Scholasticism is a direction of philosophical thought. The emergence of scholasticism and its main directions: nominalism and realism Scholastic thought

SCHOLASTICISM

SCHOLASTICISM

(Latin scholastica, from Greek scholastikos - school,) - religious philosophy, characterized by fundamental subordination to the primacy of theology, the combination of dogmatic premises with rationalistic methods and a special interest in formal logical problems; received the most complete and dominance in the West. Europe in the Middle Ages.
The origins of S. go back to late antique. philosophy, primarily to Proclus (reading answers to all questions from Plato's texts, encyclopedic summation of various problems, connecting mystical premises with rational conclusions). Christian comes to S. as the completion of work on the dogmatic foundations of church doctrine (John of Damascus). Early S. (11th-12th centuries) took shape under the conditions of the rise of feudal civilization and papal power; she was influenced by Augustinian Platonism (Anselm of Canterbury). Opposite positions are first revealed in the dispute about universals - (Guillaume of Champeau) and (Roscellin), as well as an intermediate one - (P. Abelard). During this period, S. often acts as an opposition movement; not only the doctrines of individual "heretics", but scholastic rationalism as such provokes attacks from the champions of the purity of the faith (Peter Damiani, Lanfranc, Bernard of Clairvaux, and others). Mature S. (12-13 centuries) developed in medieval fur boots; its pan-European center was the University of Paris. Platonism (which survived a bold naturalistic interpretation in the philosophy of the Chartres school and in many ways anticipated the Renaissance trend) is gradually being replaced by Aristotelianism, in the interpretation of which there is a demarcation between the “heretical” Averroism, which denied the personal soul and taught about a single impersonal intellectual soul in all beings (Siger of Brabant), and the orthodox direction of S., who subordinated the ontology of Aristotle to Christian ideas about a personal God, a personal soul, and a created cosmos (Albert the Great and especially Thomas Aquinas). Late S. (13th-14th centuries) was influenced by the aggravated ideological contradictions of the era of developed feudalism. John Duns Scotus opposed the intellectualism of the system of Thomas Aquinas with his own rejection of a complete system and a sharp focus on individual being. Oppositional representatives of this period (Occam, partly Nicolas Oresme) insist more and more energetically on the theory of dual truth, which destroyed the scholastic "harmony" of faith and reason. The revival pushed S. to the periphery of mental life.
Partial revival of the traditions of S. occurred in the so-called. the second S. (16-17 centuries), which developed during the period of the Counter-Reformation, ch. arr. in Spain (F. de Vitoria, F. Suarez, G. Vasquez, M. Molina). Enlightenment dealt the second S. a decisive blow. IN . 19-20 century S. are reborn in neo-Thomism.
S. arose in conditions when it appeared at the same time as a universal not strictly religious content. Submission to the authority of dogma (Peter Damiani's formula, "I am the servant of theology") is inherent in orthodox S. along with all other types of orthodox-church worldview; What is specific to S. is that the nature of the relationship between reason and dogma was conceived, with undoubted authoritarianism, as rather rational. Both Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition, as well as the legacy of antiquity. philosophy, actively used by S. acted in it as a closed normative text. It was assumed that everything has two levels - supernatural knowledge, given in "revelation", and natural, sought by the human mind; the norm of the first is contained in the texts of the Bible, accompanied by authoritative commentaries of the Church Fathers, the norm of the second is contained in the texts of Plato and especially Aristotle, surrounded by authoritative commentaries of late antique and Arabic. philosophers. Potentially, in those and other texts, "eternal" is already given; in order to actualize it, it is necessary to deduce from the texts the completeness of their logical consequences with the help of a chain of correctly constructed inferences (cf. the genre of the sum, which is characteristic of mature S., is the final encyclopedic work). S.'s thinking constantly follows the path of deduction and hardly knows induction; its main form is . In a certain sense, all S. is philosophizing in the forms of text interpretation. In this it is opposed to modern European science with its desire to discover the truth through experience, as well as mysticism with its desire to "see" the truth in ecstatic contemplation. Ordinary S., in which the “mysteries of faith” were turned into common models of logical problems, already in the Middle Ages caused protests not only by representatives of freethinking, but also by zealots of faith (“... it is absurd to argue about the Trinity at the crossroads and turn the eternal birth of God the Son. .. in the field of public competition,” exclaimed Peter of Blois at the end of the 12th century). The realization that authorities contradict each other (aphorisms like “Authority has a wax nose” (which can be turned anywhere), “Argument from authority is the weakest” were common among the most orthodox scholastics) was one of the important impulses for the formation of C The juxtaposition of mutually exclusive texts was introduced by the persecuted Abelard (in the op. "Yes and No"), but soon became a generally accepted form: the contradictions of theological and philosophical. Traditions are subject to systematization, and must be established by authorities. The specifics of scholastic rationalism cannot be understood outside of its connection with the tradition of legal thinking (Roman was in Zap. Europe is one of the most resilient parts of antiquity. heritage). S. has a legal coloration of ontological categories and ontologization of legal categories; world and man, correlated with the existence of God, is described as a set of legal relations or their analogues; the methods themselves for deriving the particular from the general, conclusions by analogy, etc. reminiscent of the development of legal cases.
Orientation to rigidly fixed rules of thinking helped S. retain intellectual skills, the necessary conceptual and terminological apparatus through the restoration of antiquity. heritage in an extremely formalized form (even modern thinkers who sharply criticized S. up to the Enlightenment and German classical idealism inclusive were forced to widely use scholastic vocabulary). Approving the dogmatic sum of ideas, S. did not contribute to the development of the natural sciences, but it turned out to be favorable for such, for example, areas of knowledge as; the achievements of the scholastics in this area anticipate the modern formulation of many questions, in particular, mathematical logic. The humanists of the Renaissance, and especially the philosophers of the Enlightenment, in the fight against medieval traditions, opposed S., emphasizing everything dead in it and turning the “S.” itself. into the abusive nickname of fruitless and meaningless speculation, an empty verbal game.

Philosophy: Encyclopedic Dictionary. - M.: Gardariki. Edited by A.A. Ivina. 2004 .

SCHOLASTICISM

(lat. scholastiea, from Greek- schoolboy, scientist, type religious philosophy, characterized by fundamental subordination to the primacy of theology, the combination of dogmatic. prerequisites with rationalistic. methodology and a special interest in the formal-logical. issues; received the most complete development and dominance in the West. Europe in cf. century.

The origins of S. go back to late antique. philosophy, especially Proclus (setting to read answers to all questions from the texts of Plato, the encyclopedia, summing up various problems, connecting mystical premises with rational conclusions). Christ. patristics approaches S. as work on the dogmatic is completed. basics church doctrine (John of Damascus). early S. (11-12 centuries) formed in the conditions of the rise feud. civilization and papal authority; she stands under the influence of Augustinian Platonism (Anselm of Canterbury). Opposite positions are revealed for the first time in the dispute about universals - realism (Guillaume of Champeau) and nominalism (Roscellin), as well as an intermediate position - conceptualism (Abelard). During this period, S. often acts as an opposition. flow; not only doctrine otd."heretics", but the principle of scholastic. rationalism as such is attacked by the champions of the purity of faith (Peter Damiani, Lanfranc, Bernard of Clairvaux and others) . Mature S. (12-13 centuries) developed in Wed-century. universities; its common European the center was the University of Paris. Platonism (surviving a bold naturalistic interpretation in the philosophy of the Chartres school, which in many ways anticipated the trends of the Renaissance) gradually replaced by Aristotelianism, in the interpretation of which there is a demarcation between the "heretic." Averroism, which denied the reality of a personal soul and taught about a single impersonal intellectual soul in all beings (Sieger of Brabant), and the orthodox direction of S., which subordinated the ontology of Aristotle Christ. notions of a personal god, a personal soul, and a created cosmos (Albert the Great and especially Thomas Aquinas). Late S. (13-14 centuries) experienced the impact of the aggravated ideological contradictions of the era of developed feudalism. John Duns Scotus opposed the intellectualism of the system of Thomas Aquinas with his voluntarism, the rejection of a complete system and a sharp focus on individual being. opposition representatives of this period (Occam, partly by Nicola Orem) more and more energetically insist on the theory of dual truth, which destroyed the scholastic. "harmony" of faith and reason. The revival pushed S. to the periphery of the mind. life. Partial revival of the traditions of S. occurred in so-called. second S. (16-17 centuries) developed during the Counter-Reformation, ch. arr. in Spain (F. de Vitoria, F. Suarez, G. Vasquez, M-Molina). Enlightenment dealt the second S. a decisive blow. IN con. 19-20 centuries S. traditions are being revived in neo-Thomism (cm. also Neoscholasticism).

S. arose in conditions when it acted as “... the most general synthesis and the most general sanction of the existing feudal system” (Engels F., cm. Marx K. and Engels F., Works, T. 7, from. 361) and religion appeared at the same time as a uni-vers. form is not proper religious content. Subjection of thought to the authority of dogma (Peter Damiani's formula "philosophy is the servant of theology") inherent in orthodox S. on a par with all others types of orthodox-church. worldview; What is specific to S. is that the very nature of the relationship between reason and dogma was conceived, with undoubted authoritarianism, as rather rational. As Holy Scripture and tradition, so is the heritage antique philosophy, actively used by S., acted in it as a closed normative text. It was assumed that any knowledge has two levels - supernatural. knowledge given in "revelation", and natural, sought by man. mind; the norm of the first is contained in the texts of the Bible, accompanied by authoritative commentaries of the church fathers, the norm of the second - the texts of Plato and especially Aristotle, surrounded by authoritative comm. late antique And Arab. philosophers. Potentially in those others the texts are already given "eternal truth"; in order to update it, it is necessary to deduce from the texts the completeness of their logic. consequences with the help of a chain of correctly constructed inferences (cf. the sum genre characteristic of mature S. - the final encyclopedic. op.) . S.'s thinking constantly follows the path of deduction and knows almost no induction; his main form is a syllogism. In a certain sense, all S. is philosophizing in the forms of text interpretation. In this it is the opposite of the new European. science with its desire to discover the truth through the analysis of experience, as well as mysticism with its desire to "see" the truth in akstatic. contemplation. S.'s everyday life, in which the "sacraments of faith" turned into running patterns of logic. Tasks, called already in CR. century, protests not only of representatives of freethinking, but also of zealots of the faith (“it’s absurd to argue about the Trinity at the crossroads and turn the eternal birth of God the Son ... into a field of public competition,” exclaimed in con. 12 in. Peter of Blois). Awareness that authorities contradict each other [aphorisms like "Authority has a wax nose" (which can be rotated anywhere), “from authority - the weakest” were common among the most orthodox scholastics], was one of the important impulses for the formation of S. Comparison of mutually exclusive texts was introduced by the persecuted Abelard (in op."Yes and no"), but soon became a generally accepted form: the contradictions of the theological. And philosophy Traditions are subject to systematization and a hierarchy of authorities must be established. Scholastic specifics. rationalism cannot be understood apart from its connection with tradition legal thinking (Rome. the right was in Zap. Europe is one of the most resilient parts antique heritage). In S. takes place legal ontological coloring. categories and ontologization legal categories; the existence of the world and man, correlated with the existence of God, is described as a set of legal relations or their analogues; the very methods of deriving the particular from the general, conclusions by analogy and T. n. resemble development legal incidents.

Orientation to rigidly fixed rules of thinking helped S. to maintain the continuity of intellectual skills, the necessary conceptual and terminological. apparatus through restoration antique heritage in an extremely formalized form (even the thinkers of modern times who sharply criticized S. right up to the Enlightenment and German classical idealism inclusive were forced to make extensive use of scholasticism. vocabulary). Affirming the dogmatic the sum of representations, S. did not contribute to the development of nature. sciences, but it turned out to be favorable for such e.g., areas of knowledge like logic; the achievements of the scholastics in this area anticipate modern staging pl. questions, especially mathematics. logic (cm. Logics). The humanists of the Renaissance and especially the philosophers of the Enlightenment in the fight against Wed-century. traditions opposed S., emphasizing everything dead in it and turning the very word "S." in the swearing nickname of the barren and barren. speculation, an empty word game.

Philosophical Encyclopedic Dictionary. 2010 .

SCHOLASTICISM

(lat. scholastica, from Greek σχολαστικόs - scientist, school, σχολή - scientific conversation, school) - religious-philosophical. Western European teachings. Middle Ages and New Time, to-rye c. mystics saw the way to comprehend God in logic and reasoning, and not in supramental contemplation and feeling.

Lit.: Vladislavlev M.I., Scholastic logic, "Journal of the Ministry of People's Education", 1872, part 162, , dep. 2; Aiken G., History and system of the Middle Ages. worldview, trans. from German, St. Petersburg, 1907; Shtekl A., History of the Middle Ages. philosophy, trans. [from German], M., 1912; History of Philosophy, vol. 1, M., 1957, p. 282–89; 292–96; Trakhtenberg O. V., Essays on the history of Western Europe. Wed-century. philosophy, M., 1957; Lei G., Essay on the history of the Middle Ages. materialism, trans. from German., M., 1962; Grigoryan S. N., Middle-century philosophy of the peoples of the Near and Middle East, M., 1966; Styazhkin N. I., Formation of mathematical. logic. M., 1967; Makovelsky A. O., History of Logic. M., 1967; Haureau B., Histoire de la philosophie scolastique, t. 1–2. P., 1872-80; Dempf A., Die Hauptform mittelalterlicher Weltanschauung, Münch.–B., 1925; Wulf M. de, Histoire de la philosophie médiévale, 6 ed., t. 1–3, Louvain, 1934–47; Gilson E., L "esprit de la philosophie médiévale, 2 éd., P., 1944; his own, History of Christian philosophy in the Middle Ages, NY, ; his own, Introduction à la philosophie chrétienne, P., 1960; Taylor HO, The mediaeval mind, 4 ed., v. 1-2, Camb., 1949; Copleston F., A history of philosophy, v. 2-3, L., 1951-53; Boehner P., Medieval logic , ; Prantl C, Geschichte der Logik im Abendlande, Bd 1–4, Graz, 1955; Geyer B., Die patristische und scholastische Philosophie, Stuttg., 1956; Bochenski IM, Formale Logik, Freiburg–Münch., ; Grabmann M. , Die Geschichte der scholastischen Methode, Bd 1–2, V., 1957. See also literature under Neoscholasticism and Thomas Aquinas.

V. Sokolov. Moscow.

Philosophical Encyclopedia. In 5 volumes - M .: Soviet Encyclopedia. Edited by F. V. Konstantinov. 1960-1970 .

SCHOLASTICISM

SCHOLASTICS (lat. scholastica from Greek σχολαστικός - school) - a type of religious philosophy, characterized by fundamental subordination to the primacy of theological dogma, the combination of dogmatic premises with rationalistic methodology and a special interest in logical problems; received the most complete development in Western Europe in the era of the mature and late Middle Ages.

THE GENESIS OF SCHOLASTICS AND THE PERIODIZATION OF ITS DEVELOPMENT. The origins of scholasticism go back to late antique philosophy, primarily to the Neoplatonist of the 5th century. Proclus (setting to read answers to all questions from authoritative texts, such as Plato’s writings for Proclus, as well as sacred texts of ancient paganism; encyclopedic summation of the most diverse problems; connection of the facts of a mystically interpreted myth with their rational development). Christian patristics approaches scholasticism as it completes work on the dogmatic foundations of church doctrine (Leontius of Byzantium, John of Damascus). Of particular importance was the work of Boethius on the transfer of the Greek culture of logical reflection to the Latin tradition; his remark, made in the course of commenting on a logical work (In Porph. Isagog., MPL 64, col. 82-86) and noting as an open question whether general concepts (universals) are only an intralinguistic reality, or whether they have an ontological , gave rise to a discussion on this issue that lasted for centuries and constitutive for scholasticism. Those who saw reality in universals (rcalia) were called realists; those who saw in them a simple designation (nomen, lit. "name") for the abstraction created by human consciousness were called nominalists. Between chaspll realism and pure nominadism, as two polar possibilities, there remained a mentality for moderate or complicated options.

