Terminological problems.
We have children conceived out of wedlock, and out of coitus (in vitro fertilisation).
Matrimonial covenant. Far richer word, covenant, than contract. It evokes something of the deeply personal nature of what marriage is. By which a man and a woman establish between themselves, two primary goods. It's important that there be baptism remember before it is a sacramental.
As a legal institution marriage has a historical and social basis in the protection of property rights. A wife was perceived as a piece of property. The main reason of marriage was to have male heirs. A man's right to sexual activity outside of marriage was connected to his interest in acquiring sons via concubines and slave women. These unjust and sinful practices crept into culture. Marriage also was used for security and to safeguard public morals. The commitment of fidelity and a certain security of the good of children as they are brought into a stable environment.
Marriage has historically represented a woman's best way to reach economic security for her and her children. It has also provided an orderly was of keeping the human race going and provided a very orderly way to satisfy the sexual drive.
Sunday, 31 May 2009
Monday, 25 May 2009
his201 - last lecture - week 12
Central topics:
Early Medieval History and Historiography
The Heirs of the Roman Empire
The Pirenne Thesis
The High Middle Ages (c. 1050-c.1350)
We look at the cultural revival during and after the investiture controversy as a key element of change in cultural scholasticism. Here again the issues of Church and state were quite important. Inseparable in fact from our studies in architecture, technology, literature. Overtly evident in the investiture controversy, in scholastic circles faith and reason were heavily debated.
So we have come from the Merovingian kings up to Dante's inferno.
We studied key events and characters of the middle ages which reflect the central topics.
This has helped up achieve our aims to look at the broad patterns of Western cultural development. Intellectual, social, artistic and political issues. Historiography. We faced historiographical problems. It's an historiographical challenge for a historian to use the song of Roland to understand the Carolingian kings, for example. How do we use this? Do we use it as a true reflection of the events of the Carolingian war against Spain? It's an historiographical challenge.
These challenges are not separate from the task of doing history.
These issues need to be studied in context. For example, we can loosely use the term 'renaissance' what is far more important for historians to do is to analyse each period on its own merits.
We need to move on from stories of dark ages, heroes and villains. And we need to appreciate the complexity and continuity of a period.
Stories, relationships are not simple in our lives, so why should they be simple in their lives.
And we can't assign the middle ages to the dust bin of medieval history.
A lot did happen during this long thousand years, it wasn't an intellectually stagnant period.
We can't pin point when the period began, and when it ended, and such we have to be careful with the labels with put on it and be careful about such connotations they have.
The exam:
16th june, 10 am.
It will consist of 6 questions: 3 must be answered. And answers will be in prose.
How relevant is this to the question?
Topics:
Medieval historiography - includes some of the issues listed above. What it is to study the early middle ages, what they might have been. Look at Gibbon, Ranke, Rophs, Pirenne, Paskins, Neats, Cantor.
Frankish Gaul - in particular, Clovis, Gregory of Tours,
Monasticism - Benedict, Gregory the Great - This sort of leads into the investiture controversy - Henry the 4th
Scholasticism - John of Saulsbury, Abelard, Bernard of Clairvaux, technology, architecture and literature. The description of the Abbey of St Denis. Dante's paradise, connections between scholastic literature and scholastic architecture.
The monasteries were the cradle of early European civilization.
Yes or no??
No, this statement is far too simplistic we need to consider many other issues, aspects, etc
Early Medieval History and Historiography
The Heirs of the Roman Empire
The Pirenne Thesis
The High Middle Ages (c. 1050-c.1350)
We look at the cultural revival during and after the investiture controversy as a key element of change in cultural scholasticism. Here again the issues of Church and state were quite important. Inseparable in fact from our studies in architecture, technology, literature. Overtly evident in the investiture controversy, in scholastic circles faith and reason were heavily debated.
So we have come from the Merovingian kings up to Dante's inferno.
We studied key events and characters of the middle ages which reflect the central topics.
This has helped up achieve our aims to look at the broad patterns of Western cultural development. Intellectual, social, artistic and political issues. Historiography. We faced historiographical problems. It's an historiographical challenge for a historian to use the song of Roland to understand the Carolingian kings, for example. How do we use this? Do we use it as a true reflection of the events of the Carolingian war against Spain? It's an historiographical challenge.
These challenges are not separate from the task of doing history.
These issues need to be studied in context. For example, we can loosely use the term 'renaissance' what is far more important for historians to do is to analyse each period on its own merits.
We need to move on from stories of dark ages, heroes and villains. And we need to appreciate the complexity and continuity of a period.
Stories, relationships are not simple in our lives, so why should they be simple in their lives.
And we can't assign the middle ages to the dust bin of medieval history.
A lot did happen during this long thousand years, it wasn't an intellectually stagnant period.
We can't pin point when the period began, and when it ended, and such we have to be careful with the labels with put on it and be careful about such connotations they have.
The exam:
16th june, 10 am.
It will consist of 6 questions: 3 must be answered. And answers will be in prose.
How relevant is this to the question?
Topics:
Medieval historiography - includes some of the issues listed above. What it is to study the early middle ages, what they might have been. Look at Gibbon, Ranke, Rophs, Pirenne, Paskins, Neats, Cantor.
Frankish Gaul - in particular, Clovis, Gregory of Tours,
Monasticism - Benedict, Gregory the Great - This sort of leads into the investiture controversy - Henry the 4th
Scholasticism - John of Saulsbury, Abelard, Bernard of Clairvaux, technology, architecture and literature. The description of the Abbey of St Denis. Dante's paradise, connections between scholastic literature and scholastic architecture.
The monasteries were the cradle of early European civilization.
Yes or no??
No, this statement is far too simplistic we need to consider many other issues, aspects, etc
lit201 - lect 2 - week 12
The intent of this poem is very similar to John Dun's something or rather.
Page 1623, discipline, George Herbert.
The images are reversed but it's to the same end.
Dunn is asking for God to break his heart, to ravish him, to take him in this ravishing act of divine love. Now here, Herbert is urging God to woo him gently, for salvation with God. The language is almost diametrically opposed yet the end goal is the same.
Death in Herbert becomes something placid, something benign.
"bones, death etc" Before Christ's death, death itself seemed different. "We didn't look far enough into the future, we just saw the corrupting body in the grave" But now Christ has turned death into life.
Page 1623, discipline, George Herbert.
The images are reversed but it's to the same end.
