Good video, but in my experience (as a Catholic with a background in philosophy who interacts with plenty of people both scholars and regular Catholics, who identify as neoscholastics or Thomists), there isnt really a claim to the uniformity of scholastic thought and actually sometimes there's an attempt to blaim the Fransiscan nominalists (scotus and occam mostly) for starting the decline of philosophy. There is also a mystique surrounding his rolivalry with Bonaventure who worked with him at the University of Paris. Honestly the vast majority of the attention is paid to Aquinas himself and if there is attention paid to a coherent trajectory it would probably start with Aquinas' teacher Albertus Magnus, go to Thomas Aquinas, skip to maybe a few Spanish Scholastics in the Early Modern period, maybe Bellarmine, then probably Pope Leo XII and Garrigou-Lagrange, cited along the way, but Aquinas overshadows all of those figures combined
Interesting point of view. The neo-scholastic movement I was mentioning occurred originally around 100 years ago. I would expect modern adherents to have a more nuanced view.
@@CarneadesOfCyrene Garigou Lagrange is the most influential figure to come out of that movementband he's still prettu influential, but Aquinas is still the most influential figure. There was also a Trancendental movement called Transcendental Thomism which took insights from and Kant and Existentialism, but went in its own direction. Contemporary Neo Thomists still do develop the thought further but it tends to be trying to appropriate the framework to deal with modern questions in things like philosophy of evolution, creation, science, bioethics, etc. With the exception of a few figures Ed Feser or possibly Alister McIntyre contemporary Neo Scholasticism is a tragically insular tradition. The other 2 somewhat noteworthy strands are analytic Thomism which tries to merge the insights of Thomisms and Analytic philosophy, which peaked in influence with GEM Anscombe, but has some noteworthy projects like applyong contemporary modal logic to Aquinas' thought, and Thomistic Personalism, which attempts to ground ethics and meaning in interpersonal relationships. John Paul II is viewed as the main departure point for that and is part of why he was elected Pope. Overall though there is an annoying amount of people who think nothing of value has occured in Philosophy in the last 800 years, and that we just need to engage with Aquinas and ignore or refute every thought that came after him
@@forthrightgambitia1032 he gets some attention. More in theological questions than in philosophical ones. He also gets brought up in comparison to Aquinas because they were friends both at University of Paris at the same time. He also gets some attention from Franscicans, but overall he gets less than 5% of the attention that Aquinas gets. There are also 37 Doctors pf the Church. Although all of them will have scholars who focus on them, ot all of them can get much wide spread attention
@@eammonful Interesting. Would you say Aquinas gets more attention than Augustus? Becuase if that's the case then that is the polar opposite of Anglican theology which among other things has a strong Augustinian focus. Including in the philosophy studies.
I disagree. You should have considered the broad difference between scholasticism and modernism. Although Christianity for example has many disagreements, for a definition to distinguish it from other religions, you would focus on the basic agreed beliefs and approach of Christianity. Likewise with scholasticism, but you focused on a historical outline rather than a general outline of what scholasticism is.
As I note in the video, there is not a single unifying doctrine that binds together scholasticism beyond the general attempt to unite Christian teachings with the works of the ancient Greeks. The notion that there is a consistent doctrine beyond this general movment that could be juxtaposed with modernism is a disingenuous neo-scholastic fiction. For that matter, I don't think that you could define a single set of beliefs held by all people that identify as Christians, beyond a similarly broad claim (some Unitarian Universalists don't believe in God, but identify with Christianity, Jehovah's Witnesses don't celebrate Easter or Christmas, but identify as Christians, Mormons don't think that the bible is the penultimate holy text, but identify as Christians, etc.). Any definition that you offer will exclude people who call themselves Christians, because Christianity, like scholasticism is a movement, not a doctrine.
@@CarneadesOfCyrene The key definition of scholasticism is that it provides a rational explanation, a super-structure for everything- metaphysics, epistemology,... etc. I can tell you haven't done a good definition because you didn't mention these key areas of study that are synonymous with the medieval period. You focused on the disagreements instead of looking at the general approach of the period.
The SedeVacantIst researcher Richard Ibranyi will tell you what pseudoscholasticism really is: a "mixture" "of" TheoLogy "with" iewist, Greco-Roman, and Mahometan pagan pseudophilosophies and mythologies.
Truly exist an "parallelism" between the external world, our thought about that and language? In latin words, the modi essendi x modi intelligenti x modi prædicandi... There is this "isomorphism" between mode of say, mode of thought about things and mode of being? Grammar, logic or ontological?!
@Keith Jones I agree, No one in their right minds should want to bring back the dark ages of the French Revolution, German National Socialism, Communism, or of any other modernist political project.