Early scholasticism (9th-12th centuries) has monasteries and monastic schools as its sociocultural ground. It is born in dramatic disputes about the place of the so-called. (i.e., methodical reasoning) in the search for spiritual truth. The extreme positions of rationalism (Berengar of Tersky) and fideism (Peter Damiani) could not be constructive for scholasticism; the middle path was proposed by the formula of Anselm of Canterbury, ascending to Augustine, “credo, ut inte Uigam” (“I believe in order to understand” - meaning that it is primary as a source of starting points that are then subject to mental development). The thought initiatives of the daring innovator Abelard and other theologians of the 12th century. (Chartres school, Saint-Vshapor school) contributed to the development of the scholastic method and prepared the transition to the next one.

High scholasticism (13th - early 14th century) develops in the context of a system of universities founded throughout Europe; serves as background Active participation in the mental life of the so-called. mendicant orders - rival Dominicans and Franciscans. The most important intellectual stimulus is the spreading familiarity with the texts of Aristotle, as well as those of his Arabic and European commentators. However, the attempt to introduce into the circulation of schools those Aristotelian and Averroist theses that were incompatible with the foundations of the Christian faith is condemned (Siger of Brabant). The dominant trend, expressed primarily in the work of Thomas Akvshinsky, strives for a consistent synthesis of faith and knowledge, for a system of hierarchical levels, within which doctrinal dogmas and religious-philosophical speculations would be supplemented by social-theoretical and natural-scientific reflection oriented towards Aristotle; finds ground within the framework of the Dominican order, at first met with protest from conservatives (the condemnation of a number of theses by the Bishop of Paris in 1277, followed by similar acts in Oxford), but then more and more often and already for centuries it was perceived as a variant of scholasticism. However, the authoritarian one, given by the parallel coexistence in Catholicism of the mature Middle Ages of various orders, creates the opportunity for the development, first of all, within the Franciscan order of an alternative type of scholasticism, represented by the mystical metaphysics of Bonaventure oriented towards Augustinian Platonism, shifting the emphasis from intellect to will and from the abstract to (haecceitas, “here -this is "vost") in John Dut Scotus, etc.

Late scholasticism (14th-15th centuries) - abundant with crisis phenomena, but by no means barren. On the one hand, the Dominicans and Franciscans transform the creative initiatives of Thomas Aquinas and Duns Scotus, respectively, into conservable systems of Thomism and Scotism; on the other hand, voices are heard calling for a transition from metaphysical speculation to an empirical study of nature, and from attempts to harmonize faith and reason - to a consciously sharp separation of the tasks of both. A special role is played by British thinkers who are in opposition to the speculative system-creativity of continental high scholasticism: . Bacon calls for the development of specific knowledge, W. Okcom offers an extremely radical development of Scotist tendencies towards extreme nominalism and theoretically substantiates the claims of the empire against the papacy. It is worth noting the proto-capitalist revision of the scholastic concept of “fair price” by the German occamist Tabriel Biel (circa 1420-95). Certain aspects of the intellectual heritage of this period, the revision and criticism of the old foundations of scholasticism, were subsequently assimilated by the Reformation.

σχολή ) or, closer, from the derivative "Scholasticus" - school, educational. This name usually refers to the philosophy taught in the schools of the Middle Ages. The word "Scholasticus", used as a noun, was applied at first to teachers of one or more sciences taught in the monastic schools founded by Charlemagne, as well as to teachers of theology; subsequently it was transferred to all those who were engaged in the sciences, especially philosophy.

For the first time, the expression σχολαστικός ” is found, as far as is known, in Theophrastus in his letter to his student Phania (Diog. L. V, 2, 37). The word "scholasticism" (and also "scholastic") did not initially have such a reproachful meaning with which it began to be used in modern times, when scholastic or medieval philosophy began to be attacked by representatives of a new mental movement. So, for example, many Romans called Cicero a scholastic after he began to study Greek philosophy, but they wanted to designate this name only as a theoretician who forgets the importance of practice and practical education. Now the word "Scholasticism" is applied not only to medieval philosophy, but to everything that is in modern education and in scientific reasoning, at least in part, it resembles scholasticism in content and form - and is usually used as a negative epithet.

general characteristics

In its general character, scholasticism represents religious philosophy not in the sense of free speculation in the field of questions of a religious and moral nature, as we see in the systems of the last period of Greek philosophy, but in the sense of applying philosophical concepts and methods of thinking to Christian church doctrine, the first experience of which represents the patristic philosophy that preceded scholasticism. Having in mind, by such an application, to make the content of faith accessible to reason, scholasticism and patristics differed from each other in that for the latter this content was Holy Scripture and for the dogmatic formulation of its own revealed teaching, it used philosophy - while for scholasticism the content of faith consisted in established the fathers of dogmas and philosophy applied mainly to the clarification, substantiation and systematization of the latter. However, there is no absolute opposition between scholasticism and patristics, because even in patristic times, along with the gradual formulation of dogmas, they were substantiated and brought into a system, and on the other hand, it cannot be said that even during the period of scholasticism the system of dogmas was a on all points a complete whole: in the field of theological-philosophical speculation, the dogmatic doctrine has undergone some further development.

The relationship between scholasticism and patristic philosophy can be more precisely defined as follows: the former realizes and develops that which has not yet reached realization and development in the latter, although it was in it as an embryo.

The philosophizing of the Scholastics was built on the basis of the established teachings of the Church and those teachings of ancient philosophy that survived until the Middle Ages. In this dual theological-philosophical tradition, the highest place, of course, belonged to church teaching. However, philosophical tradition also enjoyed considerable respect: it was natural to expect from new peoples who were just beginning scientific enlightenment that they would accept the science they had inherited from antiquity with childlike trust and reverence. The task was to harmonize both legends and combine them into something whole. In carrying out this task, they proceeded from the principle that reason and revelation come from one source of light - from God, and that therefore there can be no contradiction between theology and true philosophy, and in the agreement of their teachings - proof of the truth of both.

During the heyday of the scholastic systems, philosophy and theology actually passed one into the other. However, the difference in their nature had to show itself - and by the end of the Middle Ages, theology and philosophy are already sharply separated from each other.

Medieval thought clearly understood the difference between these areas. Philosophy was based on natural-reasonable principles and evidence, or, as they said then, on "natural light", while theology was based on divine revelation, which was supernatural. Truth is inherent in philosophical teachings, in comparison with revelation, to an insignificant extent; showing to what limits of knowledge a person can reach with his natural powers, philosophy at the same time gives proof that it cannot satisfy the desire of our mind for the contemplation of God and eternal bliss, and that the help of supernatural revelation is needed here.

The scholastics honored the ancient philosophers as people who had reached the pinnacle of natural knowledge, but this does not mean that the philosophers have exhausted all the truth possible for man: the advantage of theology over philosophy lies both in the fact that it has the highest principle of knowledge, and in the fact that it possesses higher truths, which the mind cannot reach by itself. These revealed truths among the scholastics actually constituted the essential content of their systems, while philosophy served only as an auxiliary means for the tasks of theology. That is why they said that philosophy is the servant of theology (lat. ancilla theologiae). She was such a servant in two respects: firstly, she gave theology a scientific form; secondly, from it theology extracted those truths of reason on the basis of which it could rise to the speculative understanding of Christian mysteries, as far as it is generally accessible to the human spirit. At the beginning of the scholastic period, philosophical thought was not yet in slavish subordination to church teaching. So, although Eriugena claims that all our research should begin with faith in revealed truth, in the interpretation of which we must completely submit ourselves to the guidance of the fathers, he does not agree to understand true religion simply in the form of a teaching sanctioned by authority and in the event of a conflict between authority and by reason prefers the latter; opponents reproached him for disrespect for church authority. And after Eriugena, the agreement of reason with the teachings of the church was achieved only gradually. Since the middle of the 13th century, this agreement has been firmly substantiated, with the limitation, however, that specifically Christian dogmas (trinity, incarnation, etc.) are excluded from the field of provable reason. Gradually (mainly by the time of the resumption of nominalism in the 14th century), the circle of theological propositions provable by reason narrows more and more, until finally the place of the scholastic assumption of the conformity of church teaching with reason is replaced by the complete separation of school philosophy (Aristotelian) from the Christian faith.

The view of philosophy as the servant of theology, although not strictly carried out by all scholastics, nevertheless expressed, one might say, the dominant trend of the times. The tone and direction of all spiritual life in the Middle Ages was given by the church. It is natural that philosophy at this time also takes a theological direction and its fate is associated with the fate of the hierarchy: with the rise of the latter, it reaches its highest flowering, with its fall, it falls. From this historians deduce some other features of scholastic philosophy.

Institutions of a practical character must be a strictly organized system: this is one of the conditions for their prosperity. Therefore, the Catholic hierarchy, during its gradual rise, was concerned about assembling into a system of canonical rules, which should underlie its structure. Such a systematic striving is also reflected in the philosophy of the Middle Ages, which also strives for a system and, in place of the experiments of fragmentary, more or less random patristic philosophizing, gives a number of more or less integral systems. This is especially evident in the flourishing time of scholasticism, when the theological and philosophical systems of Albert the Great, Thomas Aquinas and Duns Scotus appear.

The attention of the scholastics, therefore, should already have been directed in this direction, because from the past they were provided with material that required neither critical discussion nor apologetic-polemical work, but only systematization: these were generally established provisions of the church faith, which had to be subjected to formal processing. using available philosophical methods. This also explains another feature of scholastic philosophy: its attraction to form, to the formal processing of concepts, to the construction of formal conclusions. Scholasticism is often reproached for excessive, empty formalism. These accusations are not without foundation; but it must be borne in mind that such a formalism was inevitable. In other times, thought faced the richness and variety of experimental content; on the contrary, the material on which scholastic philosophy operated was limited, and the fresh mental strength of the new peoples had to find its outlet in intensified formal work.

The general task was to assimilate the monuments of philosophical thought received from the ancient world and apply them to the needs of the time. The philosophical teachings of antiquity gradually became the property of the Middle Ages; at first, only meager passages were known of them. At first, therefore, the task was to fill in the gaps in philosophical tradition, and then it was necessary to agree on the philosophical authorities of antiquity, which did not always agree with each other. It was necessary, moreover, to apply philosophy to theology, to determine and substantiate the relation of reason to faith, to find a reasonable explanation for the truths of faith, and in the end to create a philosophical and theological system. All this prompted medieval thought mainly to formal work, although, of course, it also led it to new material conclusions, why in the philosophizing of the scholastics it is unfair to see only one repetition in different ways of what Augustine and Aristotle said.

The spiritual and secular estates during the Middle Ages differed from each other in life, and in views, and in interests, and even in language: the spiritual used the Latin language, the laity spoke the language of the people. Of course, the Church has always been animated by the desire to introduce its principles and views to the masses of the people; but until this desire was realized - and it is completely impossible to realize it - the discord between the secular and the spiritual continued to exist. Everything worldly seemed to the spiritual, if not hostile, then lower, alien. Therefore, the content of scholastic philosophy almost did not include problems of a natural philosophical nature; for her, a general, metaphysical consideration of questions about the world seemed sufficient; her attention was directed to the Divine and the mysteries of salvation, as well as to the moral being of man; her ethics, which proceeded from the opposition of earthly and heavenly life, the heavenly and earthly worlds, also harmonized with the general detachment from the worldly and the earthly and the attraction to the heavenly.

The same discord between the secular and the spiritual is also found in the language. If science, almost exclusively taught in Latin, was the property of the clergy, then poetry - precisely in that which was most vital in it - belonged to the laity. Just as the influence of scientific thinking does not reflect on the poetic art of the Middle Ages, which is why it is too fantastical, so the scientific exposition during this time is devoid of any sensually visual imagery: it has no taste, no fantasy, no artistry of form; artificiality and dryness prevail, along with the corruption of classical Latin.

Scholastic view of science

In an effort to make theology a science, the scholastics raised the question not only of how science could be, but also of why it should be? In cognition it is necessary to distinguish between its content and activity. Among the scholastics, this distinction stood firm because they found an analogy to it in faith, where the objective side differs (Lat. fides quae creditur) and subjective (lat. fides qua creditur). The content of the Christian faith is unchanging, while the act of believing and the ways of perceiving its content change according to the diversity of believers. Scripture calls the content of faith the substance ( ὑπόστασις , Heb. XI, 1), and this definition proved fruitful for the scholastic doctrine of science.

“Substance,” says Thomas, “means the first principle of every thing, especially in the case where the latter is potentially contained in the first principle and from it completely proceeds; we say, for example, that the first unprovable principles form the substance of science, because they are in we are the very first element of this science, and they potentially contain all science.In this sense, faith also means the substance of "things that are trusted."

The similarity between science and faith lies, therefore, in the organic structure of both, in the growth of both of them from the germs of thought. The known and the knowing spirit are mutually subordinate to each other. In the latter lie the germs that develop in contact with the content of knowledge. Science receives its realization if the spirit is likened to the content of knowledge, or, what is the same, if the seal of the spirit is imprinted on the latter ( scientia est assimilatio scientis ad rem scitam, scientia est sigillatio scibilis in intellectu scientis). The Scholastics see the last foundation of such agreement between thinking and the conceivable in the ideas that are in the mind of God: ideas in God are the last foundation of everything cognizable; universalia ante rem - the assumption of universalia in re; the highest view of the fundamental sciences is given in the sunshine of divine truth.

Therefore, the subject matter of science is not things as separate, sensuous, changeable things, but the general and necessary in things. Knowledge of the individual, as given by sense perception, has its significance not in itself, but only for the sake of practical needs. Another conclusion from this concept of science is that although science is directed towards the general, its object is not general concepts in themselves, but things that are thought through them: only logic is an exception here. Such definitions provide science with its real content. However, this can only be said about the direction of medieval thought, which is called realism: scholastic realism understands the general as really existing in things, while another, opposite to it, direction - nominalism - puts only concepts, words and names as the content of knowledge.

The third consequence is that there are many sciences, since there are many things that can be their subject. Scholastics attached moral significance not only to knowledge of the individual as a condition of private actions, but also to science as a whole, and thus thought to give an answer to the question why science should exist. Here the guiding thread was given first of all by the idea of ​​wisdom: he who knows must become wise; the habitus scientiae which he has acquired must rise into the habitus sapientiae; ratio inferior, which is formed by science, must go into ratio superior. He who knows via inquisitionis goes from below upwards; it embraces the various genera scibilum and touches only on the much and the conventional. The sage, possessing the highest principles, via judicii goes from top to bottom, embracing everything with a whole look from the point of view of the unconditional. The specific object of science is human things, the object of wisdom is divine things.

Science is content to set its subject firmly; wisdom goes further - to judging and distributing everything else according to its subject. Insofar as the intellect seeks the understanding of things attained in the habitus sapientiae for the sake of this understanding in itself, it is intellectus speculativus; inasmuch as it gives knowledge a further purpose in relation to certain acts performed by the will, it is called the intellectus practicus. The aim of the first is truth; the purpose of the latter is good. The first has a norm - the law of contradiction: nothing can be both true and false; the norm of the second is to follow the good and avoid evil.