Dunn is asking for God to break his heart, to ravish him, to take him in this ravishing act of divine love. Now here, Herbert is urging God to woo him gently, for salvation with God. The language is almost diametrically opposed yet the end goal is the same.
Death in Herbert becomes something placid, something benign.
"bones, death etc" Before Christ's death, death itself seemed different. "We didn't look far enough into the future, we just saw the corrupting body in the grave" But now Christ has turned death into life.
Sunday, 24 May 2009
his201 - lect 1 - week 12
New literary genres and the broaded cultural movements of the long 12th-century Renaissance.
The knights had an idea of chivalry. Chevalier, implies, bravery, honour and courtly love.
Their rituals centred around ceremonies which would pass these characteristic down throughout the generations and kept it within an elite group that truly deserved it and had earned those values of chivalry.
dubbing welcomed a young man into the knighthood, from an elder to a younger, these characteristics of chivalry. That's what the image on the hand out represents. Religiously this links the knight to the mediaeval ages with the religious struggles of antiquity. Knights represent a romanticism that was well depicted in new literary genre of the 12th and 13th centuries. Especially northern France, Normandy, Champagne, these stories occurred, these aristocratic knights living in a tower with a cleric, and these clerics would write the stories of chivalry. Amongst this time the higher levels of literacy allowed them to write these stories, and a greater interest in their history gave them motivation. And so we have a new literary genre in this period, alongside the biographies, hagiographies, and this genre is usually known as Chanson de geste. Songs/poems of adventure about a mythical historical past. And very often of the time of Charlemagne, written in the 12th century about the people in the 7th, 8th and sometimes 9th century. This most well known is the song of Roland. Story, poem, set in Spain after Charlemagne and his army concurred the northern regions. In 778, after the military campaign, Charlemagne is offered a truce by the king of the Saracens in the region, Saragossa, Saracens are the African Muslims. Happy with this outcome Charlemagne returns with much of the army and gives one of his generals, Gannelon, the task of negotiating the terms of the peace agreement. Gannelon thinks that this task is too dangerous and should be done by a subordinate. And so he betrays Charlemagne and tells the Saracens where they can nab the rear of Charlemagne's army. Roland, is heroic in the repelling of the Saracens, however, he dies.
There was probably a battle, there was probably a guy called Roland who was a general, however, the story of Roland is probably romanticised. There is a religious message entangled in all of this, but it is not a text aimed at solely a theological issue. Similar stories were being written in the same vernacular in other place, we have History of the King's of Britain, written by Geoffrey of Montmouth. We also have the Cantar del mio Cid. The Chanson de Geste was not the only genre to emerge in this vernacular during this time. The trabador's, who wrote shorter, more lyrical, love poems: fin amor. The authors were not cleric, we have poets writing these love poems. There was a clear separation between the sacred, monasteries were bastions of ascetic life, but outside of monasteries something else was happening. This would probably answer why you have a change in Gothic architecture. Anyway the message in these love poems was quite clear, men appeared as equals before love. This means that knights can fall in love with a noble women, even a married woman, just from sight, which has element of lust. Such honour and admiration would be gained through acts of chivalry and honour. The idea here is that courtly love is a term invented by historians ever since the late 19th century, the medieval term used for such acts of chivalry in the name of love is fin amor, Unblemished love. The idea is that a man of any other class would not act with such self restraint, another man from another social group would commit adultery or even rape. So peasants, and even kings, don't have this same valour this same sort of honour. They cannot stand back from the greed that may come from desire. The point is that this new genre of love poetry, was not necessarily connected to spiritual enlightenment, and was aimed at a much broader audience, to those who did not necessarily speak Latin, it spoke in vernacular. In this era when you have such diversity within different regions you just cannot expect the laity to be a completely hemogenous group, some of this literature reflects that.
The knights had an idea of chivalry. Chevalier, implies, bravery, honour and courtly love.
Their rituals centred around ceremonies which would pass these characteristic down throughout the generations and kept it within an elite group that truly deserved it and had earned those values of chivalry.
dubbing welcomed a young man into the knighthood, from an elder to a younger, these characteristics of chivalry. That's what the image on the hand out represents. Religiously this links the knight to the mediaeval ages with the religious struggles of antiquity. Knights represent a romanticism that was well depicted in new literary genre of the 12th and 13th centuries. Especially northern France, Normandy, Champagne, these stories occurred, these aristocratic knights living in a tower with a cleric, and these clerics would write the stories of chivalry. Amongst this time the higher levels of literacy allowed them to write these stories, and a greater interest in their history gave them motivation. And so we have a new literary genre in this period, alongside the biographies, hagiographies, and this genre is usually known as Chanson de geste. Songs/poems of adventure about a mythical historical past. And very often of the time of Charlemagne, written in the 12th century about the people in the 7th, 8th and sometimes 9th century. This most well known is the song of Roland. Story, poem, set in Spain after Charlemagne and his army concurred the northern regions. In 778, after the military campaign, Charlemagne is offered a truce by the king of the Saracens in the region, Saragossa, Saracens are the African Muslims. Happy with this outcome Charlemagne returns with much of the army and gives one of his generals, Gannelon, the task of negotiating the terms of the peace agreement. Gannelon thinks that this task is too dangerous and should be done by a subordinate. And so he betrays Charlemagne and tells the Saracens where they can nab the rear of Charlemagne's army. Roland, is heroic in the repelling of the Saracens, however, he dies.
There was probably a battle, there was probably a guy called Roland who was a general, however, the story of Roland is probably romanticised. There is a religious message entangled in all of this, but it is not a text aimed at solely a theological issue. Similar stories were being written in the same vernacular in other place, we have History of the King's of Britain, written by Geoffrey of Montmouth. We also have the Cantar del mio Cid. The Chanson de Geste was not the only genre to emerge in this vernacular during this time. The trabador's, who wrote shorter, more lyrical, love poems: fin amor. The authors were not cleric, we have poets writing these love poems. There was a clear separation between the sacred, monasteries were bastions of ascetic life, but outside of monasteries something else was happening. This would probably answer why you have a change in Gothic architecture. Anyway the message in these love poems was quite clear, men appeared as equals before love. This means that knights can fall in love with a noble women, even a married woman, just from sight, which has element of lust. Such honour and admiration would be gained through acts of chivalry and honour. The idea here is that courtly love is a term invented by historians ever since the late 19th century, the medieval term used for such acts of chivalry in the name of love is fin amor, Unblemished love. The idea is that a man of any other class would not act with such self restraint, another man from another social group would commit adultery or even rape. So peasants, and even kings, don't have this same valour this same sort of honour. They cannot stand back from the greed that may come from desire. The point is that this new genre of love poetry, was not necessarily connected to spiritual enlightenment, and was aimed at a much broader audience, to those who did not necessarily speak Latin, it spoke in vernacular. In this era when you have such diversity within different regions you just cannot expect the laity to be a completely hemogenous group, some of this literature reflects that.
