name

medieval-scholastic

description

Master Medieval Scholastic philosophy and methods. Use for: Aquinas, Augustine, Islamic philosophy, Jewish philosophy, natural theology, faith and reason. Triggers: 'Aquinas', 'Thomas Aquinas', 'Scholastic', 'quaestio', 'faith and reason', 'natural law', 'natural theology', 'five ways', 'essence existence', 'Augustine', 'Averroes', 'Avicenna', 'Maimonides', 'Anselm', 'ontological argument', 'cosmological argument', 'divine simplicity', 'analogy', 'substance accidents'.

Medieval Scholastic Philosophy Skill

Master the philosophical traditions of the medieval period (c. 500-1500 CE)—including Latin Scholasticism, Islamic falsafa, and Jewish philosophy—characterized by rigorous method, synthesis of faith and reason, and engagement with ancient sources.

Overview

Historical Development

LATE ANTIQUITY (c. 200-600)
├── Augustine (354-430): Christian Platonism
├── Boethius (480-524): Logic, consolation
└── Pseudo-Dionysius: Negative theology

EARLY MEDIEVAL (c. 600-1100)
├── Islamic Golden Age
│   ├── Al-Kindi (801-873): First Islamic philosopher
│   ├── Al-Farabi (872-950): Political philosophy
│   └── Avicenna (980-1037): Essence/existence
├── Jewish Philosophy
│   └── Saadia Gaon (882-942)
└── Latin West
    ├── Eriugena (815-877)
    └── Anselm (1033-1109): Ontological argument

HIGH SCHOLASTICISM (c. 1100-1300)
├── Islamic
│   ├── Al-Ghazali (1058-1111): Critique of philosophy
│   └── Averroes (1126-1198): Aristotelian commentator
├── Jewish
│   └── Maimonides (1138-1204): Guide for the Perplexed
└── Latin
    ├── Peter Abelard (1079-1142): Logic, ethics
    ├── Albert the Great (1200-1280): Natural philosophy
    ├── Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274): Synthesis
    ├── Bonaventure (1221-1274): Franciscan theology
    ├── Duns Scotus (1266-1308): Subtle Doctor
    └── William of Ockham (1287-1347): Nominalism

LATE MEDIEVAL (c. 1300-1500)
├── Nominalism vs. Realism debate
├── Via Moderna vs. Via Antiqua
└── Renaissance transition

The Scholastic Method

The Quaestio (Disputed Question)

Structure:

QUAESTIO FORMAT
═══════════════

QUAERITUR: The question is asked
"Whether God exists?"

VIDETUR QUOD NON: It seems that not...
├── Objection 1 (Sed contra)
├── Objection 2
└── Objection 3

SED CONTRA: On the contrary...
(Authority supporting the affirmative)

RESPONDEO DICENDUM: I answer that...
(The master's own position with arguments)

AD PRIMUM, AD SECUNDUM, AD TERTIUM...
(Replies to each objection)

Example (Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I, q.2, a.3):

WHETHER GOD EXISTS?
═══════════════════

OBJECTION 1: It seems God does not exist, because if one
of two contraries be infinite, the other would be destroyed.
But "God" means infinite good. If God existed, there would
be no evil. But evil exists. Therefore God does not exist.

OBJECTION 2: What can be accomplished by fewer principles
is not produced by more. But all things can be explained by
other principles (nature, human reason). Therefore there is
no need to suppose God's existence.

SED CONTRA: Exodus 3:14 "I am who am."

RESPONDEO: God's existence can be proved in five ways...

AD 1: As Augustine says, God permits evil to bring good
from it. Infinite goodness can coexist with evil.

AD 2: Natural things and human acts presuppose God as
first cause...

Dialectical Method

Sic et Non (Abelard):

Collect authorities on both sides of questions
Show apparent contradictions
Resolve through careful distinctions
Reconcile where possible

Lectio (Commentary)

LECTIO METHOD
═════════════

1. DIVISIO TEXTUS
   └── Divide text into units

2. EXPOSITIO LITTERAE
   └── Explain literal meaning

3. EXPOSITIO SENSUUM
   └── Explain deeper meanings

4. DUBIA
   └── Raise difficulties

5. SOLUTIO
   └── Resolve difficulties

Key Figures and Ideas

Augustine (354-430)

Christian Platonism:

Divine illumination: God illuminates the mind to know truth
Evil as privation (absence of good, not positive reality)
Original sin and grace
City of God vs. City of Man
Time as distension of the soul

The Problem of Evil:

AUGUSTINIAN THEODICY
════════════════════

1. God is perfectly good and omnipotent
2. Evil exists
3. How?

SOLUTION:
├── Evil is not a substance but privation (lack of good)
├── God created beings with free will
├── Free will makes moral good possible
├── Free will also makes sin possible
├── Natural evil: consequence of fallen world
└── God permits evil for greater good

Anselm (1033-1109)

Ontological Argument (Proslogion):

ANSELM'S ARGUMENT
═════════════════

1. God is "that than which nothing greater can be thought"
   (id quo nihil maius cogitari possit)

2. Even the fool understands this concept

3. If God existed only in the understanding, something greater
   could be thought (one that also exists in reality)

4. But then we could think of something greater than "that than
   which nothing greater can be thought" — contradiction!

