The Medieval European Mind Dialectic Triumphant. I. Ecclesia (The Church) — The Role of...

The Medieval European Mind

Dialectic Triumphant

I. Ecclesia (The Church) — The Role of Monasticism

A. Functions

B. Benedictine—Monte Cassino, 529

C. Reform Movements

1. Cluniac

a. Cluny—910

b. Priories and Monasteries

An 8th-century copy of the Rule of St. Benedict

Cluny III (12th century)

I. Ecclesia (The Church) — The Role of Monasticism

C. Reform Movements (cont.)

2. Cistercium—1098a. Citeauxb. Bernard of Clairvaux (1090–1153)

3. Franciscan (recognized 1210)—“gray friars”a. St. Francis of Assisi (1182–1226)b. Clare of Assisi (1194−1253), founder of the

Poor Claresc. St. Bonaventure (1221–1274)d. “Spiritual Franciscans”

Clare of Assisi (1194−1253), founder of the Poor Clares

Painting by Simone Martini (1284−1344)

Spread of Cistercian monasteries during the 13th century

“Architecture of light” of Acey Abbey

Bernard of Clairvaux in a 13th-century illuminated manuscript

Stigmatization of St. Francis

Fresco by Giotto di Bondone (1267−1337), Basilique Assise

St. Francis (1235), by Bonaventura Berlinghiero (fl. 1215−1242)

Tempera on wood, Church of San Francesco, Pescia

I. Ecclesia (The Church) — The Role of Monasticism

C. Reform Movements (cont.)

4. Dominican

a. Dominic de Guzmán (1170–1221)

b. “black friars”

5. Augustinian

a. Rule (regula) of St. Augustine

b. organized as an order in 13th century

Dominic de Guzmán (1170−1221)

Perugia altarpiece by Fra Angelico (1395−1455)

“Saint Dominic Presiding at an Auto-de-fe” (ca. 1495)

From the sacristy of the anto Tomás church in Ávila, by Pedro Berrugete (1450−1504)

Martin Luther as an Augustinian monk (posthumous portrait, 1546)

From the workshop of Lucas Cranach the Elder (1472−1553)

II. Intellectual Developments in the Middle Ages

A. 640–790: Intellectual Stagnation

B. 790–1000: Carolingian Renaissance and Intellectual Renewal

1. Recovery of the Seven Liberal Arts (including Dialectic)a. Alcuin of York (735–804)b. Gerbert of Aurillac (945–1003), Pope Sylvester II

2. Reintroduction of Neoplatonic Ideasa. (Pseudo-)Dionysius the Areopagite translated into

Latinb. John Scotus Eriugena (ca. 810–ca. 877) —

condemned in 1225

Gerbert of Aurillac (945–1003), Pope Sylvester II(Mosaic along the nave of the Papal Basilica of

Saint Paul outside the Walls, 1832)

Pope Sylvester II (999−1003) and the Devil

Illustration from the ms. Cod. Pal. Germ. 137, fol. 216v, Martinus Oppaviensis, Chronicon pontificum et impratorum

. John Scotus Eriugena (ca. 810–ca. 877) (on Irish 5-pound banknote from 1982 to 1993)

II. Intellectual Developments in the Middle Ages

C. 1000–1200: Conflict between Neoplatonic Epistemology and Dialectic

1. Dialecticians Challenge Prevailing Neoplatonic Synthesis

a. Berengarius of Tours (ca. 1000–1088)b. Roscellinus of Compiègne (ca. 1045 or 1050–1120)c. Peter Abelard (1079–1142) (1) Sic et non, Glosses on Porphyry, Dialectica (2) views condemned: Soissons (1121) and Sens (1140)d. Adelard of Bath (1080–1145), Natural Questions e. John of Salisbury (ca. 1115–1180), Metalogicon

Berengarius of Tours (ca. 1000–1088)

Woodcut (1602) by Hendrik Hondius the Elder (1573−1650)

Abelard and Heloise

From a 14th-century manuscript of the Roman de la Rose

Statue of Abelard in the Louvre (before 1853)

By Jules Cavelier (1814−1894)

The frontispiece of an Adelard of Bath Latin translation ofEuclid’s Elements(ca. 1309–1316)

The oldest surviving Latin translation of the Elements is a 12th-century manuscript byAdelard from an Arabic version

II. Intellectual Developments in the Middle Ages

C. 1000–1200: Conflict between Neoplatonic Epistemology and Dialectic (cont.)

2. Neoplatonic Synthesis Defended by Those Using Dialectic

a. Lanfranc of Bec (1010–1089)

b. Anselm of Canterbury (1033–1109) — ontological proof (in the Proslogion)

−proof challenged by Guanilo of Marmoutiers

3. Neoplatonic Synthesis Defended Using Neoplatonic Epistemology

a. Bernard of Clairvaux (1090–1153)

Statue of Lanfranc of Bec (1010–1089)

From the exterior of Canterbury Cathedral

Decision of Council of Winchester (1072)

Anselm of Canterbury (1033–1109)

Woodcut anonymous (ca. 1520)

Anselm’s Ontological Proof

And so Lord do thou who doest give understanding the faith, give me so far as thou knowest it to be profitable to understand that thou art as we believe and that thou art that which we believe.