Monday, 18 May 2009
his201 - Architecture
The changes coming out of the investiture, that were part of the controversy, the changes in lay attitudes towards faith, demanded, required some changes to the physical structures which held up this institution. So it's from this that we get more Churches being built in the 11th century and especially the 12th century and what is noticeable about the Churches from this era is that they changed from a Romanesque style to a Gothic style.
Abbey of St. Denis, housing one of the larger monastic schools of the 12th century, needed to be re-modelled. The person to do the job was Abbot Suger (1080-1140) First half of the 12th century, he was the main to do it because he held quite a bit of political clout. He is a career churchmen.
There's a greater inclusion of lay-worshippers, you don't need to close the Church off from lay worshippers, in fact they are beating the door down to get in. Especially during this period we see the development of Churches housing relics, which were especially kept in altars. Monkish architects developed new styles, new complex beaming to hold up the larger places, new elaborates facades, bigger so that more people can come in and communicate with God. Having sufficient emanating light.
Ribbed vaults reinforced the roof and the walls through a multiplicity of arches. Artists are looking for ways to add perspective to their works. After all you produce a piece of religious artwork it's meant to go inside a Church, so it's around this time in which artists started developing the technique of perspective so their artwork would add to the surrounding spaces in the Church. And this is how we see art and architecture combine.
How was the construction of new churches funded?
Donors: Aristocracy and Crown (egs. Louis VI and VII)
Indulgences from 'bourgeoisie'
WHERE DID THE EXPERTISE COME FROM?
Who were the architects?
Ancient texts,
"Whatever you do in miniature you can replicate in larger sizes as long as you use the same ratios"
The impetus for gothic architecture was not lets do it different because we can, instead it's lets try and direct parishners even more to the point of coming to church. so the greatness of god has to be represented inside the space of the buildings and in the art inside the buildings, discussed by Erwin pinovsky. It's an important facet of medieval culture.
We can see the intellectual, social, everything currents changing it.
Abbey of St. Denis, housing one of the larger monastic schools of the 12th century, needed to be re-modelled. The person to do the job was Abbot Suger (1080-1140) First half of the 12th century, he was the main to do it because he held quite a bit of political clout. He is a career churchmen.
There's a greater inclusion of lay-worshippers, you don't need to close the Church off from lay worshippers, in fact they are beating the door down to get in. Especially during this period we see the development of Churches housing relics, which were especially kept in altars. Monkish architects developed new styles, new complex beaming to hold up the larger places, new elaborates facades, bigger so that more people can come in and communicate with God. Having sufficient emanating light.
Ribbed vaults reinforced the roof and the walls through a multiplicity of arches. Artists are looking for ways to add perspective to their works. After all you produce a piece of religious artwork it's meant to go inside a Church, so it's around this time in which artists started developing the technique of perspective so their artwork would add to the surrounding spaces in the Church. And this is how we see art and architecture combine.
How was the construction of new churches funded?
Donors: Aristocracy and Crown (egs. Louis VI and VII)
Indulgences from 'bourgeoisie'
WHERE DID THE EXPERTISE COME FROM?
Who were the architects?
Ancient texts,
"Whatever you do in miniature you can replicate in larger sizes as long as you use the same ratios"
The impetus for gothic architecture was not lets do it different because we can, instead it's lets try and direct parishners even more to the point of coming to church. so the greatness of god has to be represented inside the space of the buildings and in the art inside the buildings, discussed by Erwin pinovsky. It's an important facet of medieval culture.
We can see the intellectual, social, everything currents changing it.
Sunday, 17 May 2009
His201 - lect 1 - week 11
Technology changes
Input of social technology and output of social change. - Russell, Technological Determinism.
The stirrup changed warfare and changed society. It likens the stirrup't man to the Minotaur.
Why was horse riding important in the middle ages? Faster and efficient horse riding seemed economically better for merchants, or for deliveries of goods, mail, etc.
What about the social political issues related to feudal issues, changes in trade, economic conditions, like what Pirenne spoke about.
It's difficult for us to believe that Martel pulled a stirrup out of his hat and everybody used it. You still need the calvary, you still need men trained in war-fare on horseback.
You need a whole military movement behind a stirrup, you need the social interest, it has to be in the forefront of everybody's mind, on the lips of every trader, merchant, politician, aristocrat, so much so that it becomes part of the society. Stirrups were probably available to Byzantine warrior as early as the 6th century, well before it was available to the French. Why didn't the stirrup revolutionise the eastern Roman empire, perhaps there were other issues at stake.
white might be right but his argument is still just technological determinism, it's way too simplistic, it leads historians astray into stories of progress.
Very simple mechanical instrumentation with water. Very easy to use. Can be used for grinding flour, grain, any other material, and saves Human labour.
Aristotelian was believed to be getting out of hand in Paris in the 13th Century. Technology and Science was perceived to be rather stagnant in Western Europe in the 13th Century.
There was no impetus for scientific improvement, people were worried about paying their taxes, subsistence, and getting on with life.
However, this is not true. In Eastern Europe translating and disseminating works on astronomy and physics was important. The natural sciences were in place and were being used, particularly in the Aristotelian frame-set, as such the idea of a scientific stagnant period is wrong.
Monastery operated mills were the most successful. Mills were not just used for monastic subsistence, but for profit. To feed and keep monasteries going this was one way.
So we can conclude that in this part of France there was an increase in milling, however milling had been around. Indeed monasteries did not always build mills but inherited them. This certainly changes the dynamics of mill scholarship - there was technological change well before the 18th century (in this sense the marxist historians are still useful) however there is also an apparent continuity from the middle ages, and the increased milling in the 13th century is not in and by itself a catalyst for social division, economic change etc. What we can see instead, through a history of milling, is that this technology and it's use was built into social structures and needs, such as in monasteries, now we can make similar arguments for 12 and 13th century architecture.
