6602270
>>6602295
Is Milbank the new Stiner?

He has been mentioned about 80 times total on /lit/, and almost 90% of those mentions were in the past three weeks.

I don't get why you all are so fad-like. You either don't post about something at all or you post 20 times a day about it. Why? It doesn't make sense, passing from one 'craze' to the next.

[Anonymous No.6602320]

>>6602312
He combines christian theology with the brand of marxism influenced by the Frankfurt School, so his appeal to a wide demographic within /lit/ should be obvious. That being said, many people don't get him, plain and simple. Just the other day, I had to explain to a libertarian /pol/lack, who had approvingly posted quotes of his, that his object of veneration is in fact a socialist.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6602335]

>>6602307
Milbank's actual thing about secular discourse is that it came out of theology. By secularism he doesn't just mean "without acknowledging the existence of God", he means a space that theology started defining as not God's jurisdiction. Luther, for instance, said salvation is not our free will, it is God's, but that when it comes to "goods and possessions" we have free will, and he pretty much factored out that as a concern of God's, he made goods and possession secular.

I haven't actually read his in depth analysis of the counter-reformation yet (I only started reading him a couple of days ago), but I do know he thought it was damaging.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6602339]

>>6602320
kek, I'm not surprised. His opinion pieces are easy to digest, but his serious works are highly academic and are a abundantly clear example the distinction between a self-styled philosopher and someone who is a very serious, academic philosopher.

[Anonymous No.6602340]

>>6602320
I'm not questioning the appeal. I'm questioning the "suddenly all over" quality of this bullshit. The same exact thing happened with Stirner and Bakunin.

>>/lit/?offset=80&ghost=yes&task=search&search_text=milbank

Mentions of Milbank by year:
2010: 6
2011: 1
2012: 1
2013: 0
2014: 0
May 2015: 72

Check it out. He was mentioned more times in the past three weeks than he was mentioned in the past five years combined. It's just absurd.

It's like you guys pass like a school of piranha from one corpse to another, indulging face-first and with crazy frenzy whenever you do find a corpse, then suddenly drop it for some other, new fresh cadaver.

I just don't think it's healthy.

[Anonymous No.6602344]

>>6602312
There's been a Catholic socialism meme on here for months now, so it make sense that when people caught on it would explode.

[Anonymous No.6602346]

>>6602227
Read Descartes to find out how

[Anonymous No.6602348]

so how does Milbank justify using Christian theology as a metanarrative and not other theologies?(

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6602355]

>>6602340
Milbank is healthy though. I'm an atheist and I'm certainly not a socialism, but he's a fresh as new air more than corpse, because he offers an alternative the postmodern ontology of violence and seduction. He's a classical thinker who employs the tools of contemporary philosophy.

[Anonymous No.6602356]

>>6602227
>medeival aristotelianism
Massive category.
Vast generalization.

[Anonymous No.6602358]

>>6602355
Someone not Stirner to post about 40 times a day till the next name comes along, at any rate.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6602364]

>>6602348
As I've pointed out, Milbank traces secular thought to a shift in the understanding of dominium, which he said is the root of liberalism. Milbank contends that secular thought is inextricably tied up with liberal ontology, even Marx (whom he says offered the best critique of secular society that secularism could provide).

[Anonymous No.6602365]

>>6602227
>What was the transition period

It's usually called the Protestant Reformation or just the Reformation.

[Anonymous No.6602388]

>>6602227

Firstly; the dismissal of Aristotelian teleology, which backs up his theory of the good life, was rejected by early scientists like Bacon, which discredited it.

Secondly, the shift from natural law to natural right theories, was precipitated by a number of factors; including the reformation, the discovery of the new world demonstrating the variety of cultures that existed, and the rediscovery of ancient skepticism all cast doubt on the old political theories.

Having said this, this did not necessarily imply a more liberal politics; after all, Hobbes loathed Aristotle because he considered him some kind of radical republican responsible for the English civil war.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6602393]

>>6602388
You're mistaken if you think liberalism precludes absolutism.

