[lbo-talk] Re: Ambigious Doug

[C. G. Estabrook]

The Scholasticism of Aquinas' time (13th century) was of course based on
Aristotle.  It was far more rational than the philosophy of the following
period (15-16th century), which (for strange historical reasons) we call
the "Renaissance."  The university culture of Aquinas' time had a very
high opinion (higher than our own) of the ability of human reason to reach
truth.  The subsequent period abandoned this confidence and cast about for
bases other than reason.  That's why the Renaissance saw the rebirth of
magic in the West and was the great age of witch-burning, which didn't
occur in medieval Europe.  The intellectual dislocation of the period is
hardly surprising, given that it saw the collapse of the medieval mode of
production. (Cf. the collapse of the ancient mode, a millennium earlier.)

BTW, the translation given of the technical argument of Summa theologiae
1.2.3 is from an old and literal Englishing.  Much better ones are
available (e.g., the Blackfriars translation from the 1960s, with Latin
and English on facing pages).  I'd be happy to send a different
translation of this section to anyone who wants it.  --CGE

On Fri, 27 Jun 2003, Chuck Grimes wrote:


> ...I accidently re-capitulated the historical pivot between medieval
> scholasticism and rational philosophy that followed the re-discovery
> of Aristotle...