As there is a double light of knowledge, natural and supernatural, so there is a double habitus of the intellect - science and wisdom. The first state is virtue and is achieved by self-activity, the second is a God-given state of grace. Three virtues - reason, science and wisdom - correspond to the same number of gifts of grace. Wisdom as a virtue leads to a right understanding of divine things, as far as this is achieved by research; wisdom as a gift of the Holy Spirit gives us the highest understanding of the same things that then not only become objects of understanding for the sage, but so capture him by virtue of inner affinity that divina discere - to study the divine - rises to divina pati - to experience the divine. The knowledge that science has would be incomplete without an elevation to divine things, but it would also not be complete without contact with active life. Knowledge must be ordering and governing in life, in order to finally return again to its own element - to contemplation.

This ideal of wisdom, remarks Willman (Geschichte des Idealismus, vol. II, 407), did not stand in the scholastics at an unattainable height above scientific activity; rather, the latter had in itself something of wisdom. Respect for church tradition, which dominates the teaching of piety, the connection of the school with the church, which ruled and ordered as much as it indulged in contemplation, has always been an ideal for the teacher and researcher and prompted him to always conduct business as wisdom requires, that is, to keep in mind whole and supreme and to maintain the connection of truth with good. Both knowledge and its content are ethical in nature.

Known is true, true is good. The sciences are arts in the broadest sense, and all art is directed to the good; the content of science is bonum intellectus. The sciences are good; possession of them obliges to share them. Virtue is to give bread to the hungry, and to teach the ignorant with the word of wisdom. Teaching and learning is a moral activity. You can learn on the basis of already existing knowledge; hence the requirement from the teacher - to go from easy to more difficult. The art of learning must adhere to nature, like all art; the sciences must be studied according to the method by which they are invented, that is, according to the method of nature. The attitude towards wisdom gives science among the scholastics a unity, which at the same time is dissected in itself. The system of sciences has a hierarchical structure; the higher determines and illuminates the lower, the members are together and steps. This system was most clearly presented by Bonaventure in his short but thoughtful work "De reductione artium ad theologiam". It comes from the words of St. James: “every gift is good and every gift is perfect from above come from the Father of Lights” (James I, 17) - and develops the idea of ​​a multitude of lights, sources of light or ways of enlightenment.

Already in the sensible world there are two such sources of light that illuminate our life: one produces its beneficial effect if we act on things, exercise our artistic abilities on them - from which come the mechanical arts, to which Bonaventura, adjoining Hugh S. - Victor, refers to the art of weaving, blacksmithing, agriculture, hunting, navigation, eloquence (including poetry). The second source of light of the sensible world is formed by things insofar as they act on us, produce sensible knowledge and show us the forms realized in nature.

These sources of light are the outer light and the lower light; what they deliver has only a preparatory value; a purer light comes to us from within, an inner light in which we see through reason the truth of things; it is the light of science in the narrow sense, the light of philosophical knowledge. But above the light of reason is the truth of salvation; above the inner light stands the upper light, the light of grace and Holy Scripture, enlightening by the contemplation of salvific truth. In it, we learn the meaning and purpose of enlightenment flowing from other sources of light. Scripture provides us with a triple kind of enlightenment: first of all, faith - faith in the eternal birth of the Word and its incarnation in time; then - behavior or way of life; finally, the goal of both is eternal bliss, growing out of faith and works. Faith is the realm of the teachers, Augustine and Anselm; behavior and morals are the work of preachers, Gregory the Great and Bernard; the last target with its mysteries is the work of the contemplatives, Dionysius and Richard S. Victor.

Scripture speaks to us in three ways: through its speech (sermo), through its teaching (doctrina), and through its commandments that govern our lives (vita). "The manifold wisdom of God, as it is clearly communicated to us in Scripture, lies secretly at the basis of all knowledge and nature." The trinity of speech, teaching and commandment gives the division of science or philosophy; the truth of the mind is threefold - the truth of speeches, the truth of things and the truth of morals. Three branches of philosophy are directed to these three areas of truth: philosophia rationalis, philosophia naturalis and philosophia moralis: the first explores the cause of knowledge (causa intelligendi), the second - the reason for existence (causa subsistendi), the third - the order of life (ordo vitae). Rational philosophy is directed to the truth of speeches. But every speech serves a threefold purpose: to express a thought, to promote its assimilation by others and to incline the latter to something: it means exprimere, docere, movere, and therefore it must be appropriate, true and effective - which determines the task of the three departments of rational philosophy : grammar, logic and rhetoric. If we characterize these three sciences with the words: word (verbum), order (ordo) and form (species), then they will reveal a trace of the threefold enlightenment of Scripture, since in the spoken word there is spiritual birth and incarnation, in the severity of the formation of thoughts something corresponding to moral education is given. and the beautiful form of true thought brings spiritual bliss.

Natural philosophy (naturalis) seeks the truth of things and finds it in the mental forms of things (rationes formales); it finds them in matter, as reason in the seed (rationes seminales) or as natural forces (virtutes naturales), in the spirit as rational foundations (rationes intellectuales), in God as ideal foundations (rationes ideales). Accordingly, it is divided into physics, which considers things in their origin and destruction, mathematics, which investigates abstract forms, and metaphysics, which considers the being in itself and reduces it to God as its Cause, ultimate Goal and Prototype. Here, too, Bonaventure finds an analogy with the Trinity of Scripture: the birth of a formative thought, the law of its action, and the striving for a satisfying final goal. Philosophy moral (philosophia moralis) treats the truth of life or the correctness of the will. It establishes this correctness for three areas: for the life of an individual, for family life and for social life, and is therefore divided into monastica, oeconomica and politica. A complete understanding of moral philosophy is acquired if one pays attention to the three meanings of the word "rectum": it means partly the agreement of the middle with the ends (rectum, cujus medium non exit ab extremis), partly the norm with which the one who directs himself conforms ( rectum quod dirigenti se conformatur) and, finally, upward directed (rectum, cujus summitas est sursum erecta), are definitions in which we can see the harmonious nature of morality, the binding and restraining nature of the moral law and its elevation above the earthly.

Bonaventure in the rectitudo in the first sense sees an indication of that higher unanimity that is given to us in the mystery of the Trinity, the central point of faith, and finds in its normalizing nature the order of life, in its upward direction - an indication of transfiguration in bliss. And in the enlightenment that the sensory world provides us with, partly as a field of artistic creation, partly as the basis of knowledge, Bonaventure finds an analogy with dogmatic, moral and mystical teaching through Scripture. In art there is a birth from the spirit of the artist, mediated by his conception, and to this extent artistic creation serves, albeit a weak, likeness of the birth of the Eternal Word; then, in art there is a norm that reveals its disciplinary effect on the generated work - similar to the regulation of behavior through the ordo vivendi, and this norm requires all the spiritual forces of the artist at its service; finally, here, too, pleasure and bliss are the last moment: the artist rejoices in his work, the work praises him, serves him, and if he had consciousness, he would feel happy. The same analogy is observed in sensory cognition.

Thus, from this point of view, the enlightenment of the soul by the divine wisdom of Scripture is not only the completion of cognition, but at the same time the archetype of all levels of cognition. Due to the habitation of the higher in the lower, what happens is that the Holy. Scripture borrows its expressions from all areas of knowledge, for God is present in all. Just as the Scholastics subordinated science to wisdom, philosophy to theology, so they subordinated individual sciences to philosophy as their head. Due to the hierarchical structure of S., philosophy, like that of the ancients, is turned into a guide for research aimed at individual areas of knowledge; it has the full capacity for this because of its attraction to wisdom, its strictly defined concept of truth, its ideal principles and its internal unity.

Scholastic metaphysics

Representing a religious philosophy, scholasticism had the driving nerve of its development in the needs of theological thought, for which philosophizing was a service tool. Naturally, the development of philosophy went along with the development of theology; and just as theological thought could succeed in its movement on the basis of what had already been achieved by the labors of previous centuries, so philosophical thought flourishes the more and the more versatile services it renders to theology, the more it becomes aware of the teachings of the great philosophers of antiquity - Plato and Aristotle, already in the patristic age. recognized as the bearers of all knowledge available to the natural human mind.

This is especially clearly revealed in the development of scholastic metaphysics. At first, it receives an original and at the same time one-sided direction. From the beginning of the Middle Ages until almost the middle of the 12th century, of all the writings of Plato, only Timaeus was known in the translation of Chalcidia; at other points the teaching of Plato was known only in a mediocre way, since it was included in the circle of thought of the fathers, especially Augustine; the third book of the work of Apuleius was also known: "De dogmate Platonis". From the writings of Aristotle, "Categoriae" and "De interpretatione" in the Latin translation of Boethius were known. In addition, they introduced Aristotle’s logical teaching: Porphyry’s introduction to these writings of Aristotle, also in the translations of Boethius and Victorinus, then the works of Marcianus Capella, Augustine, Pseudo-Augustine, Cassiodorus and several interpretive treatises of Boethius on Aristotle and Porphyry. Both Analyticae, Topica and De sophisticis elenchis were not known from the logical works of Aristotle, and not a single one from the works concerning other areas of philosophy.

It is clear that with such a paucity of basic preliminary information, the development of philosophy in scholasticism begins in a peculiar way: almost until the 13th century, logic, or dialectics, plays the role of metaphysics. Before the beginning of scholasticism, dialectics occupied a secondary place among the seven subjects taught at school, as knowledge preparatory to others, dealing more with words than with things; since the advent of scholasticism, it has taken first place. Because of it, they began to neglect all other "free arts", in it they looked for principles for the latter. The reason for this was that, in the absence of any kind of metaphysics, the scientific solution of metaphysical questions began to be sought in the field of the seven school sciences known at that time, and here, naturally, they had to stop at logic, or dialectics, as a science of a philosophical nature; from it they began to extract metaphysical principles.

Thus the field of this science expanded, which at first dealt only with the definition of words, and then captured the solution of all metaphysical questions and became the science of sciences and the art of arts. Proceeding from the idea that every proposition constructed according to logical rules is true, during this transformation of dialectics into metaphysics, people usually acted in such a way that things were understood by words, and simple conjectures were raised to the level of unshakable truths. As a result, the name "logic" in the sense of "philosopher" extended until the end of the 12th century to all the followers of Plato and Aristotle. In the thirteenth century, when the metaphysics of Aristotle became known, Albertus Magnus again restored the ancient distinction between dialectics and metaphysics: if dialectics still left the constructed solution of ontological questions to conjectures, then it was still considered a science only preparatory to the knowledge of truth. Thomas Aquinas and his followers held the same view.

Duns Scotus, at the end of the thirteenth century, again rejected this distinction and restored to logic the rights that were not proper to it. Until the end of the 12th century, the matter of philosophizing was usually put in such a way that some questions were asked, which, apparently, logic should give a decisive answer - and immediately, without hesitation, they hurried to state all the points and all the details of their doctrine, on the basis of precisely logical speculations. . In the didactic types, the presentation was grouped around one main problem. Such a problem, if not containing all the others, then concerning them, was given to scholasticism in the form of the problem of universals, or general concepts. This difficult problem was presented to the mind of Aristotle.

The first scholastics found it in the introduction of Porphyry translated by Boethius, more precisely, in the preface to this introduction. Here Porfiry points out three difficult questions which he himself refuses to solve:

1. Do genera and species exist in reality or only in thought?
2. if we assume that they really exist, are they corporeal or incorporeal?
3. and do they exist apart from sensible things, or in the things themselves?

These three questions have troubled scholastics for almost six centuries. They could not exclude themselves from their decision, as Porphyry did, because the problem of genera and species included many other important problems. For the scholastics, this problem was of particular importance because, having no special subject for metaphysics, they filled this part of their philosophy with its solution. Representatives of this or that solution to the problem of general concepts bore different names among the scholastics: realists were those who attributed to these concepts real being, isolated and preceding things (universalia ante rem; however, this is extreme realism; moderate realism pursued the Aristotelian view that the general, although it has real being, but in individuals there is universalia in re); nominalists - those who taught that only individuals have a real being, and genera and species are only subjective generalizations of the similar, made through equal concepts (conceptus) and identical words.

Since nominalism strikes at the subjectivity of concepts, through which we think of homogeneous objects, it is called conceptualism, and inasmuch as it strikes at the sameness of words, with which, due to the lack of proper names, we designate a set of homogeneous objects, it is called extreme nominalism, or nominalism in the narrow sense. Its formula is universalia post rem. These main directions on the question of universals exist, partly in their infancy, partly in some development, already in the 9th and 10th centuries, but their full disclosure, their dialectical justification, mutual polemics, and also the appearance of their various possible modifications belong to the subsequent time. The question of universals, in addition to its general scientific significance, was important for scholasticism because its solution was in close connection with certain doctrinal provisions.

Thus, for example, the doctrine of the Trinity of persons in the one God, under the nominalistic theory, passed into the doctrine of tritheism. If there is only the individual, and not the general, the nominalist Roscellinus taught, then the three Persons in God must be recognized as three Gods and the reality of their unity should be rejected. Naturally, the church should have reacted negatively to the nominalistic view. “If the church in this dispute,” notes Erdmann (“Grundriss d. Geschichte d. Philosophie”, 1866, I, 265), “not only condemned dogmatic heresy, but at the same time spoke out against metaphysical principles, ... then this came out of a perfectly correct view: who gives more reality to things than to ideas, he is more attached to this world than to the ideal heavenly kingdom.

Such were the first steps of scholastic metaphysics. Its further development in the XIII century is already under the influence of acquaintance with all the writings of Aristotle; scholasticism at this time reaches its peak. However, even now the development of metaphysics is carried out not only on the basis of the newly discovered writings of Aristotle: the metaphysical views of Augustine, the ontological elements in the Areopagite writings and Platonic ideas also had significance as strongholds.

The ontology of the scholastics in their understanding of ideas is from the beginning independent in relation to Aristotle. Alexander Gales dismisses quite expressly Aristotle's objections to Plato's ideas. Alexander himself accepts the four principles of Aristotle, but calls the principle of form: causa exemplaris sive idealis. Albertus Magnus writes a treatise "De erroribus Aristotelis"; Thomas Aquinas condemns Aristotle's controversy against Plato's search for the inner meaning of words; Bonaventure speaks of the Egyptian darkness into which Aristotle plunged as a result of the rejection of ideas.

At this time, the metaphysics of the scholastics no less reveals its vitality by overcoming those tares with which the monistically directed Arab philosophy threatened to fill everything. Averroes reduces the activity of the highest principle - form - to a simple separation of forms lying in matter, so that for him creation is only evolution; At the same time, he understands the passive mind as one susceptibility found from eternity in individual human spirits, and the active one as the outflow of the divine mind poured into the world, which enlightens the passive or receptive mind. Albert and Thomas persistently refute this doctrine, and they bring to the stage a correctly understood Aristotle in place of a falsely interpreted one and clearly indicate the metaphysical side of the issue raised. This creative epoch, which made theology a science, is at the same time the period of the domination of metaphysics. The latter is not taught in textbooks, but partly acts as an introductory part of the "Sums", partly forms the subject of short essays. Both "Sums" of Thomas - philosophical and theological - are arranged in such a way that the basic concepts of ontology go hand in hand with the content of rational theology. His Quaestiones disputatae also deals with metaphysical subjects. The treatise "De potentia" explains the ancient problem - how one can become many - which formed the nerve of Indian speculation and which Heraclitus, Parmenides and other Greek philosophers were also busy with. Thomas' teacher, Albert, also dealt with this problem, but with less scientific success than his great student.

General view of the movement of medieval thought

The history of scholastic philosophy is most conveniently divided into two periods: the first from the 9th to the beginning of the 13th century - the period of beginning scholasticism, or the application of Aristotelian logic and Neoplatonic philosophers to church teaching; the second, from the beginning of the XIII century. until the end of the Middle Ages - the period of full development and wide dissemination of scholasticism, or the application to church dogma of Aristotelian philosophy, which has since become known in its entirety. Usually, the beginning of scholastic philosophy is seen in that peculiar and bold reworking of ancient (closest of all, Neoplatonic) views, which he gave in the middle of the 9th century. John Scotus Eriugena.