Input of social technology and output of social change. - Russell, Technological Determinism.
The stirrup changed warfare and changed society. It likens the stirrup't man to the Minotaur.
Why was horse riding important in the middle ages? Faster and efficient horse riding seemed economically better for merchants, or for deliveries of goods, mail, etc.
What about the social political issues related to feudal issues, changes in trade, economic conditions, like what Pirenne spoke about.
It's difficult for us to believe that Martel pulled a stirrup out of his hat and everybody used it. You still need the calvary, you still need men trained in war-fare on horseback.
You need a whole military movement behind a stirrup, you need the social interest, it has to be in the forefront of everybody's mind, on the lips of every trader, merchant, politician, aristocrat, so much so that it becomes part of the society. Stirrups were probably available to Byzantine warrior as early as the 6th century, well before it was available to the French. Why didn't the stirrup revolutionise the eastern Roman empire, perhaps there were other issues at stake.
white might be right but his argument is still just technological determinism, it's way too simplistic, it leads historians astray into stories of progress.
Very simple mechanical instrumentation with water. Very easy to use. Can be used for grinding flour, grain, any other material, and saves Human labour.
Aristotelian was believed to be getting out of hand in Paris in the 13th Century. Technology and Science was perceived to be rather stagnant in Western Europe in the 13th Century.
There was no impetus for scientific improvement, people were worried about paying their taxes, subsistence, and getting on with life.
However, this is not true. In Eastern Europe translating and disseminating works on astronomy and physics was important. The natural sciences were in place and were being used, particularly in the Aristotelian frame-set, as such the idea of a scientific stagnant period is wrong.
Monastery operated mills were the most successful. Mills were not just used for monastic subsistence, but for profit. To feed and keep monasteries going this was one way.
So we can conclude that in this part of France there was an increase in milling, however milling had been around. Indeed monasteries did not always build mills but inherited them. This certainly changes the dynamics of mill scholarship - there was technological change well before the 18th century (in this sense the marxist historians are still useful) however there is also an apparent continuity from the middle ages, and the increased milling in the 13th century is not in and by itself a catalyst for social division, economic change etc. What we can see instead, through a history of milling, is that this technology and it's use was built into social structures and needs, such as in monasteries, now we can make similar arguments for 12 and 13th century architecture.
Wednesday, 13 May 2009
Phi201 - tute - wk 10
/\
real | merely conceptual
and then from real comes
/\
incorporeal | corporeal
from incorporeal comes
/\
separable (Plato) | inseparable (Aristotle)
real | merely conceptual
and then from real comes
/\
incorporeal | corporeal
from incorporeal comes
/\
separable (Plato) | inseparable (Aristotle)
Sunday, 10 May 2009
phi201 - lect 1 - wk 10
Abelard's counterargument: Difference between universals and particulars disappears. The individual Socrates is 'universal' in relation to his humanity and singular in relation to his Socrateity. Another way of putting this point is that it doesn't make any difference whether you talk about Socrates or a human being, if you talk about a human being you talk about a human being in relation to it's humanity. It makes no difference if we refer to 'socrates' or 'a human being'; all that exists are individuals. Nothing on this picture exists as a whole in many simultaneously. So it is a misleading 'spin' of William's to describe this view as a realism.
How should we talk about universals?
5. Nominalism and agreement in 'status': Abelard's positive theory
'universal' means 'predicable of many' for Abelard. This can't conceivable occur in 2 ways. As an entity present in many or as an entity that applies to many in the natural world. Abelard only recognises the real existence of the matter.
Abelard: Socrates and Plato agree in no thing. He puts it like this: They do not agree in a human being, (Which is William's formulation) but in being human, a 'status'.
This can sound like they are playing with words, as though he is invoking an entity which is in some way not a thing. <- 'weak source'.
There is a better way to look at it which makes Abelard's point clearly coherent: Socrates and Plato agree in status because the proposition that Plato is human agree is truth-value. Both are true. They don't agree in status with respect to being writers of dialogues. The proposition that Plato wrote dialogue is true and the prop. that Socrates wrote dialogues is fake they disagree in truth-value.
In both eyes a pair of propositions exist. You don't get an extra thing existing because of the agreement in the first pair.
Next topic: Medieval Epistemology
Question: What is going on in you when you see/perceive a cow in front of you, come to know that there is a cow in front of you, and later think about cows after the cow in question has wandered off.
In the early med. picture seeing a cow causes an image/representation of the form in your mind. Thinking about cows later is another way of calling up an image in imagination. Like seeing a cow, only fainter, less vivid. Medievals, to their credit, clearly separated these issues. Two major parts of medieval approach. Aristotelian and Platonic.
More precisely, we have a relatively pure Aristotelianism a hybrid of Aristotelianism and Platonism. The Platonising tendency derives in large part from the approach of the Arabic thinker Avicenne (Iba Snna), which ends up cross-bred with the Latin Augustinian tradition rsulting in what Etienne Gilson calls "Avicennising Augustinian' and what Spade calls the Augustinian Destinal Complex.
How should we talk about universals?
5. Nominalism and agreement in 'status': Abelard's positive theory
'universal' means 'predicable of many' for Abelard. This can't conceivable occur in 2 ways. As an entity present in many or as an entity that applies to many in the natural world. Abelard only recognises the real existence of the matter.
Abelard: Socrates and Plato agree in no thing. He puts it like this: They do not agree in a human being, (Which is William's formulation) but in being human, a 'status'.
This can sound like they are playing with words, as though he is invoking an entity which is in some way not a thing. <- 'weak source'.
There is a better way to look at it which makes Abelard's point clearly coherent: Socrates and Plato agree in status because the proposition that Plato is human agree is truth-value. Both are true. They don't agree in status with respect to being writers of dialogues. The proposition that Plato wrote dialogue is true and the prop. that Socrates wrote dialogues is fake they disagree in truth-value.
In both eyes a pair of propositions exist. You don't get an extra thing existing because of the agreement in the first pair.
Next topic: Medieval Epistemology
Question: What is going on in you when you see/perceive a cow in front of you, come to know that there is a cow in front of you, and later think about cows after the cow in question has wandered off.
In the early med. picture seeing a cow causes an image/representation of the form in your mind. Thinking about cows later is another way of calling up an image in imagination. Like seeing a cow, only fainter, less vivid. Medievals, to their credit, clearly separated these issues. Two major parts of medieval approach. Aristotelian and Platonic.