5. Therefore, God exists in reality as well as understanding

GAUNILO'S OBJECTION (The Perfect Island):
If this works, we could prove the existence of a perfect island.

ANSELM'S REPLY:
The argument works only for that than which nothing greater
can be thought, not for any "perfect" thing.

Avicenna (Ibn Sina, 980-1037)

Essence and Existence:

In creatures, essence and existence are distinct
Essence: what a thing is
Existence: that a thing is
Existence is added to essence (accidental in creatures)
In God alone, essence = existence

The Flying Man:

AVICENNA'S FLYING MAN
═════════════════════

Imagine yourself created all at once, suspended in air,
with no sense experience (eyes covered, limbs spread,
floating in a void).

Would you be aware of your own existence?

AVICENNA: Yes. You would know you exist even without
perceiving any body.

CONCLUSION: The self is known directly, not through body.
Soul is distinct from body.

Averroes (Ibn Rushd, 1126-1198)

The Commentator: Definitive Aristotle interpretation

Controversial Doctrines:

Eternity of the world (no temporal beginning)
Unity of the intellect (one agent intellect for all humans)
Double truth? (Philosophy and religion can contradict?)

The Tahafut Debate:

Al-Ghazali: Tahafut al-Falasifa (Incoherence of the Philosophers)
Averroes: Tahafut al-Tahafut (Incoherence of the Incoherence)

Maimonides (1138-1204)

Negative Theology:

We cannot say what God is, only what God is not
All positive attributes are metaphorical
Divine simplicity: no composition in God

Guide for the Perplexed:

Reconcile Torah with Aristotelian philosophy
Allegorical interpretation of Scripture
Demonstrates limits of human knowledge

Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)

The Five Ways (Summa Theologiae I, q.2, a.3):

QUINQUE VIAE (FIVE WAYS)
════════════════════════

1. MOTION (First Mover)
   ├── Things are in motion
   ├── Whatever is moved is moved by another
   ├── Cannot regress to infinity
   └── Therefore: Unmoved Mover

2. EFFICIENT CAUSATION (First Cause)
   ├── Things have efficient causes
   ├── Nothing causes itself
   ├── Cannot regress to infinity
   └── Therefore: First Efficient Cause

3. CONTINGENCY (Necessary Being)
   ├── Things come into and go out of existence
   ├── If everything were contingent, at some time nothing existed
   ├── But then nothing would exist now
   └── Therefore: Necessary Being

4. GRADATION (Maximum)
   ├── Things have degrees of perfection
   ├── Degrees require a maximum (standard)
   └── Therefore: Maximum Being

5. DESIGN (Intelligent Designer)
   ├── Natural things act for ends
   ├── Unintelligent things cannot direct themselves to ends
   └── Therefore: Intelligent Director

Essence and Existence:

THOMISTIC METAPHYSICS
═════════════════════

IN CREATURES:
├── Essence ≠ Existence
├── Essence limits existence
├── Existence is received, participated
└── Act/potency composition

IN GOD:
├── Essence = Existence
├── God IS His existence (ipsum esse subsistens)
├── Pure Act, no potency
└── Absolutely simple

Analogy:

We cannot know God directly
Univocal predication: same meaning (impossible for God)
Equivocal predication: completely different meaning (uninformative)
Analogical predication: proportional similarity (via eminentiae, via negationis, via causalitatis)

Duns Scotus (1266-1308)

Univocity of Being:

"Being" applies in same sense to God and creatures
Necessary for any knowledge of God
Against Thomistic analogy

Formal Distinction:

Intermediate between real and conceptual distinction
Same thing, distinct formalities (e.g., divine attributes)

Haecceity (thisness):

Principle of individuation
What makes this thing THIS thing, not just a kind
Beyond matter and form

William of Ockham (1287-1347)

Ockham's Razor:

Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
"Do not multiply entities beyond necessity"
Parsimony principle

Nominalism:

UNIVERSALS DEBATE
═════════════════

REALISM (Plato, Aquinas)
├── Universals exist (ante rem or in re)
├── "Humanity" is a real thing
└── Grounds similarity of individuals

NOMINALISM (Ockham)
├── Only individuals exist
├── Universals are names/concepts
├── Similar things: brute fact
└── No real universal nature

Central Debates

Faith and Reason

Positions:

Thinker	Position
Augustine	Faith seeking understanding
Anselm	I believe in order to understand
Aquinas	Reason can prove some truths; others require revelation
Averroes	Philosophy and religion have different domains
Al-Ghazali	Philosophy cannot prove essential religious truths

The Problem of Universals

Three Main Views:

UNIVERSALS POSITIONS
════════════════════

EXTREME REALISM (Plato)
└── Universals exist independently (ante rem)

MODERATE REALISM (Aristotle, Aquinas)
└── Universals exist in particulars (in re)
    and in minds (post rem)

NOMINALISM (Ockham)
└── Only particulars exist; universals are names

CONCEPTUALISM (Abelard)
└── Universals are mental concepts, not mere names

Divine Simplicity

The Doctrine: God has no composition whatsoever

No matter/form
No essence/existence (in God, these are identical)
No substance/accidents
No genus/difference
No potency/act

Problems:

How can God have multiple attributes?
How can God know particulars?
How can God act in time?

Creation and Eternity

Question: Did the world have a temporal beginning?