Its first section, extending to the middle of the 12th century, is characterized by the predominance of Platonism; this is due to the influence of Augustine, which finds its completion in Bernard of Chartres. Along with this, through the medium of Arab and Jewish philosophers, Neo-Platonic influences are most clearly found in the monistic teachings of Amalrich of Bensky and David of Dinant. The turning point is the expansion of acquaintance with Aristotelian writings, for which scholasticism owes partly to the Arabs. John of Salisbury, about 1159, knows the entire Organon; about 1200 a translation of the Metaphysics arrives from Constantinople in the West, but the interpretation of the Aristotelian teaching in a monistic sense (in which some followed the Arabs) makes it suspicious in the eyes of the church. Pope Gregory IX in 1231 directs Aristotle's libri naturales to be excluded from school use until they have been examined and cleansed of all suspicion of error.

This causes a more cautious attitude towards the works of Aristotle, which had become famous not long before, but already about the middle of the 13th century. Aristotelianism finds a favorable reception among Christian philosophers; at the same time, a broader assimilation of ancient methods of thought takes place, and the flourishing period of scholasticism begins. The decline of speculative thought and scholasticism begins in the 14th century.

However, it should not be assumed that the very existence of scholasticism, its prosperity and decline depended only on a greater or lesser stock of works of ancient philosophy and that the Christian philosophy of the Middle Ages stood in slavish dependence on the ancients (especially on Aristotle), who, moreover, were insufficiently understood. Like the patrists, the scholastics looked to the ancient philosophers primarily for confirmation of Christian truth; like the patristics, the inner agreement of the ancient philosophers with Christian views forced them to adjoin one or another philosopher.

Plato, despite some views alien to faith, stood high among them because he taught about the existence of God, distinguished between eternity and time, ideas and matter, called the mind - the eye, truth - the light of the spirit, knowledge - vision and firmly established what is available to knowledge. created mind. Aristotle attracted scholastics because of the similarity they noticed between his organic worldview and the Christian understanding of life and spirit; they found in his teaching on the existence of God and divine attributes a closeness to the teaching of Scripture, in his view that the soul is the form of the body, a speculative expression of biblical anthropology. Everything that from Aristotelian philosophy penetrated into the ancient Christian way of thinking, therefore, also receives its development among the scholastics. At the same time, they appreciated in Aristotle a man of universal thought and a broad outlook, they saw in him a representative of that knowledge that is achieved by the natural efforts of the mind, but with all the more clarity makes it clear the specific feature and height of faith.

John of Salisbury, noting the merits of both ancient philosophers, adds, however, that complete knowledge, true philosophy, is possible only with faith, without which the ancient thinkers fell into error. Thus, the relation of medieval speculation to ancient speculation, with all the significance that the latter had, cannot be given exclusive significance in the history of the development of scholasticism; other internal factors must also be taken into account. The teachers of the church in the eyes of the scholastics had to stand higher than the heads of the academy and lyceum. Therefore, not without reason, the beginning of scholasticism can be attributed not to the philosophy of the Western thinker of the 9th century. I. S. Erigena, and to the theology of the Greek monk of the VIII century. St. John of Damascus. His work "Πηγή γνώσεως" ("Source of Knowledge") provides a compendium of patristic theology, with an introductory philosophical chapter, and philosophy directly acts as a service tool of theology.

Actually, the leader of ancient scholasticism, when the need arose to give the content of faith a rational and systematic form, was Augustine. Scholastics were looking for theology as a science that would combine all the elements of religion: positive, speculative and mystical. The first step towards this goal is associated with the name of Anselm of Canterbury (d. 1109); his proofs of the existence of God lay the foundation for rational theology. The twelfth century brings with it, on the one hand, i.e. e. "Summae", compendiums of the positive content of dogma, on the other hand, mystical aspirations, which are especially found in Bernard of Clairvaux.

By the XIII century. refers in the proper sense to the foundation of theology as a science. Alexander Gales († 1245) also gives his “Summa” the form of a commentary on the Maxims of Peter Lombard, but at the same time raises general methodological questions: is the sacra disciplina necessary, is it one, does it have a practical or theoretical character, what is its subject, how to express it. Theology for him is wisdom aimed at improving the heart, and not at improving knowledge, like metaphysics or philosophia prima. Albertus Magnus goes further: he finds that it is wisdom that makes theology or sacra disciplina a science and makes it related to philosophy.

Thomas Aquinas, finally, proves the necessity of wisdom based on faith and completing all temporarily achievable knowledge; it is philosophia prima, a pre-perception, however imperfect, of eternal contemplation. Here the influence of Aristotelian concepts is felt, but the guiding thoughts go beyond the boundaries of ancient speculation. In order to maintain the height reached, not only scientific zeal was required, but also the constant agreement of the elements of religion, which constitute the preliminary condition for such a soaring thought. The scientific world failed to maintain this agreement and under the influence of the spirit of the times in the XIV and XV centuries. partly sank down, partly deviated to the side. Positive theology, mysticism, and dialectics became isolated from each other, the highest points of view were abandoned, the speculative force was so lulled into sleep that nominalism, which could easily have been defeated in the period of the beginning of scholasticism, now gained the upper hand.

Medieval scholasticism was divided into two lines of thought: one, without showing creativity, faithfully preserved the acquisitions of the flourishing period - the other showed signs of self-decomposition. In addition to the internal cause of the fall of scholasticism, there were other factors that contributed to it - the arousal of interest in the study of nature and the revival of the knowledge of antiquity. Both the one and the other should have been favored by the intensified from the 13th century. study of Aristotelian philosophy. The theological character of education still dominated the school; all institutions whose influence was reflected in the direction of the minds were under the jurisdiction of the church: only because scholasticism was disintegrating in itself, could another direction prevail. The disintegration of scholasticism was revealed in the 14th century, in the solution of the old philosophical question of universals. Until the XIV century. realism dominated; now the preponderance is shifting to the side of nominalism.

Arguing that in general concepts we cognize not the true being of things and not the true thoughts of God, but only subjective abstractions, words and signs, nominalism denied any meaning behind philosophy, which, from its point of view, is only the art of linking these signs into positions and conclusions. It cannot judge the correctness of the propositions themselves; knowledge of true things, individuals, it cannot deliver. This teaching, fundamentally skeptical, drew a gulf between theology and secular science. Every worldly thought is vanity; it deals with the sensible, but the sensible is only an appearance. Only the inspired mind of theology teaches true principles; only through him do we learn to know God, who is the individual and at the same time the common ground of all things and therefore exists in all things. This is contrary to the principle of secular science, according to which no thing can be simultaneously in many things; but we know it by revelation, we must believe it.

Thus, two truths, natural and supernatural, are placed in the sharpest contrast with one another: one knows only phenomena, the other knows their supernatural foundations. Theology is a practical science; it teaches us the commandments of God, opens the way to the salvation of the soul. And just as spiritual and worldly science differ deeply, so must worldly and spiritual life be separated. The most ardent nominalist, William of Ockham, belonged to the strictest Franciscans, who, having taken a vow of poverty, did not put up with the modus operandi of papal authority. The truly spiritual must renounce all worldly possessions, because he regards the phenomena of sensual life as nothing. The hierarchy must therefore renounce temporal power: the worldly and spiritual kingdoms must be separated; their confusion leads to disasters. The spiritual realm has precedence over the worldly, just as truth has precedence over manifestation.

The doctrine of the spiritual and secular state is brought here to extreme limits, after which a turn had to follow, since the complete separation of spiritual and secular power is incompatible with the concept of hierarchy. Nominalism could not become a general view, but it achieved wide circulation, attracted mysticism, akin to it in its disgust for worldly fuss, and shook scholastic systems in a dispute with realism. He turned the systematic trend of medieval philosophy into a polemical one. The dispute between nominalists and realists was not carried out consistently and did not produce fruitful results: excommunications took the place of arguments. The nominalism of the Middle Ages had only a negative meaning for philosophy. He separated scientific research from theology, because he rejected the secular sciences of any significance for the spiritual life. Under his influence in the XIV table. the Faculty of Philosophy, in its search for truth, not only separated by name from the theological. Philosophical research has gained more freedom, but lost in content. The formalism with which scholasticism is reproached is now indeed the predominant one in a philosophy which is occupied almost exclusively with logical forms. Here lie the beginnings of religious indifference in the development of secular science; it rests on the principle of separating the spiritual and the secular realm.

History of scholastic philosophy

periodization

1. Early scholasticism (-XII century), which still stood on the basis of indivisibility, interpenetration of science, philosophy, and theology, is characterized by the formation of the scholastic method in connection with the understanding of the specific value and specific results of the activity of the mind and in connection with the dispute about universals. The main representatives of scholasticism: in Germany - Raban Moor, Notker German, Hugo Saint-Victorian; in England - Alcuin, John Scot Eriugena, Adelard from Bath; in France, John of Roscelin, Pierre Abelard, Gilbert of Porretan, John of Salisbury, Bernard of Chartres, Amalric of Ben; in Italy - Peter Damiani, Anselm of Canterbury, Bonaventure.
2. Middle scholasticism (XIII century) is characterized by the final separation of science and philosophy (especially natural philosophy) from theology, as well as the introduction into Western philosophical thinking of the teachings of Aristotle (see European Philosophy), which, however, was available only in Latin translation. The philosophy of the great orders is being formed, especially the Franciscan and Dominican, as well as the systems of Albert the Great, Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus. This was followed by a dispute between the supporters of Augustine, Aristotle and Averroes, a dispute between Thomists and Scotists. It was the time of the great philosophical and theological encyclopedias. Other main representatives of scholasticism: in Germany - Witelo, Dietrich of Freiberg, Ulrich Engelbert; in France, Vincent of Beauvais, John of Zhandun; in England - Roger Bacon, Robert Grosseteste, Alexander of Gaels; in Italy, Aegidius of Rome; in Spain, Raymond Lull.
3. Late scholasticism (XIV and XV centuries) is characterized by rationalistic systematization (due to which scholasticism received a negative meaning), the further formation of natural-scientific and natural-philosophical thinking, the development of logic and metaphysics of the irrationalist direction, and finally, the final dissociation of mysticism from church theology, which became more and more intolerant. When at the beginning In the 14th century, the church had already finally given preference to Thomism, and scholasticism from the religious side became the history of Thomism. The main representatives of late scholasticism: in Germany - Albert of Saxony, Nicholas of Cusa; in France - Jean Buridan, Nicholas of Orezm, Peter d'Aily, Nicholas from Otrecourt; in England, William of Ockham; in Italy, Dante; in Spain, the School of Salamanca. During the period of humanism, the Renaissance, the Reformation, scholasticism ceased to be the only spiritual form of Western science and philosophy. Neoscholasticism defends the primacy of Christian philosophy. Scholastically and - corresponding to the method of scholasticism; in a negative sense - cunning, purely rational, speculative.

Start

The earliest philosopher of the scholastic time is John Scotus Eriugena, who lived in the 9th century and expounded his philosophy mainly in the essay "De divisione naturae". In his philosophical views, he adjoins Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, whose works he translated into Latin, as well as his commentator Maximus the Confessor, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa and other Greek teachers of the church, as well as to Latin ones, namely to Augustine. True philosophy, according to Erigene, is identical with true religion, and vice versa.

Eriugena's system, containing the germs of both medieval mysticism and dialectical scholasticism, was rejected by the church authorities as contrary to the true faith. The philosopher tries to understand the Christian idea of ​​creation, explaining it in the sense of the Neoplatonic doctrine of emanations. God is the highest unity; It is simple and yet versatile. Origin from Him is the multiplication of the divine good by descending from the general to the particular; after the most common essence of all things, the genera of the highest generality are formed, then the less general follows, up to species, and finally, through specific differences and properties, individuals.

This doctrine is based on the hypostasis of the general, as previously individuals, in the order of being of a really existing entity - traces, on the Platonic doctrine of ideas, as it was later expressed in the formula: universalia ante rem. However, Scott does not exclude the existence of the general in the separate, but refutes the view of the "dialectics", who, based on the works of Aristotle and Boethius, argued that the individual is a substance in the full sense, while the species and genus are substances in a secondary sense. The origin of finite beings from Deity Scott calls the process of disclosure (analysis, resolutio); it is opposed to a return to God or deification (reversio, deificatio), the reduction of an infinite number of individuals to genera and, finally, to the simplest unity of everything that is God; thus God is everything and everything is God. Scott adjoins Pseudodionysius in distinguishing between positive theology, which attributes positive predicates to God in a symbolic sense, and negative, which denies them from Him in the proper sense.

Realism and nominalism from the 9th to the end of the 11th century

The opinion of the “dialectics” refuted by Eriugena during and after Eriugena found numerous adherents among the Scholastics, some of whom directly defended it against the Neoplatonic theory of Eriugena, others recognized true substantiality behind the general. Some dialecticians have doubts whether the genus can be recognized as something real, material, since the general can be applied to individuals only as a predicate, and meanwhile it is impossible to allow a thing to be a predicate of another thing.

This doubt led to the assertion that genera should be recognized as words (voces) only. When solving the question of the reality of general concepts, as already mentioned above, two directions were formed: realism and nominalism. Both of these directions, partly in embryonic form, partly in some development, are found already in the 9th and 10th centuries. The school of Rabanus Maurus (d. 856 Archbishop of Mainz) holds the Aristotelian-Boethian point of view. Among its representatives, Geirik of Auxerre tended towards moderate realism. Geirik's student, Remigius of Auxerre (late 9th century), pursued a realistic trend: he taught, according to Plato, that the species and the individual exist through participation in the general; He did not abandon, however, the Boethian-Aristotelian point of view on immanence. Studies in dialectics, as well as in the liberal arts in general, continued further, in the Χ and XI centuries, but almost until the very end of the latter - without new scientific results. Among the scholastics of this time are known: Poppo (X century), Herbert (later Pope Sylvester II, † 1003), Fulbert (XI century), his student Berengar of Tours (999-1088), Hildebert (1057-1133), who were engaged in the main image. the question of the relationship of philosophy to church teaching.

In the 2nd sex. In the 11th century, some of the Scholastics began to attribute to Aristotle the view that logic has and must deal with the correct use of words and that genera and species are only subjective combinations of individuals designated by the same names; the view that attributed real existence to universals began to be refuted. Thus, nominalism appeared as a direction opposite to realism. The most famous among the nominalists of this time is Roscellinus. A contemporary of Roscellinus was also his outstanding opponent - Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury. Anselm's motto (1033-1109): credo, ut intelligam (see Anselm).

Pierre Abelard (1079-1142) on the issue of universals pursued a direction alien to both the nominalistic extremes of Roscellinus and the realistic William of Champeau (who considered the genus inherent in every individual in essence), but still standing closer to nominalism (see Abelard). The defenders of Christian modified Platonism were Bernard of Chartres (born around 1070-1080), William de Comte and Adelar of Bath (both taught in the first half of the 12th century), who, however, held Aristotelian views on the knowledge of the sensory world. Among the logician defenders of realism, Walter de Mortan († 1174) and especially Gilbert Porretan, compiler of interpretations of the pseudo-Boethian "De trinitate" and "De duabus naturis in Christo" and the author of an essay on the last six categories, were important.

