Notes To Modern Philosophy

THE HISTORY
OF
PHILOSOPHY:
MODERN PHILOSOPHY ENLIGHTENMENT AND THE RISE OF SECULAR REASON
Jacob Moh Yii Jenq
Second Year Philosophy
St. Peters College, Kuching
A History of Philosophy
Course Description & Lecture Outline
COURSE DESCRIPTION This course identifies and describes the historical events and intellectual movements that contribute to the shaping of modern European thought from the 14th to the 19th century. The fragmentation of both medieval Europe and Church ushers in the Renaissance of the 14th and 15th century, spreading the values of humanism from Italy to Northern Europe. Simultaneous developments during the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century effect a similar revival of intellectual and spiritual challenges to both Church and society. With the advent of the Scientific Revolution (c.17th 18th century) the autonomy of human reason from religious authority and tradition matures; it is magnified during the Enlightenment of the 17th and 19th century and ushers in the age of empirical science (Empiricism) as well as Rationalism. Romanticism reacts to the tenets of Rationalism but is unable to contain the popular development of Idealism. Borrowing the basic principles of Idealism, Marxism is formed in the 19th century and begins to shape the spirit of the sciences as well as theology. From the Renaissance to Marxism, a plurality of trends gradually defines the liberal tendencies of modern theology (i.e. liberal theology) in the 19th century. This course discusses and assesses the impact of liberal theology on the life of the modern Church understood in light of the Churchs response to the movement as read in such Church documents as Aeterni Patris (1879) and Providentissimus Deus (1893). A final evaluation of the relationship between theology and philosophy at the beginning of the 20 th century is presented at the end of the course.
COURSE ASSESSMENT 1. 2. Participation in discussions: Two (2) response papers

i
15%
St. Peter's College, Kuching
(1,000 words each) [The first paper responds to the lectures on major events / ideas of the Renaissance and the Reformation; the second paper responds to the lectures on the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment]: 30% (15% for each paper) 3. 4. Book report (1,500 words): Oral exam: 30% 25%
Participation During the course of lectures there will be space for class discussions about themes or topics of importance or interest. These sessions are introduced so that the group may experience a shared concern for the thoughts and feelings of each member about a given topic. All are encouraged to participate to the best of their ability. In particular, attention must be given to the ideas and sentiments shared by members of the group during such discussions. Equally important and crucial is the ability of all members to be open, honest and charitable in their comments and expressions toward other members of the group. Response Papers Students are expected to submit two (2) response papers (maximum of 1,000 words each) on (i) the lectures concerning the Renaissance and the Reformation and (ii) the lectures on the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment [due at the end of the term]. These papers should comprise of the following elements: 1. A brief summary of the content of the lectures; 2. A personal response to the topics covered in the lectures and discussions [this includes any questions, comments, and further suggestions about the study of modern philosophy]. Book Report The book report is due before the course examination. Students are provided with a bibliography of contemporary books on philosophy. They are required to choose a title from this list and to consult with the lecturer about his choice of author and book. The book report should address the following: 1. A brief description of the author (who is s/he and his or her background); 2. A brief description of how this book is relevant to the course;
St. Peter's College, Kuching ii
3. A summary of the contents of the book; 4. Some personal reflections on the contents of the book regarding the following questions: a. Does the book help you understand the course better? b. Is there anything unique or distinctive about the authors views or approach to the study of philosophy? c. What agreements or disagreements do you have with the author? d. Overall, are you convinced by the authors arguments or position? Examination Students will be examined individually and each Prepared questions will be given to the students begins. During the examination students will be lecture their answers to any of these questions. student may be based on the response papers and submitted for the course. LECTURE OUTLINE Introduction Lecture 01 Lecture 02 Lecture 03 A Historical Preface to Modern Philosophy (1400-1900) The Renaissance Movement (1400-1600) Renaissance and Christian Humanism Neo-Scholasticism and the Protestant and Catholic Reformations Lecture 04 The Scientific Revolution: Mechanism and Empiricism Lecture 05 The French Revolution Lecture 06 Rationalism and the Enlightenment Lecture 07 Romanticism, Idealism, and Marxism Lecture 08 Secularization and theology: the case of Liberal Theology Summary/Epilogue Modern Theology and Philosophy session will last for hr. before their revision week asked to discuss with the Further questions for the book report that they have
iii
Introduction. A Historical Preface
History of Modern Philosophy Introduction A Historical Preface to Modern Philosophy
1. Introduction: Ideas and their contexts. The experience of man is not born in a vacuum. Everything that man says, does and thinks he does so in the context of a given time and a given space. Hence, the actions of men are contingent by nature and nothing that man does is permanent or eternal. On the contrary, mans being and existence is limited and restricted by time and space. This is why we say that man (and his actions and productions) are historical by nature. Everything about man happens within a historical context and framework. So, in order to understand a man better one needs to also understand his historical background. 2. The same can be said about mans intellectual existence his thoughts and ideas. This is an intellectual aspect of mans being that exists in a certain time and space. What man thinks that is, his collection of ideas is contingent and historical by nature. Ideas are born in a certain milieu, that is, a specific historical situation or context. In this sense, ideas are best understood in the context of their social, cultural and historical framework. In other words, to understand the ideas of a man it is also helpful to understand his background as well. 3. Modern history (14th 19th century). The historical period that is considered in this course is the period 1300-1900, or the beginning of the 14th till the end of the 19th century.1 Historians of philosophy consider this to be approximately the period of modern philosophy. Scholars do not arrive at this classification without good reason. Just as Ancient or Classical, Medieval and Contemporary philosophy, philosophy between 1400-1900 is distinctively modern because this period consists of a distinct and unique character or nature of thinking that other intellectual periods do not share. In order to understand what makes philosophy modern, it is necessary to begin with a survey of the
1 Some historians choose to classify modern history as beginning after the Thirty Year's War (1618-1648), a period when leaders and intellectuals began to loose faith in religion and pursued a philosophy of pure reason via scientific methods. For these historians, modern history lies between the mid-17th and the end of the 19 th century. For a detailed survey of the period surrounding the Thirty Years War, see Richard S. Dunn, The Age of Religious Wars, 1559-1689 (W.W. Norton & Co., 1970).
