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.