Abelard's pupil Peter Lombard († 1164), Magister sententiarum, compiled a textbook of theology, which for a long time served as the main source of theological teaching and dialectical clarification of theological problems. Mystical theologians such as Bernard of Clairvaux (1091-1153), Hugh (+ 1141) and Richard (+ 1173) S. Victor rebelled against the high reputation of dialectics and especially against its applicability to theology. The learned and elegant writer John of Salisbury († 1180), who held to moderate realism, spoke out against one-sided dialectics and for the connection of classical education with school theology. Alan ab Insulis († 1203) wrote an exposition of theology based on the principles of reason; Amalrich of Bene († 1206) and David of Dinant († 1209) renewed the doctrines of Dionysius the Areopagite and John Erigena, making a pantheistic identification of God with the world. Alan de Insulis, David of Dinant and Amalrich of Bensk already knew some translated Arabic works.

Philosophy of Arabs and Jews

The development of scholastic philosophy from the end of the twelfth century to its highest degree of prosperity is due to the fact that the scholastics, through the Arabs and Jews, and then the Greeks, get acquainted with the entire body of the writings of Aristotle, as well as with the way of thinking of the philosophers who expounded the content of these works. . Since the decree of Justinian (529) began to persecute Neoplatonic philosophy as adversely affecting the orthodoxy of Christian theology, Aristotelian philosophy began to spread more and more. First and foremost, heretics, and then representatives of orthodoxy, used Aristotelian dialectics in theological disputes.

The Syrian Nestorian school at Edessa (later Nisibis) and the medical-philosophical school at Gandisapora were the main places of Aristotle's study; predominantly from there Aristotelian philosophy passed to the Arabs. The Syrian Monophysites also studied Aristotle. Monophysite and tritheist John Philopon and Orthodox monk St. John of Damascus were Aristotelian Christians. In the VIII and IX centuries. Philosophical pursuits are in decline, but the tradition still holds on. In the 11th century, Michael Pselus and John of Italy stood out as logicians. From the following centuries there are many comments on the writings of Aristotle, and partly of other philosophers. In the 15th century, especially after the fall of Constantinople (1453), an intensified acquaintance of the West with ancient literature began, and in the field of philosophy a struggle arose between Aristotelian scholasticism and the newly emerging Platonism.

The philosophy of the Arabs in general is Aristotelianism mixed with Neoplatonic views. Greek medical art, natural science and philosophy penetrated to the Arabs mainly in the era of the rule of the Abbasids (since 750 AD), due to the fact that Syrian Christians translated medical and then philosophical works into Syriac and Arabic from Greek. The preservation of the traditions of Greek philosophy was expressed in the fact that even now the connection of Platonism and Aristotelianism, which dominated among the last philosophers of antiquity, and the study of Aristotelian logic, which is common among Christian theologians, as a formal όργανον "a dogmatics, mattered; but due to the strict monotheism of Islam, Aristotelian metaphysics, especially its doctrine of God The most famous of the Arab philosophers in the East: Alkendi (1st half of the 9th century), even more famous as mathematician and astrologer; Alfarabi (X century), who mastered the Neoplatonic doctrine of emanations; Avicenna (XI century), who defended a purer Aristotelianism and was highly respected even by Christian scientists of the later Middle Ages as a philosopher and especially as a medical scientist; finally, Algazel (d. XII century), in the interests of the theological orthodoxy resorted to philosophical skepticism.

In the West: Avempats (XII century, Ibn Badja) and Abubazer (XII century, Ibn Tophail), who held the idea of ​​an independent gradual development of man; Averroes (Ibn Roschd, 1126-1198), famous commentator on Aristotle. Interpreting the latter's doctrine of passive and active reason, Averroes takes a pantheistic point of view, excluding individual immortality; he recognizes a single intellect common to all mankind, dismembered in individual people and again returning to itself each of its emanation, so that only in it do they become involved in immortality. The philosophy of the Jews in the Middle Ages is partly Kabbalah, partly a transformed Platonic-Aristotelian teaching. Separate Kabbalistic provisions can be attributed to the 1st century. or to the time preceding the beginning of the Christian era; they are probably connected with the secret teachings of the Essenes.

The further formation of this doctrine was significantly influenced by Greek, especially Platonic views through, perhaps, Judeo-Alexandrian religious philosophy, and later - Neoplatonic writings. Contact with alien civilizations, especially with the Persian, then with the Hellenic and Roman, later with Christianity and Mohammedanism broadened the horizons of the Jewish people and gradually led to the destruction of national borders in the field of faith. Of the Jewish philosophers, the most significant are Saadia ben Joseph al-Fayumi (from 892 to 942), defender of the Talmud and opponent of the Karaites; a representative of the Neoplatonic trend, who lived around 1050 in Spain, Solomon Ibn-Gebirol, recognized by Christian scholastics as an Arab philosopher and cited by them under the name Avicebron; Bahia ben Joseph, author of a moral essay on the duties of the heart (end of the 11th century). A direct reaction in philosophy was produced around 1140 by the poet Judas Halevi in ​​his book Khosari, where Greek philosophy, Christian and Mohammedan theology are presented defeated by Jewish teaching.

In the middle of the twelfth century, Abraham ben David made an attempt to draw a comparison between Jewish and Aristotelian philosophy; Maimonides (Moses Maimonides, 1135-1204) took on this task with greater success in his work: "Guide to the Doubters." He attributes to Aristotle unconditional authority in the knowledge of the sublunar world, while in the knowledge of the heavenly and divine he limits his views to a frank teaching. As a commentator on the Paraphrase and Commentaries of Averroes, as well as the author of his own works, Levi ben Gerson (first half of the 14th century) is known. Through the mediation of the Jews, Arabic translations of the works of Aristotle and the Aristotelians were translated into Latin, and in this way knowledge of the general Aristotelian philosophy reached the Christian scholastics, who themselves began to translate the works of Aristotle directly from Greek.

Development and distribution

Acquaintance with the writings of Aristotle, as well as with the works of Arab and Jewish philosophers based partly on Neoplatonism, partly on Aristotelianism, and with Byzantine logic, produced a significant expansion and transformation of philosophical studies among Christian scholastics. In some of these writings, especially in writings at first falsely attributed to Aristotle, but in reality owing their origin to Neoplatonism, an emanative theosophy develops. It contributed to the emergence of pantheistic doctrines adjacent to the teachings of John Scott Erigena, against which a strong church reaction soon arose, threatening at first to touch upon Aristotelian natural philosophy and metaphysics.

Later, when the theistic character of the actual writings of Aristotle was recognized, they began to be used against the Platonism borrowed by the early scholastics from Augustine and the Church Fathers. The first scholastic philosopher who studied the entire philosophy of Aristotle and part of the comments of the Arab philosophers and turned all this to the service of Christian theology was Alexander Gales (+ 1245); in his "Summa theologiae" he presents a syllogistic justification for church dogmas, for which he uses philosophical teachings. His creation is not the first with a similar title; there were earlier Summae, but their authors used only the logic of Aristotle, and not all of his philosophy.

William of Auvergne, Bishop Parisian († 1249), defended the Platonic doctrine of ideas and the substantiality of the human soul against Aristotle and the Arab Aristotelians; he identified the totality of ideas with the second person of the Holy Trinity. Robert, Bishop Lincoln († 1252), linked Plato's teaching with Aristotle's. Michael Scott is better known as a translator of Aristotelian writings than as an independent writer. Vincent of Beauvais († 1264) is more of an encyclopedist than a philosopher. The mystic Bonaventure († 1274), a student of Alexander Gales, preferred Plato's teaching to Aristotle's, and subordinated all human wisdom to divine enlightenment. Above popular morality, in his opinion, is the fulfillment of monastic vows and especially mystical contemplation, which gives a foretaste of future bliss. Albert Bolstaedt (1193-1280), nicknamed the Great (Albertus Magnus), or "doctor universalis" - the first scholastic who reproduced the entire Aristotelian philosophy in a systematic manner, constantly taking into account Arab commentators, and developed it in the sense of church dogma.

SCHOLASTICISM(lat. scholastica from Greek σχολαστικός - school) - a type of religious philosophy, characterized by fundamental subordination to the primacy of theological dogma, the combination of dogmatic premises with rationalistic methodology and a special interest in logical problems; received the most complete development in Western Europe in the era of the mature and late Middle Ages.

THE GENESIS OF SCHOLASTICS AND THE PERIODIZATION OF ITS DEVELOPMENT. The origins of scholasticism go back to late antique philosophy, primarily to the Neoplatonist of the 5th century. Proclus (setting to read answers to all questions from authoritative texts, such as Plato’s writings for Proclus, as well as sacred texts of ancient paganism; encyclopedic summation of the most diverse problems; connection of the facts of a mystically interpreted myth with their rational development). Christian patristics approaches scholasticism as it completes work on the dogmatic foundations of church doctrine ( Leonty of Byzantium , John of Damascus ). Work was of particular importance Boethia on the transfer of the Greek culture of logical reflection to the Latin tradition; his remark, made in the course of commenting on a logical work (In Porph. Isagog., MPL 64, col. 82-86), and marking as an open question whether general concepts ( universals ) only an intralinguistic reality, or they have an ontological status, gave rise to a discussion on this issue that lasted for centuries and constitutive for scholasticism. Those who saw reality (realia) in universals were called realists; those who saw in them a simple designation (nomen, lit. "name") for the abstraction created by the human mind were called nominalists. between pure realism and clean nominalism as two polar possibilities, there was a mental space for moderate or complicated options.

Early scholasticism (9th-12th centuries) has monasteries and monastic schools as its sociocultural ground. It is born in dramatic disputes about the place of the so-called. dialectics (i.e. methodical reasoning) in the search for spiritual truth. The extreme positions of rationalism ( Berengar of Tours ) and fideism ( Peter Damiani ) could not be constructive for scholasticism; the middle way was proposed by the formula dating back to Augustine Anselm of Canterbury "credo, ut intelligam" ("I believe in order to understand" - meaning that faith is primary as a source of starting points, which are then subject to mental development). Thinking initiatives of a daring innovator Abelard and other theologians of the 12th century. ( Chartres school , Saint Victor School ) contributed to the development of the scholastic method and prepared the transition to the next era.

High scholasticism (13th - early 14th century) develops in the context of a system of universities founded throughout Europe; the background is active participation in the mental life of the so-called. mendicant orders - rival Dominicans and Franciscans. The most important intellectual stimulus is the spreading familiarity with the texts of Aristotle, as well as his Arabic and European commentators. However, an attempt to introduce into the circulation of schools those Aristotelian and Averroist theses that were incompatible with the foundations of the Christian faith is condemned (the case Seeger of Brabant ). The dominant direction, expressed primarily in creativity Thomas Aquinas , strives for a consistent synthesis of faith and knowledge, for a system of hierarchical levels, within which doctrinal dogmas and religious-philosophical speculations would be supplemented by socio-theoretical and natural-scientific reflection oriented towards Aristotle; it finds ground within the framework of the Dominican order, at the first moment it meets with protest from the conservatives (the condemnation of a number of theses by the bishop of Paris in 1277, followed by similar acts in Oxford), but then more and more often and already for centuries it is perceived as a normative version of scholasticism. However, the authoritarian pluralism, given by the parallel coexistence in Catholicism of the mature Middle Ages of various orders, creates an opportunity for the development, first of all, within the Franciscan order of an alternative type of scholasticism, represented by mystical metaphysics oriented towards Augustinian Platonism. Bonaventure , shifting the emphasis from the intellect to the will and from the abstract to the singular (haecceitas, "that's it") in John Dunsa Scott etc.

Late scholasticism (14th-15th centuries) was an epoch full of crises, but by no means a barren one. On the one hand, the Dominicans and Franciscans transform the creative initiatives of Thomas Aquinas and Duns Scotus, respectively, into conservable systems of Thomism and Scotism; on the other hand, voices are heard calling for a transition from metaphysical speculation to an empirical study of nature, and from attempts to harmonize faith and reason - to a consciously sharp separation of the tasks of both. A special role is played by British thinkers who are opposed to the speculative system-creation of continental high scholasticism: R. Bacon calls for the development of specific knowledge, W. Ockham offers an extremely radical development of Scotist tendencies towards extreme nominalism and theoretically substantiates the claims of the empire against the papacy. It is worth noting the proto-capitalist revision of the scholastic concept of "fair price" by the German Okcamist Gabriel Biel (circa 1420–95). Certain aspects of the intellectual heritage of this period, the revision and criticism of the old foundations of scholasticism, were subsequently assimilated by the Reformation.

SCHOLASTIC METHOD. The subordination of thought to the authority of dogma—according to the well-known formula dating back to Peter Damiani (De divina omnipotentia, 5, 621, MPL, t. 145, col. other types of orthodox-church religious thought; What is specific to scholasticism is that the very nature of the relationship between dogma and reason was conceived, with undoubted authoritarianism, as unusually rational and focused on the imperative of internal and external systemicity. Both Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition, as well as the heritage of ancient philosophy, actively processed by scholasticism, acted in it as a grandiose normative supertext. All knowledge was supposed to have two levels - supernatural knowledge, given in God's Revelation, and natural knowledge, sought by the human mind; the norm of the first is contained in the texts of the Bible, accompanied by authoritative commentaries of the Church Fathers; everything that concerns natural things). Potentially, in both texts, the fullness of truth is already given; to actualize it, it is necessary to interpret the text itself (the original genre for scholastic discourse is lectio, lit. “reading”, meaning the interpretation of a selected passage from the Bible or, more rarely, some authority, for example, Aristotle), then deduce from the texts the entire a system of their logical consequences with the help of a continuous chain of correctly constructed inferences (cf. the genre characteristic of scholasticism amounts - the final encyclopedic work, the background for which is provided by the genre of maxims). Scholastic thinking remains true to the epistemology of ancient idealism, for which the real object of knowledge is the general (cf. the Platonic theory of ideas and the thesis of Aristotle: “every definition and every science deals with the general”, Met. XI, p. 1, p. 1059b25, trans. A.V. Kubitsky); it constantly follows the path of deduction and almost does not know induction, its main forms are definition, logical division and, finally, syllogism, deriving the particular from the general. In a certain sense, all scholasticism is philosophizing in the forms of text interpretation. In this, it contrasts both with modern European science, with its desire to discover hitherto unknown truth through the analysis of experience, and with mysticism, with its desire to see the truth in ecstatic contemplation.

A paradoxical, but logical addition to the orientation of scholasticism towards an authoritative text was the selection of authorities of "natural" knowledge, unexpectedly free from confessional-religious motivation; along with ancient pagans like Plato, Aristotle or the astronomer Ptolemy, and thinkers of Islamic culture like Averroes ( Ibn Rushd ) the canon of mature scholasticism included, for example, a Spanish Jew Ibn Gebirol (11th century), known as Avicebronn (moreover, the Christian scholastics who quoted him remembered that he was not a Christian, but forgot, as unnecessary, information about his national and religious affiliation, which was clarified only by researchers of the 19th century). In this regard, we note that the so-called. dual truth theory (one and the same thesis can be true for philosophy and false for faith), strongly rejected by Thomism, but attributed, for example, to Seeger of Brabant and being the logical limit of many tendencies of late scholasticism, is to a certain extent a consequence of scholastic authoritarianism: The Bible and the Church Fathers - authorities, but Aristotle and Averroes, who contradicted them, were also perceived precisely as authorities. Further, scholasticism would not be a creative period in the history of thought if it found ready-made answers in the givens of authoritative texts, and not questions, not intellectual difficulties that provoke new work of the mind; it is precisely the impossibility of resolving issues with the help of a mere reference to authority, which justifies the very possibility of scholasticism, has repeatedly become the subject of thematization. “Auctoritas cereum habet nasum, id est in diversum potest flecti sensum” (“Authority has a waxy nose, i.e. it is possible to turn it back and forth”), the poet and scholastic noted Alan of Lille , mind. 1202 ( Alanus de Insulis. De Fide Cath. I, 30, MPL, t. 210, 333 A). Thomas Aquinas specifically objects to setting the mind on a passive-doxographic relationship to authorities: “Philosophy is not concerned with collecting the opinions of various people, but with the way things really are” (In librum de caelo I, 22). Scholastic thinkers were attracted by the consideration of particularly complex hermeneutical problems; a special case was the verbal contradiction between authoritative texts, not without reason accentuated in the title of Abelard's work Yes and No (Sic et non). The scholastic should have been able to understand such incidents, operating with the categories of semantics (polysemy of the word), semiotics (symbolic and situational-contextual meanings, adaptation of the form of theological discourse to the language habits of the listener or reader, etc.); even the question of the authenticity of the work and criticism of the text is theoretically formulated, although such philological problems in the service of theology as a whole remain atypical for the Middle Ages and constitute a characteristic conquest of the new European culture.