More precisely, we have a relatively pure Aristotelianism a hybrid of Aristotelianism and Platonism. The Platonising tendency derives in large part from the approach of the Arabic thinker Avicenne (Iba Snna), which ends up cross-bred with the Latin Augustinian tradition rsulting in what Etienne Gilson calls "Avicennising Augustinian' and what Spade calls the Augustinian Destinal Complex.
his201 - lect 1 - wk 10
How contrasting reasons between faith and reason in the 12th century scholasticism.
Essentially understanding the natural world and the political realm is based on these ideals of justice and self restraint. This is epitomised by Augustine and Boethius in the style of learning called Scholasticism.
Up until the 12th Century what was known about Aristotle was understood via Boethius' translations. What was garnered from the limited Aristotelian works available was that Logic was important to knowledge. Aristotle epitomised logic, so you can imagine people like Abelard relying upon this small group of knowledge.
Abelard and nominalism:
Reality versus universals.
'New Logic' of scholasticism: resolving contradictions. Sic et Non (c.1120)
sicilian scholarcism of the 12th century.
translations:
spain: toledo (1085); adelard of bath (c.1100-c.1140); gerard of cremona (1114-1187); dominic gundisalvi (f;.1150)
antioch: stephen of antioch (fl.1114)
siciliy: henricus aristippus (fl. 1150s)
constantinople: james of venice (c.1100-c.1150)
as such these greek and arabic texts are becoming more widely disseminated
What we need to appreciate is how scholasticism, and questions about the rationality of good changed between the 11th century and the 12th century due to the increasing availability of Aristotelian texts and a more widespread translation of greek and arabic texts.
Essentially understanding the natural world and the political realm is based on these ideals of justice and self restraint. This is epitomised by Augustine and Boethius in the style of learning called Scholasticism.
Up until the 12th Century what was known about Aristotle was understood via Boethius' translations. What was garnered from the limited Aristotelian works available was that Logic was important to knowledge. Aristotle epitomised logic, so you can imagine people like Abelard relying upon this small group of knowledge.
Abelard and nominalism:
Reality versus universals.
'New Logic' of scholasticism: resolving contradictions. Sic et Non (c.1120)
sicilian scholarcism of the 12th century.
translations:
spain: toledo (1085); adelard of bath (c.1100-c.1140); gerard of cremona (1114-1187); dominic gundisalvi (f;.1150)
antioch: stephen of antioch (fl.1114)
siciliy: henricus aristippus (fl. 1150s)
constantinople: james of venice (c.1100-c.1150)
as such these greek and arabic texts are becoming more widely disseminated
What we need to appreciate is how scholasticism, and questions about the rationality of good changed between the 11th century and the 12th century due to the increasing availability of Aristotelian texts and a more widespread translation of greek and arabic texts.
Monday, 4 May 2009
phi201 - lect 1 - wk 9
3. It's this second Platonistic realism that William of Champeux takes up and Abelard attacks. Because he has little direct exposure to Aristotle he feels free to refer to the original Platonic Forms in question as material essences. (and the accidental characteristics attracted in order to get an individual he describes as advening forms). It is at odds with Aristotelian usage to describe a form as "matter" or "natural"
See Quote wk 8 handout quote 1
3.1 "Socrates is brunellus" argument
Get notes from Pip, jacinta, or sonja.
See Quote wk 8 handout quote 1
3.1 "Socrates is brunellus" argument
Get notes from Pip, jacinta, or sonja.
his202 - lect 2 - wk 9
Learning in the Twelfth Century
Two prominent figures of education in 12th century
Peter Abelard (1079-1142)
John of Salisbury (1120-1180)
Now we start to see some idiosyncratic behaviour, some individuals who are a bit weird and some who are simply exciting to read.
This new class was not a class of land owners like knights or dukes. This social class was born from monastic values and education. What we see emerge in the 12th century within this new independent social class of students, universities and monasteries are masters, masters of their chosen fields, instead of entering the priesthood, politics or becoming monks, they became teachers. Masters of their chosen academic field and able to sell their mastery of their field, much like the sophists of antiquity.
So we want to look at how these two characters compared in their teachings and how they represented their monastic fields.
Abelard was from a noble family from the city of Nantes, Bretagne in the south of France. He was sent to Paris for his education. During this education he began to excel at dialectic - arriving at the truth by the exchange of logical arguments - dialectic it can also mean argumentation for argumentations sake. But the core meaning is the former. Dialectic therefore is an expansion on logic, the term dialectic often replaces logic within the seven liberal arts. The attraction to logic for someone like Abelard is the power of reason. Reason was long seen as a corner of liberal arts. Men like Augustine and Platinus discussed their world views according to a series of logical axioms, they built an argument based upon logical statements. In the 6th century we have people like Boethius who works with logic - he was the philosopher working for Theodoric in the Italian court who ended up in prison for treason. His work cultivates a spiritual and cultural world being through the power of reason. We see here a tradition of the use of logic and the power of reason.
John Scotus - 9th century - worked in the Frankish court of Charlemagne, late 9th century. Scotus a neo-platonist went back to Plato's work and championed again the power of the mind and the application of logic. These he said were the key to gaining knowledge of the world. Human supremacy over nature is because of the power of logic.
Understanding and dividing the line between faith and reason was a particularly important issue in the 12th century. It was the impetus behind Abelard's career.
There are plenty of students in Paris and it's an intellectual center. In 1113 he was invited by the Bishop of Paris to become a professor of theology and to personally tutor his neice, Heloise.
Abelard was deemed heretical because he believed that one could simply come to know the world and humanity through logical argumentation and nothing else. Part of the problem is that you could arrive at truths which are contradictory or questioning the Church fathers.
Historia calamitatum (the story of my misfortunes) c. 1120
Two prominent figures of education in 12th century
Peter Abelard (1079-1142)
John of Salisbury (1120-1180)
Now we start to see some idiosyncratic behaviour, some individuals who are a bit weird and some who are simply exciting to read.
This new class was not a class of land owners like knights or dukes. This social class was born from monastic values and education. What we see emerge in the 12th century within this new independent social class of students, universities and monasteries are masters, masters of their chosen fields, instead of entering the priesthood, politics or becoming monks, they became teachers. Masters of their chosen academic field and able to sell their mastery of their field, much like the sophists of antiquity.