@Keith Jones yea cause the universities, the revival of philosphy, and renaissance art, were all totally made by enlightened atheists and totally not made by those superstitious catholics....
@@thegoldenmean3997 The French Revolutionaries were able to commit more atrocities in Vendée during one year than ultra-authoritarian Louis XIV during his 72 years long reign.
@The Golden Mean did you not watch the video. 4:12 The catholic Scholastics literally built all the early Universities in western Europe and translated the philosophical works of ancient Greece without which there wouldn't have been your "enlightenment" And yes those "secular progressives" sure did break free of religious lunatics by painting Christian Artwork in the Vatican...
Hmm. If we are embracing tradition we should drop this newfangled, nonsensical Christianity and go back to the good old days of ancient Greece where we invented things like philosophy, democracy, theatre, etc. :) While religious orders in the West did do a great deal of work to preserve the works of art and philosophy that they had, the Church also actively fought against progress, censoring books, and murdering scientists and philosophers. They forced Abelard to burn his own book. The Index Librorum Prohibitorum dates back to 496. It is inaccurate to paint the Church either as solely the preserver of knowledge or as one engaged in complete and total censorship of all philosophy. That said, while the church did give rise to universities in the high scholastic period, it actively fought against a good deal of the philosophy and art which arose with the renaissance. We are going to do a video on renaissance humanism, the movement that actually brought back the classics (and brought about the enlightenment). It was a movement that included religious and nonreligious thinkers alike, and it was neither inherently religious or nonreligious. Additionally, I am not sure what you mean by modernism. Modernists (as they were referred to in this video) were a movement in the late 1800s and early 1900s in the Catholic church which attempted to reconcile catholic beliefs with modern philosophy and science (similar in some ways to the Scholastics). They tried to reconcile reason and faith. They were not Nazis or communists. They were Catholics, just Catholics that ran afoul of the militant Pope Pius X.
dude. What's the point of showing the text and just reading it word by word in the video. Better just give the PDF to read. Why make a youtube video on this?
Is this for people who can’t read? You put up a load of text and then read it to us out loud! What’s the point in that. So many lazy presentations do this
You have no idea how much I have needed and how long I have waited for a video like this. This video is laughably great. You got a new subscriber!!
Great! Thanks for watching and subscribing!
this video might have just saved my grade. thank gods for random youtube channels that have videos covering the exact thing I need
Good video, but in my experience (as a Catholic with a background in philosophy who interacts with plenty of people both scholars and regular Catholics, who identify as neoscholastics or Thomists), there isnt really a claim to the uniformity of scholastic thought and actually sometimes there's an attempt to blaim the Fransiscan nominalists (scotus and occam mostly) for starting the decline of philosophy. There is also a mystique surrounding his rolivalry with Bonaventure who worked with him at the University of Paris. Honestly the vast majority of the attention is paid to Aquinas himself and if there is attention paid to a coherent trajectory it would probably start with Aquinas' teacher Albertus Magnus, go to Thomas Aquinas, skip to maybe a few Spanish Scholastics in the Early Modern period, maybe Bellarmine, then probably Pope Leo XII and Garrigou-Lagrange, cited along the way, but Aquinas overshadows all of those figures combined
Interesting point of view. The neo-scholastic movement I was mentioning occurred originally around 100 years ago. I would expect modern adherents to have a more nuanced view.
@@CarneadesOfCyrene Garigou Lagrange is the most influential figure to come out of that movementband he's still prettu influential, but Aquinas is still the most influential figure. There was also a Trancendental movement called Transcendental Thomism which took insights from and Kant and Existentialism, but went in its own direction. Contemporary Neo Thomists still do develop the thought further but it tends to be trying to appropriate the framework to deal with modern questions in things like philosophy of evolution, creation, science, bioethics, etc. With the exception of a few figures Ed Feser or possibly Alister McIntyre contemporary Neo Scholasticism is a tragically insular tradition. The other 2 somewhat noteworthy strands are analytic Thomism which tries to merge the insights of Thomisms and Analytic philosophy, which peaked in influence with GEM Anscombe, but has some noteworthy projects like applyong contemporary modal logic to Aquinas' thought, and Thomistic Personalism, which attempts to ground ethics and meaning in interpersonal relationships. John Paul II is viewed as the main departure point for that and is part of why he was elected Pope. Overall though there is an annoying amount of people who think nothing of value has occured in Philosophy in the last 800 years, and that we just need to engage with Aquinas and ignore or refute every thought that came after him
So Bonaventure is completely ignored? It seems strange as he is regarded as a Doctor of the Church too.