The influence of scholasticism on contemporary culture was all-encompassing. We meet the scholastic technique of dismembering concepts in sermons and lives (very brightly - in the "Golden Legend" by Jacob Voraginsky), scholastic methods of working with the word - in Latin-language poetry from hymnography to songs of vagantes and other purely secular genres (and through Latin-language literature - also and in literature in vernacular languages); scholastic allegory is vividly felt in the practice of fine arts.

Focusing on rigidly fixed rules of thinking, strict formalization of the ancient heritage helped scholasticism to fulfill its "school" task - to carry through the ethnic, religious and civilizational changes of the Middle Ages the continuity of the intellectual skills bequeathed by antiquity, the necessary conceptual and terminological apparatus. Without the participation of scholasticism, everything further development European philosophy and logic would be impossible; even the thinkers of the early modern period, who sharply attacked scholasticism, up to the Enlightenment and German classical idealism inclusive, could not do without the widespread use of scholastic vocabulary (still very noticeable in the intellectual everyday life of Western countries), and this fact is an important evidence in favor of scholasticism . While affirming thinking in general terms, scholasticism as a whole - despite a number of important exceptions - contributed relatively little to the development of a taste for concrete experience, important for the natural sciences, but its structure turned out to be exceptionally favorable for the development of logical reflection; the achievements of the scholastics in this area anticipate the modern formulation of many questions, in particular the problems of mathematical logic.

The humanists of the Renaissance, the theologians of the Reformation, and especially the philosophers of the Enlightenment, in their historically conditioned struggle against the civilizational paradigms of the Middle Ages, worked hard to turn the very word "scholasticism" into an abusive nickname, a synonym for an empty mental game. However, the development of historical and cultural reflection was not slow to establish the enormous dependence of the entire philosophy of the early modern period on the scholastic heritage, the continuity of contrasting eras. Suffice it to recall that the concept put forward by Rousseau and playing such an obvious revolutionary role "social contract" goes back to the conceptual apparatus of scholasticism. Paradoxically, the romantic-restoration cult of the Middle Ages, which challenged the negative assessment of scholasticism, was in many respects further from its spirit than the criticisms of scholasticism in the Enlightenment (for example, J. de Maistre , 1753-1821, an ardent apologist for the monarchy and Catholicism, ironically about the abstraction of “man in general” inherent in Enlightenment humanism, outside of nations and races, with this one movement, along with the ideology of the French Revolution, overturning the entire building of traditional Catholic anthropology and falling into unacceptable “nominalism” ).

In the closed world of Catholic educational institutions scholasticism for a number of centuries retained a peripheral, but not always unproductive existence. Among the manifestations of the belated scholasticism of the early modern period, it is necessary to note the work of the Spanish Jesuit F. Suarez (1548-1617), and also - in view of the civilizational significance for the East Slavic area - the Orthodox version of scholasticism, planted in Kyiv by Metropolitan Peter Mohyla (1597-1647) and from there spreading its influence to Moscow.

The interest of Catholic scholars in scholasticism stimulated, after the break in tradition at the time of the Enlightenment, in the context of romantic and postromantic historicism of the 19th century, historical and philosophical studies, publications of texts, etc.; a project for a modernizing restoration of scholasticism in the form neoscholastics , which would provide answers to modern questions, while it was assumed, and in 1879 was supported by papal authority (the encyclical of Leo XIII "Aeterni Patris", orienting Catholic thought on the legacy of Thomas Aquinas - see. Neo-Thomism ). A strong impetus for this project was in the 20th century. the situation of opposition to totalitarian ideologies - national socialism and communism; such a confrontation created the need for an appeal to the ideal of “eternal philosophy” (philosophia perennis), as well as for a synthesis between the principle of authority, capable of competing with the authoritarianism of totalitarianism, and the principle of personality opposed to totalitarianism, in reconciling Christian and humanistic moral principles. It is the 1st half and the middle of the 20th century. - a time when the legacy of scholasticism could seem to authoritative thinkers (J. Marechal, 1878-1944; J. Maritain , E. Gilson etc.) a treasury of methods for overcoming purely modern problems (cf., e.g., Maritain J. Scholasticism and Politics, 1940). In “post-conciliar” Catholicism (after the Second Vatican Council of 1962–65), neoscholasticism does not disappear as a possibility, but the boundaries of its identity, as well as the signs of its presence in modern culture, are more and more clearly ceasing to be tangible.

Literature:

1. Aiken G. History and system of medieval worldview, trans. with him. St. Petersburg, 1907;

2. Stokl A. History of Medieval Philosophy, trans. with him. M., 1912;

3. Styazhkin N.I. Formation of mathematical logic. M., 1967;

4. Popov P.S. Styazhkin N.I. The development of logical ideas from antiquity to the Renaissance. M., 1974;

5. Sokolov V.V. medieval philosophy. M., 1979;

6. Averintsev S.S. Christian Aristotelianism as an internal form of Western tradition and problems modern Russia.– In the book: He is. Rhetoric and the origins of the European literary tradition. M., 1996;

7. Gilson E.H. L̕esprit de la philosophie medievale. P., 1932.2 ed. I–II. P., 1944;

8. Grabmann M. Die Geschichte der scholastischen Methode, I-II. Freiburg, 1909–11 (re-ed. V., 1957);

9. He is. Die theologische Erkenntnis- und Einleitungslehre des hl. Thomas von Aquin. Freiburg i. Schweiz, 1947;

10. De Wulf. Histoire de la philosophie médiévale, I–III, 6 ed. Louvain, 1934–47;

11. Landgraf A.M. Dogmengeschicte der Frühscholastik, I-IV. Regensburg, 1952–56;

12. He is. Einführung in die Geschichte der theologischen Literatur der Frühscholastik. Regensburg, 1956;

13. Le Goff J. Les intellectuels au moyen age. P., 1957;

14. Chenu M.D. La theologie comme science au XIII e siècle, 3 ed. P., 1957;

15. He is. Das Werk des hl. Thomas von Aquin.– Die deutsche Thomas-Ausgabe, Ergänzungsband II. Hdlb.-Graz-Köln, 1960;

16. Metz J.-B. Christliche Anthropozentrik. Über die Denkform des Thomas von Aquin. Munch., 1962;

17. Wilper P.(Hrsg.). Die Metaphysik im Mittelalter. V., 1963;

18. Lang A. Die theologische Prinzipienlehre der mittelalterlichen Scholastik. Freiburg, 1964;

19. Schillebeck E. Hochscholastik und Theologie.– Offenbarung und Theologie. Mainz, 1965, S. 178–204;

20. Breider W. Das aristotelische Kontinuum in der Scholastik, 2. Aufl. Münster, 1980;

21. Vries J. de. Grundbegriffe der Scholastik, 2. Aufl. Darmstadt, 1983;

22. Peter J. Scholastik, 2. Aufl. Munch., 1986;

23. Pesch O.N. Thomas von Aquin. Grenze und Größe mittelalterlicher Theologie. Eine Einführung. Mainz, 1988, 2. Aufl., 1989;

24. Schlosser M. Cognitio et amor. Paderborn, 1990.

S.S. Averintsev

INTRODUCTION

Each period of human history had its own peculiarities in the development of science, culture, social relations, style of thinking, etc. All this left an imprint on the development of philosophical thought, on what problems in the field of philosophy came to the fore.

The Middle Ages occupies a long period in the history of Europe from the collapse of the Roman Empire in the 5th century to the Renaissance (XIV-XV centuries). The philosophy that took shape during this period had two main sources of its formation. The first of these is ancient Greek philosophy, primarily in its Platonic and Aristotelian traditions. The second source is Holy Scripture, which turned this philosophy into the mainstream of Christianity. Medieval philosophy represents that long period in the history of European philosophy, which is directly connected with the Christian religion.

Most of the philosophical systems of the Middle Ages were dictated by the main dogmas of Christianity, among which the most important were such as the dogma of the personal form of the creator god, and the dogma of the creation of the world by God "out of nothing". Under the conditions of such a cruel religious dictate, supported by state power, philosophy was declared a "servant of religion", in which all philosophical issues were resolved from the standpoint of theology. Theology - (Greek theos - God and logos - word, doctrine) - a speculative doctrine of God, based on Revelation, i.e. the divine Word, imprinted in the sacred texts of theistic religions (in Christianity - the Bible).

The main stage in the formation of medieval philosophy is scholasticism, which is a type of philosophizing in which the means of the human mind are trying to substantiate the ideas and formulas taken on faith.

Words such as "professor", "student", "rector", "dissertation", "university" appeared in the Middle Ages. Moreover, even what we consider to be a universal human feeling that every person experiences in his life, namely love, oddly enough, this phenomenon was also born in the Middle Ages and is associated with completely certain phenomena of medieval European culture. This does not mean, of course, that before the onset of the Middle Ages, people did not love or stopped loving later, but a certain idea of ​​​​this feeling, the chanting of this feeling - all this was first comprehended, realized precisely in the Middle Ages, and the first who did this were poets and poets. musicians who in Provence were called troubadours, and in Germany ministrels. In this way,. The era of the Middle Ages is striking in its significance, and many of the cultural achievements that we identify with Antiquity actually arose not in Antiquity, but in the Middle Ages.

In conditions when interest in theology and philosophy was awakening more and more widely, it was impossible to maintain a complete denial of the value of rational knowledge, it was necessary to look for more subtle ways of resolving the issue of the relationship between theology and science. It was not an easy task, it was a question of developing a method that, without preaching a complete disregard for knowledge, would be able to maintain the primacy of faith over reason.

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SCHOLASTICS

Medieval civilization is a spiritual and cultural world of enormous richness in content and forms, marked by unique achievements and extending over several centuries. The richness of the culture of the Middle Ages is not limited to the works of scholastic theology. However, the Middle Ages are not only unthinkable without scholasticism, but are largely determined by it. Scholastic theology left a deep imprint on the entire culture of the Western Middle Ages. A comparison of a medieval Gothic temple with theological and philosophical writings is known. The Gothic temple is an analogue of the "Sum of Theology" (this is how the works of theologians were called): the same majestic harmony, proportionality of parts and inclusiveness. The Council, with no less completeness than a theological treatise, expressed the totality of the ideas of its time. All Christian teaching was visually unfolded before the eyes of the believer. It was transmitted through external and internal architecture, through the organization of space, rushing the human soul upwards, through a huge number of details playing a strictly defined role, through sculptural images. Gothic temple - scholastic theology in stone. This analogy cannot but testify to the significance of the role of scholastic theology in the Middle Ages. Scholasticism (from Greek"schole" - a quiet occupation, study) - medieval learning. It is closely connected with the emerging from the VIII-IX centuries. education system in the West. However, this and new stage in the development of the spiritual culture of Europe, which replaced patristics. It was based on patristic literature, being at the same time a completely original and specific cultural formation.

In the educational centers of the era of early Christianity, scholastics were called teachers of schools established by the church, therefore, the term "scholasticism" eventually began to denote a whole range of phenomena that characterized intellectual life mainly the Roman Catholic Church for several centuries.

The following periodization of scholasticism was adopted. The first stage - from the VI to the IX century. - preliminary. The second stage - from the 9th to the 12th centuries. - a period of intensive formation. The third stage - XIII century. - "golden age of scholasticism". The fourth stage - XIV-XV centuries. - the extinction of scholasticism.

Each of the stages can be associated with the personalities of the thinkers who most vividly express its features. The first period is vividly represented by I.S. Eriugena (d. c. 877); the second is Anselm of Canterbury (d. 1109) and Pierre Abelard (d. 1142); third - Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) and Bonaventure (1221-1274); the fourth - W. Ockham (c. 1285-1349).

Scholastic learning in practice was a series of steps, climbing which the student could reach the highest. in monasteries and church schools studied the "seven liberal arts". Universities provided an even higher level of training.

The first universities arose in the 12th century. in Paris and Bologna. In the XIII-XV centuries. Europe is covered with a whole network of universities. The need for them was determined primarily by the needs and tasks of the church.

In most cases, universities directly relied on the support of church authorities. The main goal of university science was the study and interpretation of Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition (ie, the works of the Holy Fathers of the Church). The interpretation of sacred texts was the exclusive prerogative of the church and associated university scholars in order to prevent the spread of ignorant judgments about the Christian faith. In accordance with the main task, most universities included two faculties - the faculty of liberal arts and the faculty of theology (theology). The first was a necessary preparatory step for the second.

The Faculty of Theology aimed at the accurate study of the Bible through its interpretation and the systematic exposition of Christian doctrine. The result of this work was the so-called "Sums of theology". Only those who had previously studied at the faculty of liberal arts became masters of theology.

In addition to the direct results of the activities of scientists, the development of universities has led to a number of effects that can be called side effects. However, they were of great importance for medieval and subsequent European culture. First, universities contributed to smoothing out social contradictions, since access to them was open to people of all estates and classes. In addition, students from poor families could count on material support for the entire period of study. Many of them subsequently reached great heights both in learning and in social status. Secondly, university students and professors in their totality constituted a special estate - a corporation of people of different origins. Origin within this corporation ceased to play the decisive role that it played in medieval society as a whole. Knowledge and intellect came to the fore. In this environment, a new understanding of nobility arose - nobility not by blood and wealth, but by mind. Such nobility was associated with the refinement of the mind and behavior, the subtlety of the psyche and the refinement of taste.

Finally, university scholarship and knowledge did not in any way set up opposition and rebelliousness. On the contrary, the medieval student and professor are precisely those who are most interested in the stability of the existing order and in its gradual moral improvement. The university class was not split off from society, but represented one of its fundamental pillars. The respect for knowledge and culture formed by medieval universities played a role in subsequent history.

SPECIFICITY OF MEDIEVAL SCHOLASTICS

Medieval philosophy entered the history of thought under the name of scholasticism, which has long been used in a common sense as a symbol of empty verbiage divorced from reality. And there are certainly reasons for this.

The main distinguishing feature of scholasticism is that it consciously considers itself as a science placed at the service of theology, as a "servant of theology."

5th - 15th centuries considered to be the period of medieval scholasticism. The dominant religion of this era was Christianity. The clergy played a significant role in society. Monasteries were fortresses, centers of agriculture and at the same time centers of education and culture. The slow pace of development of feudal society contributed to the emergence of a misconception about it as a period of stagnation and even regression compared to the level of ancient slave society. In fact, scientific and philosophical knowledge was largely preserved and continued to develop.

In our time, the word "scholasticism" has taken on a connotation of something very bad. When they wanted to scold something in the field of science, teaching, they said: “Well, this is something scholastic. This is a real scholasticism!”. Indeed, the word "scholasticism" has become a swear word. Meanwhile, scholasticism was the main type of philosophizing in the Middle Ages. And here it must be said that although there were some features in scholasticism that are unusual, unpleasant, alien to us, in fact it was of great importance, we can say that it was a deeply progressive phenomenon. This was by no means a reactionary phenomenon, as was commonly believed, but a phenomenon that greatly contributed to the development of human thought. And this can be confirmed with one simple example. It was in those countries where scholasticism existed that science began to develop.