And indeed we believe that thou are a being than which nothing greater can be conceived.

Anselm’s Ontological Proof (continued)

And indeed we believe that thou are a being than which nothing greater can be conceived.

Or is there no such nature since the fool hath said in his heart there is no God?

But, at any rate, this very fool, when he hears of this being of which I speak – a being than which nothing greater can be conceived – understands what he hears, and what he understands what he hears, and what he understands is in his understanding; although he does not understand it to exist.

Anselm’s Ontological Proof (continued)

for it is one thing for an object to be in the understanding and another to understand that the object exists.

When a painter first conceives of what he will afterwards perform, he has it in his understanding but he does not yet understand it to be, because he has not yet performed it. But after he has made the painting, he both has it in his understanding and he understanding that it exists, because he hath made it.

Anselm’s Ontological Proof (continued)

Hence even the fool is convinced that something exists in the understanding, at least, than which nothing greater can be conceived.

For when he hears of this, he understands it. And whatever is understood, exists in the understanding. And assuredly, that than which nothing greater can be conceived cannot exist in the understanding alone.

Anselm’s Ontological Proof (continued)

For suppose it exists in the understanding alone then it can be conceived to exist in reality, which is greater. Therefore, if that than which nothing greater can be conceived exists in the understanding alone, the very being than which nothing greater can be conceived is one than which a greater can be conceived. But obviously that is impossible. Hence there is no doubt that there exists a being than which nothing greater can be conceived and it exists both in the understanding and in reality.

Anselm’s Ontological Proof (continued)

If it assuredly exists so truly that it cannot be conceived not to exist for it is possible to conceive of a being which cannot be conceived not to exist and this is greater than one which can be conceived not to exist. Hence, if that then if nothing greater can be conceived can be conceived not to exist it is not that than which nothing greater can be conceived.

There is then so truly a being than which nothing greater can be conceived to exist, that it cannot even be conceived not to exist and this being thou art O Lord our God.

Guanilo of Marmoutiers’ “Lost Island” challenge to Anselm’s Ontological

Proof1. The Lost Island is that than which no greater can be

conceived.

2. It is greater to exist in reality than merely as an idea.

3. If the Lost Island does not exist, one can conceive of an even greater island, that is one that does exist.

4. Therefore, the Lost Island exists in reality.

Anselm’s refutation of Guanilo’s argument

It was a fool against whom the argument was directed. Seeing however that the author of these objections is by no means a fool, and is a Catholic speaking on behalf of a fool, I think it is sufficient that I answer the Catholic. You say that a being than which a greater cannot be conceived is not in the understanding in any other sense than that is which a being that is altogether inconceivable in terms of reality is in the understanding.

Anselm’s refutation of Guanilo’s argument

You say that the inference that this being exists in reality from the fact that it is in the understanding is no more just than the inference that a lost island most certainly exists from the fact that when it is described the hearer does not doubt that it is in the understanding.

Anselm’s refutation of Guanilo’s argument

But I say if a being than which a greater is inconceivable is not understood or conceived and is not in the understanding or in concept certainly either God is not a being than which a greater is in conceivable, or else he is not understood or conceived, and is not in the understanding or in concept. But I call on your faith in conscience to attest that this is most false. Hence, that than which a greater cannot be conceived is truly understood and conceived and is in the understanding and in concept. Therefore either the grounds on which you try to convert me are not true,

or else the inference which you think to base logically on these grounds is not justified.

II. Intellectual Developments in the Middle Ages

D. 1200–1347: Aristotelianism and the Neoplatonic Synthesis (Scholasticism)

1. Church Rejects, Then Accepts Aristotle

a. 1210 – Council of Sens prohibits Aristotle’s work on physics

b. 1215 – Robert, papal legate, prohibits Aristotle’s work on metaphysics and natural philosophy (allowed

lecturing on dialectic but only by full professors)

II. Intellectual Developments in the Middle Ages

D. 1200–1347: Aristotelianism and the Neoplatonic Synthesis (Scholasticism)

1. Church Rejects, Then Accepts Aristotle (continued)

c. 1231 – Pope Gregory IX allowed expurgated versions of Aristotle’s works to be used in schools

d. 1250 – Robert Grossteste, Bishop of Lincoln, translates Aristotle’s Nicomachaen Ethics into Latin

e. Church declares Aristotle’s works as criteria of truth

II. Intellectual Developments in the Middle Ages

D. 1200–1347: Aristotelianism and the Neoplatonic Synthesis (Scholasticism) (cont.)

2. Problem of Universals

a. Realists (universalia ante rem)

b. Nominalists (universalia post rem)

3. Conflict of Faith and Reason

a. Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) — Summa theologica (teleology)

b. William of Occam (ca. 1280–1347) — Occam’s Razor

Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274)

Ca. 1400

II. Intellectual Developments in the Middle Ages

E. Results in Secular Western Christendom

1. Advocacy System in Law

2. Determining the Mind of God

a. Johannes Kepler

b. Georg Freidrich Wilhelm Hegel

c. Steven Hawking

d. Chet Raymo