@@forthrightgambitia1032 he gets some attention. More in theological questions than in philosophical ones. He also gets brought up in comparison to Aquinas because they were friends both at University of Paris at the same time. He also gets some attention from Franscicans, but overall he gets less than 5% of the attention that Aquinas gets. There are also 37 Doctors pf the Church. Although all of them will have scholars who focus on them, ot all of them can get much wide spread attention
@@eammonful Interesting. Would you say Aquinas gets more attention than Augustus? Becuase if that's the case then that is the polar opposite of Anglican theology which among other things has a strong Augustinian focus. Including in the philosophy studies.
Thank you for this video.
Thank you!
You are welcome. Thanks for watching!
I disagree. You should have considered the broad difference between scholasticism and modernism. Although Christianity for example has many disagreements, for a definition to distinguish it from other religions, you would focus on the basic agreed beliefs and approach of Christianity. Likewise with scholasticism, but you focused on a historical outline rather than a general outline of what scholasticism is.
As I note in the video, there is not a single unifying doctrine that binds together scholasticism beyond the general attempt to unite Christian teachings with the works of the ancient Greeks. The notion that there is a consistent doctrine beyond this general movment that could be juxtaposed with modernism is a disingenuous neo-scholastic fiction.
For that matter, I don't think that you could define a single set of beliefs held by all people that identify as Christians, beyond a similarly broad claim (some Unitarian Universalists don't believe in God, but identify with Christianity, Jehovah's Witnesses don't celebrate Easter or Christmas, but identify as Christians, Mormons don't think that the bible is the penultimate holy text, but identify as Christians, etc.). Any definition that you offer will exclude people who call themselves Christians, because Christianity, like scholasticism is a movement, not a doctrine.
@@CarneadesOfCyrene The key definition of scholasticism is that it provides a rational explanation, a super-structure for everything- metaphysics, epistemology,... etc. I can tell you haven't done a good definition because you didn't mention these key areas of study that are synonymous with the medieval period. You focused on the disagreements instead of looking at the general approach of the period.
0:34 "...herogeneity"? What the hell is that!!!!!
The SedeVacantIst researcher Richard Ibranyi will tell you what pseudoscholasticism really is: a "mixture" "of" TheoLogy "with" iewist, Greco-Roman, and Mahometan pagan pseudophilosophies and mythologies.
Truly exist an "parallelism" between the external world, our thought about that and language? In latin words, the modi essendi x modi intelligenti x modi prædicandi... There is this "isomorphism" between mode of say, mode of thought about things and mode of being? Grammar, logic or ontological?!
An idea for a video: rationality.
Is this supposed to be funny?
Reject Modernity. Embrace Tradition.
@Keith Jones I agree, No one in their right minds should want to bring back the dark ages of the French Revolution, German National Socialism, Communism, or of any other modernist political project.
@Keith Jones yea cause the universities, the revival of philosphy, and renaissance art, were all totally made by enlightened atheists and totally not made by those superstitious catholics....
@@thegoldenmean3997 The French Revolutionaries were able to commit more atrocities in Vendée during one year than ultra-authoritarian Louis XIV during his 72 years long reign.
@The Golden Mean did you not watch the video. 4:12 The catholic Scholastics literally built all the early Universities in western Europe and translated the philosophical works of ancient Greece without which there wouldn't have been your "enlightenment" And yes those "secular progressives" sure did break free of religious lunatics by painting Christian Artwork in the Vatican...
Hmm. If we are embracing tradition we should drop this newfangled, nonsensical Christianity and go back to the good old days of ancient Greece where we invented things like philosophy, democracy, theatre, etc. :)
While religious orders in the West did do a great deal of work to preserve the works of art and philosophy that they had, the Church also actively fought against progress, censoring books, and murdering scientists and philosophers. They forced Abelard to burn his own book. The Index Librorum Prohibitorum dates back to 496. It is inaccurate to paint the Church either as solely the preserver of knowledge or as one engaged in complete and total censorship of all philosophy.
That said, while the church did give rise to universities in the high scholastic period, it actively fought against a good deal of the philosophy and art which arose with the renaissance. We are going to do a video on renaissance humanism, the movement that actually brought back the classics (and brought about the enlightenment). It was a movement that included religious and nonreligious thinkers alike, and it was neither inherently religious or nonreligious.
Additionally, I am not sure what you mean by modernism. Modernists (as they were referred to in this video) were a movement in the late 1800s and early 1900s in the Catholic church which attempted to reconcile catholic beliefs with modern philosophy and science (similar in some ways to the Scholastics). They tried to reconcile reason and faith. They were not Nazis or communists. They were Catholics, just Catholics that ran afoul of the militant Pope Pius X.
dude. What's the point of showing the text and just reading it word by word in the video. Better just give the PDF to read. Why make a youtube video on this?
Is this for people who can’t read? You put up a load of text and then read it to us out loud! What’s the point in that. So many lazy presentations do this
Sounds like an inaccurate way to interpret scripture