Scholasticism proper begins in the 11th century. The word itself comes from (schola) - a school that came into the Latin language from Greek, and it is no coincidence that the emergence of scholasticism is associated with the development of cities and various schools from monastic and episcopal to all kinds of secular, legal, medical, mathematical (Chartres school). There were teachers, doctors, lawyers, in a word, intellectuals. Geometry and dialectics began to be used to comprehend God through inner experience. First, the text of the patristic authorities or the Holy Scripture itself, (lectio), was read, the reading was accompanied by exegesis, interpretation, both literal and semantic, where all the “for” and “against” (pro and contra), “sic et non” (yes and no ). This is how the dispute began, in which logical techniques were honed, mastery of the word, which was given great importance, was improved, the nature of speech was clarified. Medieval scholastics were convinced that it was possible to achieve rational knowledge about the existent, primarily about the beginning of the existent God, and to prove his existence with the help of logical methods.

Scholasticism seeks to answer the central question of the philosophical thought of the entire Middle Ages - the relationship between the truths of faith and reason. Comprehension of this problem led to the formation of 3 positions in assessing the status and role of philosophy.

Firstly, early Christian patristics declared the absolute incompatibility of religious faith with the ideas of the human mind (“I believe because it is absurd” - Tertullian). The consequence of this approach was the open rejection of philosophy by early medieval culture.

Secondly, during the development of scholasticism, attempts are made to harmoniously combine religion and philosophy, subordinating the latter to the authority of Holy Scripture (“I believe in order to understand” - Anselm of Canterbury, John Scot Eriugena).

Thirdly, in late medieval scholasticism, a desire was manifested to present philosophy as an area of ​​human knowledge independent of religion. Philosophy is called upon to substantiate religious dogmas, translate them into a conceptual language, subject them to logical analysis (“I understand in order to believe” - Pierre Abelard)

In other words, scholasticism is a type of philosophizing in which, by means of reason, medieval thinkers seek to substantiate ideas, formulations, and postulates taken on faith.

THOMAS AQUINA - THE SYSTEMATIZER OF MEDIEVAL SCHOLASTICS

One of the most prominent representatives of medieval scholasticism was the Dominican monk Thomas Aquinas (1225/26 - 1274), a student of the famous medieval theologian, philosopher and naturalist Albert the Great (1193-1280). Like his teacher, Thomas tried to substantiate the basic principles of Christian theology, based on the teachings of Aristotle. At the same time, the latter was transformed by him in such a way that it would not conflict with the dogmas of the creation of the world from nothing and with the teaching of the God-manhood of Jesus Christ. “Like Augustine and Boethius, in Thomas the highest principle is being itself.” By being, Thomas means the Christian God who created the world, as is told in the Old Testament. Distinguishing being and essence (existence and vanity), Thomas nevertheless does not oppose them, but, following Aristotle, emphasizes their abundant root. Essences, or substances, have, according to Thomas, an independent existence, in contrast to accidents (properties, qualities), which exist only due to substances. From this a distinction is drawn between the so-called substantial and accidental forms.

The purpose of the teachings of Thomas is to show that faith and reason are not different, but form a unity, harmonically agree with each other. Moving towards the truth, reason can come into conflict with the dogma of faith. According to Thomas, in this case reason is mistaken, since there are no mistakes in divine revelation. But philosophy and religion have common provisions, so there are truths of the mind, and it is better to understand than just to believe. There are truths that reason cannot reach, and there are truths that it can reach. For example, that there is a God. But to comprehend this truth is difficult. For those who do not want to take on this work, God has shown mercy and saving foresight, attributing to accept on faith and what the mind is able to investigate. Now everyone can be involved in God.

Essence and existence really coincide only in God. In other things, essence differs from existence.

The unity of faith and reason in Thomas is achieved by proof of the existence of God. In his opinion, the existence of God, as long as it is not self-evident, must be proved to us through our own means accessible to our knowledge.

One of the main things that occupied the mind of St. Thomas was the theme of the relationship between theology and philosophy.

In the 13th century, it became quite clear that the demarcation of philosophy and theology outlined by Abelard had become a fait accompli, and the problem was to correlate them, to reveal the role of philosophy in the rational justification of theology. Both of them appear to be sciences, i.e. knowledge systems based on certain principles. But the principles of philosophy and theology are independent of each other. A number of truths of theology (trinity, resurrection, annunciation, etc.) are super-rational, others lend themselves to rational justification, first of all, the existence of God. But suprarational (revealed) and natural knowledge do not contradict each other, since the truth is one. Cognition by rational means is inferior to Revelation only in the speed of comprehension and in the purity of the knowledge received: would be accessible to a few, and not immediately, moreover, with an admixture of numerous delusions ... "

Thomas gives five proofs.

1. From the concept of movement.

It is beyond doubt and confirmed by the senses that something is moving in this world. But everything that moves has a source of movement. Therefore, there must be a prime mover, since there cannot be an infinite chain of moving objects. It cannot be otherwise, since nothing itself moves: the staff communicates movement, since we ourselves are moved by the hand. And the prime mover is God.

2. From the concept of producing cause.

Every phenomenon has a cause. Climbing the ladder of causes, we come to the idea of ​​the necessity of the existence of God as the supreme cause of all real phenomena and processes, for it is impossible for a thing to be its own producing cause. And if the series of causes went to infinity, then there would be no final effect. And this is false.

3. From the concept of possibility and necessity.

People see things come and go. Sooner or later they will pass into oblivion. But if everything can be, or maybe not be, then someday there will be nothing in the world. If that's the case, then there shouldn't be anything right now. But since not everything that exists is accidental, it means that something in the world must be necessary, which must have an external cause of its necessity. And since there can be no infinity, it means that it is necessary to assume some necessary essence - God.

4. From various degrees in things.

People find perfect, true things in things. But how much better they are, we can say if there is an approximation to some limit. Hence, that which has this ultimate quality has the cause of this quality. Thus, fire is the cause of everything warm. This means that there is some entity that is the cause for all entities. This is God.

5. Based on the routine of nature.

All objects devoid of reason are subject to expediency. All their actions are directed to the best outcome. From here they reach the goal not by chance, but being led by a conscious will. Since they themselves are devoid of understanding, they can obey expediency only insofar as they are guided by someone endowed with reason. This means that there is a rational being who sets a goal for everything that happens in nature. This is God.

As you can see, the first three proofs are based on the belief that there is no infinity. Recognition of its existence immediately makes these proofs false. The fourth argument rests on what itself needs to be proved: why the cause of essence is needed. The fifth proof is based on the belief that everything unreasonable does not exist. And this still needs to be proven. But even if all the evidence of Thomas Aquinas is wrong, this cannot serve as a refutation of the existence of God.

In his philosophical system, Thomas recognizes not only the primacy of God, but also the existence of a hierarchy of pure spirits, or angels, as well as various souls. God is pure actuality, being itself, the root cause and prototype of everything. There is not a single edge of matter in him, he is a clot of energy, dynamism, and he distributes being so that separate things appear.

This is how Thomas understands God as the root cause and prototype of all things: “... God is the root cause of all things as their pattern. To make this clear, it should be borne in mind that in order to produce a thing, a pattern is needed, i.e. insofar as the product must follow a certain form. In fact, the master produces in matter a certain form in accordance with the pattern he observes, whether it be an externally contemplated pattern or one that is conceived in the bowels of the mind. Meanwhile, it is obvious that all natural creations follow certain forms. But this certainty of forms must be traced back to its origin, to the divine wisdom that conceived the world order, which consists in the diversity of things. And therefore it must be said that in divine wisdom are the designs of all things, which we have called ideas, or exemplary forms in the mind of God. However, these latter, although they are split in a plurality in their application to things, nevertheless they are not something really different from the divine essence, in the likeness of which different things can participate in different ways. So, God himself is the primary pattern of everything.”

But unlike many Christian thinkers who taught that God directly rules the world, Thomas corrects the interpretation of God's influence on nature. He introduces the concept of natural (instrumental) causes by which God controls physical processes. Thus, Thomas unwittingly expands the field of activity for natural science. It turns out that science can be useful to people, as it allows them to improve technology.

The theoretical constructions of Thomas Aquinas have become canonical for Catholicism. At present, in a modified form, his philosophy functions in the Christian world as neo-Thomism, the official doctrine of the Vatican.

PHILOSOPHY AND THEOLOGY

During the heyday of the scholastic systems, philosophy and theology actually passed one into the other. However, the difference in their nature had to show itself - and by the end of the Middle Ages, theology and philosophy are already sharply separated from each other.

Medieval thought clearly understood the difference between these areas. Philosophy was based on natural-reasonable principles and evidence, or, as they said then, on "natural light", while theology was based on divine revelation, which was supernatural. Truth is inherent in philosophical teachings, in comparison with revelation, to an insignificant extent; showing to what limits of knowledge a person can reach with his natural powers, philosophy at the same time gives proof that it cannot satisfy the desire of our mind for the contemplation of God and eternal bliss, and that the help of supernatural revelation is needed here.

The scholastics honored the ancient philosophers as people who had reached the pinnacle of natural knowledge, but this does not mean that the philosophers have exhausted all the truth possible for man: the advantage of theology over philosophy lies both in the fact that it has the highest principle of knowledge, and in the fact that it possesses higher truths, which the mind cannot reach by itself. These revealed truths among the scholastics actually constituted the essential content of their systems, while philosophy served only as an auxiliary means for the tasks of theology. That is why they said that philosophy is the servant of theology (lat. ancilla theologiae). She was such a servant in two respects: firstly, she gave theology a scientific form; secondly, from it theology extracted those truths of reason on the basis of which it could rise to the speculative understanding of Christian mysteries, as far as it is generally accessible to the human spirit. At the beginning of the scholastic period, philosophical thought was not yet in slavish subordination to church teaching.

The view of philosophy as the servant of theology, although not strictly carried out by all scholastics, nevertheless expressed, one might say, the dominant trend of the times. The tone and direction of all spiritual life in the Middle Ages was given by the church. Naturally, at this time, philosophy also takes a theological direction, and its fate is associated with the fate of the hierarchy: with the rise of the latter, it reaches its highest flowering, with its fall, it falls.

Due to the fact that theology is the highest wisdom, the ultimate object of which is exclusively God as the "first cause" of the universe, a wisdom independent of all other knowledge, Thomas does not separate science from theology. In essence, Aquinas' concept of science was an ideological reaction to rationalistic tendencies aimed at freeing science from the influence of theology. True, it can be said that he separates theology from science in the epistemological sense, that is, he believes that theology draws its truths not from philosophy, not from particular disciplines, but exclusively from revelation. Thomas could not stop at this, for this was not what theology required. Such a point of view only confirmed the superiority of theology, and its independence from other sciences, but it did not solve the most significant task for that time that faced the Roman curia, namely the need to subordinate the developing scientific trend to theology, especially the trend with natural science orientation. It was, first of all, about proving the non-autonomy of science, turning it into a "servant" of theology, emphasizing that any human activity, both theoretical and practical, ultimately comes from theology and comes down to it.

In accordance with these requirements, Aquinas develops the following theoretical principles that determine the general line of the church on the issue of the relationship between theology and science:

1. Philosophy and particular sciences perform auxiliary functions in relation to theology. The expression of this principle is the well-known position of Thomas that theology "does not follow other sciences as higher in relation to it, but resorts to them as to its subordinate servants." Their use, in his opinion, is not evidence of self-sufficiency or weakness of theology, but, on the contrary, follows from the wretchedness of the human mind. Rational knowledge in a secondary way facilitates the understanding of the well-known dogmas of faith, brings closer to the knowledge of the "first cause" of the universe, that is, God;

2. The truths of theology have their source in revelation, the truths of science - sensory experience and reason. Thomas claims that from the point of view of the method of obtaining the truth, knowledge can be divided into 2 types: knowledge discovered by the natural light of reason, such as arithmetic, and knowledge that draws its foundations from revelation;

3. There is an area of ​​some objects common to theology and science. Foma believes that the same problem can serve as the subject of study of various sciences. But there are certain truths which cannot be proven by reason, and therefore they belong exclusively to the realm of theology. To these truths, Aquinas referred the following dogmas of faith: the dogma of the resurrection, the history of the incarnation, the holy trinity, the creation of the world in time, and so on;

4. The provisions of science cannot contradict the dogmas of faith. Science must indirectly serve theology, must convince people of the justice of its principles. The desire to know God is true wisdom. And knowledge is only the servant of theology. Philosophy, for example, relying on physics, must construct evidence for the existence of God, the task of paleontology is to confirm the Book of Genesis, and so on.

In connection with these, Aquinas writes: "I think about the body in order to think about the soul, and I think about it in order to think about a separate substance, I think about it in order to think about God."

If rational knowledge does not fulfill this task, it becomes useless, moreover, it degenerates into dangerous reasoning. In case of conflict, the decisive criterion is the truths of revelation, which surpass in their truth and value any rational evidence.

Thus, Thomas did not separate science from theology, but, on the contrary, completely subordinated it to theology.

The dispute between representatives of scholasticism and mysticism about the most effective means of introducing people to religion at the level of philosophy and theology resulted in a dispute about best forms and methods of defense and justification of the Christian worldview. Different approaches to solving these issues have formulated two main trends: religious intellectualism and religious anti-intellectualism.

In religious intellectualism, the desire to rely on the rational principle in human consciousness, to appeal to social and intellectual experience, and common sense is clearly expressed. The goal of intellectualism is to develop in a person a conscious perception of religious dogma, based not only on authority, but also supported by reasonable arguments. Representatives of intellectualism, to a certain extent, allow the participation of reason and the means of theoretical analysis and evaluation associated with it in the religious life of people. They strive to put reason at the service of faith, to reconcile science and religion, to make the most of the possibilities of rational means of influencing a person.

In contrast to religious intellectualism, representatives of religious anti-intellectualism believe that the rational approach to religion, which contains the moment of coercion and obligation for God, excludes creativity, freedom, arbitrariness, omnipotence in it. The actions of God, from the point of view of anti-intellectualists, are not subject to the laws of reason. God is absolutely free, his actions are absolutely unpredictable. On the way to God, reason is a hindrance. To come to God, you need to forget everything that you knew, to forget even in general that there can be knowledge. Anti-intellectualism cultivates blind and unthinking faith among adherents of religion.

The struggle between religious intellectualism and religious anti-intellectualism runs like a red thread through the entire history of medieval philosophy. However, at each specific historical stage of history, this struggle had its own characteristics. Representatives of anti-intellectualism took a negative position in relation to ancient culture. They sought to discredit it in the eyes of their adherents as false, contradictory in nature views, leading people away from their true purpose - "the salvation of their souls."

The negative position of anti-intellectualism in relation to ancient culture was partly explained by the fact that in the Christian communities at the first stage, the absolute majority were illiterate, poorly educated people. The position that the truth proclaimed in Christianity is complete and final, sufficient to solve all the problems of human existence, to a certain extent satisfied its adherents and ensured the functioning of Christianity in society. However, the ideologists of Christianity constantly sought to expand the social base of the new religion. They wanted to win over the educated strata of Roman society: the patricians, the intelligentsia. The solution of this problem required a change in policy towards ancient culture, a transition from confrontation to assimilation.