[Anonymous No.6602399]

Aristotelianism was a decay of Christian civilization because it preached a half-and-half, "balanced" kind of life between the spirit and the flesh, which contradicts the Christian view which prioritizes the spirit over the flesh. In that sense Platonism is closer to Christianity. For every St. Thomas there were probably 10 innovators turning Aristotle against Christianity. Aristotle himself is pretty anti-Christian in that he recommends a comfy, middle-class life in his Ethics and says that the middle-class should rule society because they are the most worldly and practical.

[Anonymous No.6603915]

>>6602388
to be fair the rediscovery of ancient skepticism came in reaction to the reformation

[Anonymous No.6604622]

>>6602277
but aristotle philosophized in an urban environment. doesn't that contradict your point?

[Anonymous No.6605435]

>>6603915

I'm not sure about the wider trends, but 'De rerum natura' was rediscovered exactly one-hundred years before Matin Luther posted the Ninety-five theses.

>Secondly, the shift from natural law to natural right theories, was precipitated by a number of factors; including the reformation, the discovery of the new world demonstrating the variety of cultures that existed, and the rediscovery of ancient skepticism all cast doubt on the old political theories.

This is really interesting. Do you know a book where I can read about these factors individually and/or collectively?

[Anonymous No.6605478]

>>6602254
>Milbank said the Church was the conduit between the academic and the popular
>Milbank
>An almost-no one who's only slightly relevant because of a book he wrote with Zizek, who should be much more of a no one than he is

Do you get literally all your talking points from people that get spammed on /lit/? Or are you the Milbankfag who spammed him all over the place a couple weeks ago, now posting under OYTIS' name?

[Anonymous No.6605525]

>>6602399
>For every St. Thomas there were probably 10 innovators turning Aristotle against Christianity.

You are definitely on to something. You had the secular arts masters like Siger of Brabant and Boethius of Dacia ( not the guy who wrote the Consolation of Philosophy) who only focused on Aristotle's work, and didn't bother with Theology at all, they would simply pay lip service to the truth of the faith while claiming that reason conflicted with them. There were serious tensions, much of the 1277 Condemnations were against "Aristotelean" Philsophical positions that some Philosophers were supposedly putting forwards ( though we can't find any actual evidence of the majority of them in anyone's work) that contradicted the faith in some minute way, Aquinas' works were actually attacked during that period as well.

Along with that, the massive innovations in Science, Mathematics and Metaphysics in the 14th century involved thinkers who were much less interested in Aristotle than 13th Century thinkers like Aquinas,Albert, Siger, ect were. In fact the whole reign of Aristoteleanism lasted less than a century. The idea that Thomas and Aristotle are the Philosophers of the Church is a 19th Century invention.

[Anonymous No.6605544]

>>6602339
>and are a abundantly clear example the distinction between a self-styled philosopher and someone who is a very serious, academic philosopher.
Does that mean he's a *good* philosopher or just a philosopher?

[Anonymous No.6605546]

>>6602340
You can only talk about the same thinker so many times, and it's nice to do more than shitpost about DFW and the meme trilogy

[Anonymous No.6605556]

>>6602340
One guy decided to start pushing him, and then a few of our Catholics started reading him. It's pretty much a meme. The dedicated Catholic socialists are probably doing most of the talking.

[Anonymous No.6605568]

>>6605435

I'm afraid I don't have a source for it beyond 'this is what my professor told me'. The key figure here is Hugo Grotius, so I'd look for secondary sources on him and political thought in the 16th century in general.

Quentin Skinner's 'The Foundations of Modern Political Thought', particularly Volume 2 as it deals with the influence of the Reformation, is probably worth checking out.

Also, off the top of my head, Leo Strauss places a great deal on the shift from natural law to natural right, so he may be worth examining for an alternative perspective.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6606695]

>>6605478
/lit/ got me to read him, but I can't believe you've studied contemporary theology and consider him a nobody

>>6605544
He is an extremely good philosopher. I don't necessarily agree with him (and neither would you unless you first of all believe in Christianity), but his arguments and analyses are commendable

[Anonymous No.6607642]

>>6602270
Which works have you read by him?

[Anonymous No.6607661]

>>6606695
>but his arguments and analyses are commendable

Except with regards to Duns Scotus.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6608405]

>>6607661
No, he does a fine job of examining him within context and development

[Anonymous No.6608646]

>>6607661
>Dunce Scrotum
>not a heretic