So we want to look at how these two characters compared in their teachings and how they represented their monastic fields.
Abelard was from a noble family from the city of Nantes, Bretagne in the south of France. He was sent to Paris for his education. During this education he began to excel at dialectic - arriving at the truth by the exchange of logical arguments - dialectic it can also mean argumentation for argumentations sake. But the core meaning is the former. Dialectic therefore is an expansion on logic, the term dialectic often replaces logic within the seven liberal arts. The attraction to logic for someone like Abelard is the power of reason. Reason was long seen as a corner of liberal arts. Men like Augustine and Platinus discussed their world views according to a series of logical axioms, they built an argument based upon logical statements. In the 6th century we have people like Boethius who works with logic - he was the philosopher working for Theodoric in the Italian court who ended up in prison for treason. His work cultivates a spiritual and cultural world being through the power of reason. We see here a tradition of the use of logic and the power of reason.
John Scotus - 9th century - worked in the Frankish court of Charlemagne, late 9th century. Scotus a neo-platonist went back to Plato's work and championed again the power of the mind and the application of logic. These he said were the key to gaining knowledge of the world. Human supremacy over nature is because of the power of logic.
Understanding and dividing the line between faith and reason was a particularly important issue in the 12th century. It was the impetus behind Abelard's career.
There are plenty of students in Paris and it's an intellectual center. In 1113 he was invited by the Bishop of Paris to become a professor of theology and to personally tutor his neice, Heloise.
Abelard was deemed heretical because he believed that one could simply come to know the world and humanity through logical argumentation and nothing else. Part of the problem is that you could arrive at truths which are contradictory or questioning the Church fathers.
Historia calamitatum (the story of my misfortunes) c. 1120
lit201 - wk 9 - lect 2
Polonius was a meddling fool and that's what happens to meddling fools.
Hamlet is telling his mother to stop having sex with Claudius.
The king is now firmly set on the path of evil. He wants Hamlet dead.
Laertes does what Hamlet cannot do. He immediately agrees to go into battle with Hamlet and kill him. He has the resolve that Hamlet lacks.
"that drop of blood that's calm proclaims me bastard" in other words, he's not my father, i'm not his son, and my mother is a whore if I am calm.
Laertes gives his allegiance to hell. Makes vows to the devil and conscience and grace he buries them. He says he is tempting fate. He does not care about the consequences in this life or the next. He just wants to avenge his father.
From a Christian perspective Hamlet is noble because he wrestles with his conscience, he has a sense of right and wrong, and he finds it difficult to make his allegiance to hell.
act 4 scene 7, claudius plays the role of the ghost as the ghost was to hamlet.
King asks Laertes if you are a painting of sorrow, does your appearance match reality?
Hamlet is telling his mother to stop having sex with Claudius.
The king is now firmly set on the path of evil. He wants Hamlet dead.
Laertes does what Hamlet cannot do. He immediately agrees to go into battle with Hamlet and kill him. He has the resolve that Hamlet lacks.
"that drop of blood that's calm proclaims me bastard" in other words, he's not my father, i'm not his son, and my mother is a whore if I am calm.
Laertes gives his allegiance to hell. Makes vows to the devil and conscience and grace he buries them. He says he is tempting fate. He does not care about the consequences in this life or the next. He just wants to avenge his father.
From a Christian perspective Hamlet is noble because he wrestles with his conscience, he has a sense of right and wrong, and he finds it difficult to make his allegiance to hell.
act 4 scene 7, claudius plays the role of the ghost as the ghost was to hamlet.
King asks Laertes if you are a painting of sorrow, does your appearance match reality?
lit201 - hamlet - wk 9 - lect 1
The marriage vows mean nothing, just like false words, they are not followed by actions which reflect the intent of the words.
Sunday, 3 May 2009
Phi201 - WK 9 - Med Phil - ABELARD
1. BACKGROUND
Operates on stage set by Boethius. Only significant Aristotelian material available till Abelard's time was the Old Logic (logica vetus). After Abelard's time works such as Prior Analytics, Posterior Analytics, Topic, Sophistical Refutations, became available. The main thing to remember is that the Metaphysics was not available in Abelard's time. Abelard raised Old Logic-based philosophy to its highest pitch. (Some think of him as the greatest Medieval Logician).
We'll pass over the details of his famous affair with Heloise, and concentrate on the much more interesting philosophy.
1.1 Abelard vs. William of Champeaux.
Abelard champions a nominalist/conceptualist view neither in line with the Aristotelian picture described by Boethius in his commentary. Abelard attacks two different theories proposed at different times by William. The first is a very strong Platonist realism and the second is not, but is attacked nonetheless by Abelard on the grounds more or less that William was misrepresenting it as a realistic view.
!.2 Dialectics
Abelard says that he bested William in public debate to the point where the latter lectures "bagged down in carelessness". In return William had his protege the great mystic Bernard of Clairvaux persecute Abelard afterwards. Bernard had his own reasons to oppose Abelard. Bernard distributed the displays of a logical sublety that dialectioniams like Abelard engaged in, particularly when they addressed theology.
Previously to the rise of this dialectical tendency around Abelard's time, mediaval philosophers tended not to put debate at the centre of their writings. Rather, they would paint a picture of an overall world-view e.g Erligena. The new tendency is visible in the title of Abelard's Sit et Non (Yes and No). His actual project was to resolve apparent contradictions between authorities by revealing subtle ambiguities but hte impression he gave was that of trying to emphasize contradictions. This annoyed traditionalists.
2. Recalling Boethius
But we'll stick to the nominalist vs. realist issue (As opposed to the dialectrician vs traditionalist debate).
To explain the view that William held and that Abelard attacked, it will help to go back to Boethius. He describes (outside the commentary on Porphyry, in his Theological Tractates) two Platonistic views, one which he, Boethius, holds and the other which ended up esposed by William.
The view preferred by Boethius himself is that over and above the numerically distinct but indistinguishable humanities possessed by Plato and Socrates (as in the Aristotelian view from the commentary on Porphyry) there is moreover a pre-existing supernatural Platonic form of humanity that stamps out or impresses the numerically distinct forms in the natural world. The Platonic Form is a universal and gives rise to impressed forms or native forms.
The argument Boethius discusses against the possibility of a universal is circumvented by the response that this Platonic universal does not constitute the substance of Aristotle and Plato. Rather, it is the Platonic Form together with individual parcels of matter that constitutes the individual.