Representatives of intellectualism believed that conceptually rational means of influence should not be cast aside, much less left in the hands of enemies. They must be placed in the service of Christianity. As noted by V. V. Sokolov, Justin already outlined a conciliatory line in relation to Hellenistic philosophy. Orientation towards familiarization with ancient culture finds its highest expression in the theory developed by Augustine about the harmony of faith and reason. Augustine demands the recognition of two ways of introducing people to religion: conceptually rational (logical thinking, achievements of science and philosophy) and non-rational (the authority of the “Holy Scripture” of the church, emotions and feelings). But these paths, from his point of view, are unequal. Augustine gives undeniable priority to irrational means. “Not by human teaching, but by inner light, as well as by the power of the highest love, Christ could turn people to the saving faith.” According to the views of Augustine, religious faith does not imply rational justification in the sense that in order to accept certain provisions of religion, it is necessary to know, understand, and have evidence. In the realm of religious life, one should simply believe without requiring any proof.

At the same time, Augustine is clearly aware of the important role played by rational means of influence. Therefore, he considers it necessary to strengthen faith with the evidence of reason, he advocates an internal connection between faith and knowledge. The healing of the soul, according to him, breaks down into authority and reason. Authority requires faith and prepares a person for reason. Reason leads to understanding and knowledge. Although reason is not the highest authority, the known and clarified truth is the highest authority. Reason obedient to religion and faith supported by reasonable arguments - such is the ideal of Augustinian apologetics. However, it should be noted that the theory of the harmony of faith and reason presented by Augustine does not allow for the possibility, at least to some extent, of making faith dependent on reason. The decisive importance in his system, without any doubt, is given to revelation.

Augustine created his theory of the harmony of faith and reason in the IV-V centuries. in the early period of Christian history. In the XI-XII centuries. in the struggle for ideological dominance in society, free-thinking, which originated in the depths of feudal culture, begins to exert an ever-increasing influence. The emergence of medieval freethinking is associated with a number of objective factors: the separation of crafts from the peasant economy and the development of cities on this basis, which gradually become an essential factor in medieval life. A secular culture began to take shape in the cities. One of the most important consequences of this factor is that the church has ceased to be the absolute bearer of education and education. In connection with the development of crafts and trade among the urban population, the need for knowledge of law, medicine, and technology is increasing. There are private law schools that are under the control of the church, the city government.

In an effort to make theology a science, the scholastics raised the question not only of how science could be, but also of why it should be? In cognition it is necessary to distinguish between its content and activity. Among the scholastics, this distinction stood firm because they found an analogy to it in faith, where the objective side differs (Lat. fides quae creditur) and subjective (lat. fides qua creditur). The content of the Christian faith is unchanging, while the act of believing and the ways of perceiving its content change according to the diversity of believers. Scripture calls the content of faith substance, and this definition proved fruitful for the scholastic doctrine of science.

“Substance,” says Thomas, “means the first principle of every thing, especially in the case where the latter is potentially contained in the first principle and completely proceeds from it; we say, for example, that the first unprovable principles form the substance of science, because they are in us the very first element of this science and potentially contain all science. In this sense, faith also means the substance of "things that are trusted."

The similarity between science and faith lies, therefore, in the organic structure of both, in the growth of both of them from the germs of thought. The known and the knowing spirit are mutually subordinate to each other. In the latter lie the germs that develop in contact with the content of knowledge. Science receives its fulfillment if the spirit is likened to the content of knowledge, or, what is the same, if the seal of the spirit is imprinted on the latter. The Scholastics see the last foundation of such agreement between thinking and the conceivable in the ideas that are in the mind of God: ideas in God are the last foundation of everything cognizable; universalia ante rem - the assumption of universalia in re; the highest view of the fundamental sciences is given in the sunshine of divine truth.

Therefore, the subject of science is not things as separate, sensuous, changeable things, but the general and necessary in things. Knowledge of the individual, as given by sense perception, has its significance not in itself, but only for the sake of practical needs.

Another conclusion from this concept of science is that although science is directed towards the general, its object is not general concepts in themselves, but things that are thought through them: only logic is an exception here. Such definitions provide science with its real content. However, this can only be said about the direction of medieval thought, which is called realism: scholastic realism understands the general as really existing in things, while another, opposite to it, direction - nominalism - puts only concepts, words and names as the content of knowledge.

The third consequence is that there are many sciences, since there are many things that can be their subject. Scholastics attached moral significance not only to knowledge of the individual as a condition of private actions, but also to science as a whole, and thus thought to answer the question why science should be .. Human things serve as a specific object of science, while divine things serve as the object of wisdom.

Medieval scholasticism was divided into two lines of thought: one, without showing creativity, faithfully preserved the acquisitions of the flourishing period - the other showed signs of self-decomposition. In addition to the internal cause of the fall of scholasticism, there were other factors that contributed to it - the arousal of interest in the study of nature and the revival of the knowledge of antiquity. Both the one and the other should have been favored by the intensified from the 13th century. study of Aristotelian philosophy. The theological character of education still dominated the school; all institutions whose influence was reflected in the direction of the minds were under the jurisdiction of the church: only because scholasticism was disintegrating in itself, could another direction prevail. The disintegration of scholasticism was revealed in the 14th century, in the solution of the old philosophical question of universals. Until the XIV century. realism prevailed; now the preponderance is shifting to the side of nominalism.

Arguing that in general concepts we cognize not the true being of things and not the true thoughts of God, but only subjective abstractions, words and signs, nominalism denied any meaning behind philosophy, which, from its point of view, is only the art of linking these signs into positions and conclusions. It cannot judge the correctness of the propositions themselves; knowledge of true things, individuals, it cannot deliver. This teaching, fundamentally skeptical, drew a gulf between theology and secular science. Every worldly thought is vanity; it deals with the sensible, but the sensible is only an appearance. Only the inspired mind of theology teaches true principles; only through him do we learn to know God, who is the individual and at the same time the common ground of all things and therefore exists in all things. This is contrary to the principle of secular science, according to which no thing can be simultaneously in many things; but we know it by revelation, we must believe it.

Thus, two truths, natural and supernatural, are placed in the sharpest contrast with one another: one knows only phenomena, the other knows their supernatural foundations. Theology is a practical science; it teaches us the commandments of God, opens the way to the salvation of the soul. And just as spiritual and worldly science differ deeply, so must worldly and spiritual life be separated. The most ardent nominalist, William of Ockham, belonged to the strictest Franciscans, who, having taken a vow of poverty, did not put up with the modus operandi of papal authority. The truly spiritual must renounce all worldly possessions, because he regards the phenomena of sensual life as nothing. The hierarchy must therefore renounce temporal power: the worldly and spiritual kingdoms must be separated; their confusion leads to disasters. The spiritual realm has precedence over the worldly, just as truth has precedence over manifestation.

The doctrine of the spiritual and secular state is brought here to extreme limits, after which a turn had to follow, since the complete separation of spiritual and secular power is incompatible with the concept of hierarchy. Nominalism could not become a general view, but it achieved wide circulation, attracted mysticism, akin to it in its disgust for worldly fuss, and shook scholastic systems in a dispute with realism. He turned the systematic trend of medieval philosophy into a polemical one. The dispute between nominalists and realists was not carried out consistently and did not produce fruitful results: excommunications took the place of arguments. The nominalism of the Middle Ages had only a negative meaning for philosophy. He separated scientific research from theology, because he rejected the secular sciences of any significance for the spiritual life. Under his influence in the XIV table. the Faculty of Philosophy, in its search for truth, not only separated by name from the theological. Philosophical research has gained more freedom, but lost in content.

The formalism with which scholasticism is reproached is now indeed the predominant one in a philosophy which is occupied almost exclusively with logical forms. Here lie the beginnings of religious indifference in the development of secular science; it rests on the principle of separating the spiritual and the secular realm.

CONCLUSION

Summing up the general results, we can say that in the Middle Ages a specific consciousness was developed, which is a kind of synthesis of reason and faith, which resulted in theology and scholasticism. Within the framework of this synthesis, all the problems of being, spirituality, culture, etc. were posed and solved in their own way. This does not exclude the absence of contradictions within medieval consciousness. Moreover, the very practice of implementing theological ideas and prescriptions is filled, as we know from history, with cruel and bloody events. In part, this may be evidence of the fragility of medieval consciousness. For us, living in the 21st century, many aspects of medieval philosophy can become instructive both in a negative and in a positive sense.

Today, for example, the theory of dual truth, expressed in the XIII century, looks not so absurd. Seeger of Brebansky and William of Ockham. This also applies to the aesthetic ideas of Ulrich of Strasbourg (13th century), as well as his predecessors Aurelius Augustine and Pseudo-Dionysius, which together served as a fruitful basis for subsequent aesthetic theories. From the method of exegesis (interpretation of the texts of scriptures) subsequently arose modern science hermeneutics. Examples can be continued. The history of medieval philosophy can be an interesting subject for independent study, especially since new publications contribute to this.

LIST OF USED LITERATURE

1. Kuznetsov V. G., Kuznetsova I. D., Mironov V. V., Momdzhan K. Kh. Philosophy. Textbook. – M.: INFRA-M, 1999.

2. Russell B. History of Western Philosophy. - M., 2001.

3. Spirkin A.G. Philosophy: Textbook for universities. - M., 1999.

medieval philosophy

Main characteristic medieval philosophy Western Europe is an relationship between religion and philosophy. Medieval philosophy was Christian in its intentions (goals) and developed mainly by clerics (clergymen). The Christian picture of the world, new ideas about God, man and causality had a decisive influence on medieval thought and set its main theme. This does not mean that in the Middle Ages thinking was dogmatically unified (uniform). The presence of various philosophical trends, the dispute between them, the discussion of their theses by church authorities testify that thinking moved along the paths culturally set by Christianity and independent of the church.

Depending on the tasks facing philosophical thought, as well as the main questions and answers to them, medieval philosophy is divided into two large stages: patristics (about II-VIII centuries) and scholasticism (VIII-XV centuries).

Despite the fact that the first period of development of medieval philosophy - patristics - chronologically coincides with the era of antiquity; in terms of its subject matter, it no longer belongs to ancient, but to medieval culture. The need to demarcate the ancient tradition, the desire to protect the Christian teaching from paganism, strengthening it with the help of ancient thought set the pathos of philosophizing of this time. The Church Fathers, whose works later came to be considered the conceptual basis of Christian doctrine, solved the problem of the relationship between Christianity and the ancient philosophical heritage, using the language of the Neoplatonists. The latter led to the fact that in Christian teaching they noticed and brought to the fore such ideas as the dogma of the Trinity, the doctrine of the primacy of the soul over the body and the spiritual over the created.

The most significant and influential representative of the Christian philosophy of the era of patristics was Augustine Aurelius (354-430 AD). His works, permeated with Neoplatonism, are one of the main sources of medieval thought. In addition, in his reflections on experience, consciousness and time, there are already approaches that largely set the themes for the philosophizing of modern times and modernity.

Augustine offers his own solution to the question of the relationship between faith and knowledge, which is significant for the entire medieval tradition: in faith a person can develop his cognitive abilities, while knowledge confirms faith. The search for the prerequisites of knowledge leads Augustine to the conviction that knowledge is justified internal self-reliance of consciousness. In search of knowledge one should not go outside. Delving into himself, a person will find supra-individual and timeless truths (for example, the idea of ​​unity, the idea of ​​equality, the principles of logic), the source of which is not sensory experience, but divine radiation (illumination).

Philosophy of the scholastic era

Scholasticism (from lat. school- school) arises as a rationalization of Christian doctrine. The goal of scholasticism is to streamline dogmatics and make it easy for the "simple" (illiterate people) to perceive. Philosophy was recognized as the main means of streamlining Christian dogma for the following reasons:

With the help of reason it is easier to penetrate into the truths of faith;

By using philosophical arguments, criticism of holy truths can be avoided;

With the help of philosophy, one can give a systematic form to religious truths and create a fully demonstrative system of philosophical doctrine.

The ancient sources of scholastic thought are the Neoplatonic tradition, Augustine, Boethius. Later I became normative "rediscovered", newly read works of Aristotle.

Early scholasticism is associated with a revival of interest in knowledge. Thinking at that time was characterized by greater independence in posing questions.

Among the main problems of early scholasticism were the following:

The relationship of faith and knowledge;

The problem of universals;

Harmonization of Aristotelian logic and other forms of knowledge;

Reconciliation of mysticism and religious experience.

The most famous thinker of early scholasticism - Anselm , archbishop Canterbury (1033-1109). According to Anselm, true thinking cannot be contrary to faith. The truths of faith are substantiated by natural reason. Faith, however, must precede reason. Anselm owns the ontological proof being of God.

Interest in the work of Boethius sparked a controversy about universals. Do universal definitions, i.e., genera and species, correspond to reality in itself, or do they exist only in thought? This controversy led to the spread of the scholastic method and became the main theme of philosophizing for several centuries. Three points of view were ultimately expressed in the discussion:

extreme realism, who argued (thus continuing the Platonic line of philosophizing) that universals, i.e., genera and species, exist before things, as real entities;

extreme nominalism(from lat. nomen- name), who insisted (going back to the Stoic tradition) that genera and ides exist after things, as common names;

moderate realism, which relied on the Aristotelian tradition - genera and species exist in the things themselves.

The heyday of scholasticism (XIII century) is associated with the emergence of universities. The creation and development of these higher educational institutions, the existence of qualified teachers led to the emergence of major systematic works.

The image of high scholasticism is formed by the reception (borrowing and adaptation) of the works of Aristotle, which occurred due to a new acquaintance with his texts through translations from Arabic, and then directly from Greek. The works of Aristotle, together with Arabic writings about the philosopher himself, as well as commentaries on his works, are included in university use. The Arab neoplatonic reception of Aristotle himself and the neoplatonist positions of the writings attributed to Aristotle led to a pantheistic perception of the scientist. Church authorities opposed such an understanding of Aristotle, up to the prohibition of reading and commenting on his works. But not a single thinker could do without the founder of the new knowledge of Aristotle. Thus, the development of high scholasticism is marked by the "argument about Aristotle". In this dispute, members of Catholic orders opposed each other. Franciscans, oriented towards Augustism, and Dominicans Aristotelian orientation. In addition, in the scholastic tradition, the development of the Neoplatonic, natural science and logical trends should be noted.

Merged together Aristotelianism, Neoplatonism and Augustianism became the basis of the teachings of the great systematist of the Middle Ages Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), who made an influential attempt to streamline the connection between Aristotelianism and Christian philosophy.

Thomas gave his own answer to the question of the relationship between faith and reason. Faith and reason cannot contradict each other, since both come from God. Theology (theology) and philosophy cannot come to different conclusions. They differ, however, in their approaches: philosophy goes to God from created things, theology from God to the created world. God's revelation communicates to people only those truths that are necessary for their salvation. Therefore, there is room for self-exploration of things that are not explained by revelation. It is this space that philosophy masters, providing and protecting the foundations of faith.

Main idea Thomist(from lat. Thomas- Foma) ontology is complete the order of all being. Each being is given by God his position and his purpose is determined in the order of being. Everything created is inherent in the difference between being and essence. Only in God does his being coincide with his essence.

Epoch late scholasticism can be described as the era of the decline of medieval philosophizing. Nominalism criticized the metaphysical systems of the old schools, but gave no new ideas. The old schools, in the dispute about the nature of general concepts, defended the position of moderate realism. They were represented both by the later Thomists (followers of the teachings of Thomas Aquinas) and by the school Johann Duns Scott (c. 1266-1308). Nominalism came to the idea of ​​removing the synthesis of faith and knowledge. English philosopher and ecclesiastical political writer William of Ockham (c. 1285-1349) suggested that the subject matter of the real sciences is not the things themselves, but the terms of the sentence as representatives of things.

The development of nominalism is accompanied by the flourishing of natural science, especially in Paris and Oxford. In addition, it should be noted that the development of scholasticism does not stop there. Though new European scholasticism increasingly losing the continuity of the tradition, it continued to be developed during the 16th and 17th centuries, especially in Spain and Italy, as a reaction to the Reformation and the Renaissance. In the 19th century there is a so-called neoscholasticism.