The other Platonistic option is that we leave out matter and take Aristotle and Plato to be individuated by their accidental characteristics. On this picture you start with the Platonic Form of humanity and yet Aristotle by attaching certain accidents and Plato by attaching certain others. On this picture, we only have forms. Matter as something other than a form, plays no role.
Operates on stage set by Boethius. Only significant Aristotelian material available till Abelard's time was the Old Logic (logica vetus). After Abelard's time works such as Prior Analytics, Posterior Analytics, Topic, Sophistical Refutations, became available. The main thing to remember is that the Metaphysics was not available in Abelard's time. Abelard raised Old Logic-based philosophy to its highest pitch. (Some think of him as the greatest Medieval Logician).
We'll pass over the details of his famous affair with Heloise, and concentrate on the much more interesting philosophy.
1.1 Abelard vs. William of Champeaux.
Abelard champions a nominalist/conceptualist view neither in line with the Aristotelian picture described by Boethius in his commentary. Abelard attacks two different theories proposed at different times by William. The first is a very strong Platonist realism and the second is not, but is attacked nonetheless by Abelard on the grounds more or less that William was misrepresenting it as a realistic view.
!.2 Dialectics
Abelard says that he bested William in public debate to the point where the latter lectures "bagged down in carelessness". In return William had his protege the great mystic Bernard of Clairvaux persecute Abelard afterwards. Bernard had his own reasons to oppose Abelard. Bernard distributed the displays of a logical sublety that dialectioniams like Abelard engaged in, particularly when they addressed theology.
Previously to the rise of this dialectical tendency around Abelard's time, mediaval philosophers tended not to put debate at the centre of their writings. Rather, they would paint a picture of an overall world-view e.g Erligena. The new tendency is visible in the title of Abelard's Sit et Non (Yes and No). His actual project was to resolve apparent contradictions between authorities by revealing subtle ambiguities but hte impression he gave was that of trying to emphasize contradictions. This annoyed traditionalists.
2. Recalling Boethius
But we'll stick to the nominalist vs. realist issue (As opposed to the dialectrician vs traditionalist debate).
To explain the view that William held and that Abelard attacked, it will help to go back to Boethius. He describes (outside the commentary on Porphyry, in his Theological Tractates) two Platonistic views, one which he, Boethius, holds and the other which ended up esposed by William.
The view preferred by Boethius himself is that over and above the numerically distinct but indistinguishable humanities possessed by Plato and Socrates (as in the Aristotelian view from the commentary on Porphyry) there is moreover a pre-existing supernatural Platonic form of humanity that stamps out or impresses the numerically distinct forms in the natural world. The Platonic Form is a universal and gives rise to impressed forms or native forms.
The argument Boethius discusses against the possibility of a universal is circumvented by the response that this Platonic universal does not constitute the substance of Aristotle and Plato. Rather, it is the Platonic Form together with individual parcels of matter that constitutes the individual.
The other Platonistic option is that we leave out matter and take Aristotle and Plato to be individuated by their accidental characteristics. On this picture you start with the Platonic Form of humanity and yet Aristotle by attaching certain accidents and Plato by attaching certain others. On this picture, we only have forms. Matter as something other than a form, plays no role.
HIS201 - wk 9 - the 12th century renaissance
The investiture controversy ended during the 12th century and this was then followed by a period of cultural development and thus "renaissance". Most of the learning comes through the universities.
Henry the 5th and Calixtus the Pope finally struck an agreement between the Emperor and Pope, (the concordant). The Gregorian Reforms regarding investiture should be upheld, no emperor or king should have the power to appoint someone to an ecclesiastical office.
The concordant of burns must be considered in such an analysis of whether Gregory was successful or not. We cannot simply make a judgement about Gregory the Seventh on the basis of his own lifetime after all he died alone, in exile, a prisoner, and his succesors remained at loggerheads with Henry until the treats in 1222(?) we must consider the totality of his reforms. The loophole. It certainly affected the grass roots of Christianity.
What we have to appreciate is that Western European politics changed considerably when the investiture controversy happened. The empire started to lose power and the reformers were able to drive a wedge between the emperor's bishops.
As part of this controversy we see a new found independence which is important for understanding the change in the monastic scene. In the beginning of the 12th century monasteries everywhere were practising traditional rights.
This whole process of inculcating a greater personal investment in one's religion was also assisted by some charismatic preachers who attracted some of the lay people back.
The authority of the Church only grew because of the success of the crusades of the 12th century. The initial impetus of these soldiers serving Christendom was successful. By 1222 the Church had regained an upper hand in relation with lay rulers and had regained it's independence. And it is through this understanding that we can hope to understand the "high middle ages" or "12th century and beyond" so we can begin to study the high middle ages and the renaissance of the 12th century with an appreciation of the political background and context.
After all if you have a lot more people participating in religious life, more people in monasteries, more people studying then Churches need to be bigger. More texts. etc.
To understand what the renaissance of the 12 century was we must look at the intellectual changes in monasteries and the emergence of universities.
If there was any lesson tot be learnt from monasteries from the investiture controversy it's that Christian teachings and monastic life need to be clearly expressed and understood. You need books to do with secular law, on canon law, books about the liturgy and devotion, statues of each order, you need manuals that explain Christian doctrine to lay people, and of course you need lots of bibles to distribute. These are the type of books that were in demand in monasteries at the end of the 11th century and the beginning of the 12th century. So you begin to have lots of monasteries becoming more and more interested in these texts, borrowing, buying or copying them. So think about what this means, you have a growing demand for classical books, (such as the justinian code - this text amongst many other texts became highly important) so these texts were not unknown, they were indeed highly read in monasteries. In particular we know that under charglemagne the Frankish monks understood the importance of classical learning. And it's important to note this as it suggests the continuity of classical learning. Perhaps the increase in the learning of classical works was just an expansion and continuation of a culture of learning.
In any case what we still have to appreciate is that after the investiture controversy there was a demand for these texts, showing the demand for knowledge. Particularly books regarding legal proceedings, the statutes of new orders, of canon law, were in high demand. So through the possession of these books (or a specialisation of books) monasteries became research centers. Scholars flocked to these places of knowledge and thus students came as well and they became schools.
The abby of saint denis was particularly prevalent in the 12 century (run by abbot Suger). The problem with monasteries and their teachers is that they are usually located in rural areas (obvious exceptions to that) so there was a problem of accessibility and convenience. And so cathedrals started taking students in and these cathedrals themselves became schools. And they started to attract lay men who wanted to learn latin, medicine, civil and ecclesiastical law. These laws were especially important in defending their land from the dukes.
What allowed these schools to flourish? How did these school gain and maintain reputations?
First of all; you have a network of monasteries and cathedrals across Western Europe, many more then ever before, this means that word of mouth travels quickly and travels well.
Second of all, the fame of a monastery travels well and thus attracts more students, with more knowledge. Books become a valuable commodity. The flipside of this greater availability of books and the market of books meant that teaching that might be considered heretical could spread quickly as well.
The fourth reason links back to the new found life and particularity of the Church after the Gregorian reforms. Why would anybody want to study Canon law?
The education of clergy was the purpose behind ecclesiastical and monastic school in the first place. For Charlemagne, theology was the queen of the sciences.
You can imagine that monasteries and cathedrals would soon find it hard to cope with the growing student demands. Student numbers grew rapidly during the 12th century. In effect than students and scholars outgrew the schools moved as a whole, and gained a new social class, universitas. The word suggests something universal, a collegiate of parts making one.
Tridium and quadrivium - classical model of the liberal arts. These were the intellectual skills which liberate man from barbaric existence. Varro - wrote a lengthy dissertation on the benefits of a liberal arts study.
Dialectic - arriving at a truth through logical arguments which may even seem contradictory at time.
Philosophy was seen as the ultimate outcome of the trivium and quadrivium and after that one would seek to further study in either medicine, law or theology. Theology was seen as the most prestigious pursuit.
Capella's story of phiology and mercury to explain liberal arts.
Henry the 5th and Calixtus the Pope finally struck an agreement between the Emperor and Pope, (the concordant). The Gregorian Reforms regarding investiture should be upheld, no emperor or king should have the power to appoint someone to an ecclesiastical office.
The concordant of burns must be considered in such an analysis of whether Gregory was successful or not. We cannot simply make a judgement about Gregory the Seventh on the basis of his own lifetime after all he died alone, in exile, a prisoner, and his succesors remained at loggerheads with Henry until the treats in 1222(?) we must consider the totality of his reforms. The loophole. It certainly affected the grass roots of Christianity.
What we have to appreciate is that Western European politics changed considerably when the investiture controversy happened. The empire started to lose power and the reformers were able to drive a wedge between the emperor's bishops.
As part of this controversy we see a new found independence which is important for understanding the change in the monastic scene. In the beginning of the 12th century monasteries everywhere were practising traditional rights.
This whole process of inculcating a greater personal investment in one's religion was also assisted by some charismatic preachers who attracted some of the lay people back.
The authority of the Church only grew because of the success of the crusades of the 12th century. The initial impetus of these soldiers serving Christendom was successful. By 1222 the Church had regained an upper hand in relation with lay rulers and had regained it's independence. And it is through this understanding that we can hope to understand the "high middle ages" or "12th century and beyond" so we can begin to study the high middle ages and the renaissance of the 12th century with an appreciation of the political background and context.
After all if you have a lot more people participating in religious life, more people in monasteries, more people studying then Churches need to be bigger. More texts. etc.
To understand what the renaissance of the 12 century was we must look at the intellectual changes in monasteries and the emergence of universities.
If there was any lesson tot be learnt from monasteries from the investiture controversy it's that Christian teachings and monastic life need to be clearly expressed and understood. You need books to do with secular law, on canon law, books about the liturgy and devotion, statues of each order, you need manuals that explain Christian doctrine to lay people, and of course you need lots of bibles to distribute. These are the type of books that were in demand in monasteries at the end of the 11th century and the beginning of the 12th century. So you begin to have lots of monasteries becoming more and more interested in these texts, borrowing, buying or copying them. So think about what this means, you have a growing demand for classical books, (such as the justinian code - this text amongst many other texts became highly important) so these texts were not unknown, they were indeed highly read in monasteries. In particular we know that under charglemagne the Frankish monks understood the importance of classical learning. And it's important to note this as it suggests the continuity of classical learning. Perhaps the increase in the learning of classical works was just an expansion and continuation of a culture of learning.
In any case what we still have to appreciate is that after the investiture controversy there was a demand for these texts, showing the demand for knowledge. Particularly books regarding legal proceedings, the statutes of new orders, of canon law, were in high demand. So through the possession of these books (or a specialisation of books) monasteries became research centers. Scholars flocked to these places of knowledge and thus students came as well and they became schools.
The abby of saint denis was particularly prevalent in the 12 century (run by abbot Suger). The problem with monasteries and their teachers is that they are usually located in rural areas (obvious exceptions to that) so there was a problem of accessibility and convenience. And so cathedrals started taking students in and these cathedrals themselves became schools. And they started to attract lay men who wanted to learn latin, medicine, civil and ecclesiastical law. These laws were especially important in defending their land from the dukes.
What allowed these schools to flourish? How did these school gain and maintain reputations?
First of all; you have a network of monasteries and cathedrals across Western Europe, many more then ever before, this means that word of mouth travels quickly and travels well.
Second of all, the fame of a monastery travels well and thus attracts more students, with more knowledge. Books become a valuable commodity. The flipside of this greater availability of books and the market of books meant that teaching that might be considered heretical could spread quickly as well.
The fourth reason links back to the new found life and particularity of the Church after the Gregorian reforms. Why would anybody want to study Canon law?
The education of clergy was the purpose behind ecclesiastical and monastic school in the first place. For Charlemagne, theology was the queen of the sciences.
You can imagine that monasteries and cathedrals would soon find it hard to cope with the growing student demands. Student numbers grew rapidly during the 12th century. In effect than students and scholars outgrew the schools moved as a whole, and gained a new social class, universitas. The word suggests something universal, a collegiate of parts making one.
Tridium and quadrivium - classical model of the liberal arts. These were the intellectual skills which liberate man from barbaric existence. Varro - wrote a lengthy dissertation on the benefits of a liberal arts study.
Dialectic - arriving at a truth through logical arguments which may even seem contradictory at time.
Philosophy was seen as the ultimate outcome of the trivium and quadrivium and after that one would seek to further study in either medicine, law or theology. Theology was seen as the most prestigious pursuit.
Capella's story of phiology and mercury to explain liberal arts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