Introduction 4
historical background of the period 1300-1700. 4. Europe in the 13th century and after. Between the late 12th and 13th centuries, European society experienced great development and progress in most areas of society and culture. This was a period when Europe was already Christianized and all the greatest kingdoms had strong relations with the Catholic Church. This political and religious partnership formed the basis for Christendom, that is, a collective society wherein religious or Christian values permeated the culture and politics of the civilized world. In the 12th and 13th centuries the first universities were founded (in Paris, Bologna, Oxford, Naples and Salamanca). In these universities theologians and philosophers did their utmost to demonstrate that human knowledge or reason (ratio, scientia) was compatible with Christian revelation or faith. The greatest thinkers in this period were also theologians. Notable were the personalities of Bonaventure (121774), Albert the Great (1200-1280), Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) and John Duns Scotus (1266-1308). Outside the universities there were also intellectuals like Dante Alighieri (1265-1321)2 and Roger Bacon (12141292).3 5. The Great Schism and the decline of the papacy. However, during the 14th and 16th centuries several elements contributed to the decline of Christendom. Firstly, there was the internal conflict within the Roman Catholic Church. At the time, Christian rulers in European countries (e.g. King Philip of France) tried to gain political influence over the Church. The papacy yielded to political pressure and moved from Rome (Italy) to Avignon in France. Between 1305-1376 the popes stayed in Avignon and not in Rome. This practice ended when St. Catherine of Siena (1347-1380)4 together with St. Bridget of Sweden (1303-1373) persuaded Pope Gregory XI to return to Rome. 6. During the seventy years in Avignon, among the many popes elected, the cardinals had elected eight popes who were French. When the papacy moved to Rome, and Gregory XI died, the college of cardinals elected an Italian pope, Urban VI. Many of the Cardinals began to dislike the new Pope because of the way he attempted to reform the papacy by force. Many of the French cardinals fled to France and, in protest to the election
2 Well-known for his literary portrayal of hell, purgatory and heaven in his Divine Comedy. A Franciscan monk who was a pioneer or founder of what is called the experimental sciences, that is, methods of investigating the world using the methods of observation and testing hence, experiment (from experiri, try). Catherine of Siena is a Doctor of the Church. Together with St. Francis of Assisi, she is the patroness of Italy.
3
4
Introduction 5
of pope Urban VI, the French cardinals elected a French pope, Clement VII. Later, a third pope was elected, claiming to be the true pope. Thus, there were three popes elected at the same time. This began the Great Schism of the popes, which lasted from 1378 to 1417, until the Council of Constance settled the issue by electing Martin V as pope. By then, the integrity and authority of the papacy had weakened. This sad situation with the papacy caused some thinkers to question the authority of the Church. Theologians such as John Wyclif (1330-1384) and John Hus (1369-1415) began criticizing certain doctrines and the authority of the Church. There was even rebellion from certain sections of religious orders. 7. The decline of spirituality and theology. At the same time, Western theological and philosophical learning began to decline rapidly. During the 12th and 13th centuries, the great Doctors of the Church such as St. Albert the Great and St. Thomas Aquinas demonstrated the complementary nature of faith and reason. In the 14th century, however, intellectuals became immersed in purely intellectual questions. There was also a new method of philosophy and theology known as Nominalism and it was first proposed by the English Franciscan Friar, William of Ockham (1280-1349). Ockham believed that philosophical arguments could not really demonstrate the truths of Christian faith, even though the truths of faith could be argued for.5 Albert and Aquinas were convinced otherwise. After Ockham, theology and philosophy began to deal with specifically intellectual problems and gradually became divorced from issues of religion and spirituality. This caused a spiritual crisis at the grassroots of European society. 8. Mysticism in the 14th century. The religious and spiritual lives of the people received little attention in the 14th and 15th centuries. Theologians and philosophers were more concerned with intellectual questions and Church politics. The hierarchy (pope and college of bishops) were immersed in church politics as well and they had to constantly worry about their relationship with the rulers of the secular kingdoms. The common people were, therefore, generally neglected by the church and a spiritual vacuum existed among the common people. In response to this, mysticism became increasingly popular among the people. Mysticism was an approach to knowing God more through the heart than the mind (intellect). Hence, it was a more individual or person centered. Well-known mystics of the time included Meister Eckhart
5 See John Kilcullen, Ockham, in Mautner, The Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy, 398.
Introduction 6
(1260-1327)6 and his followers, John Tauler (1300-1361) and Henry Suso (1295-1366). There was also the spirituality of modern devotion (the Devotio Moderna), whence works such as The Imitation of Christ (Thomas Kempis) was produced.7 Such and other spiritual movements were catered for popular and personal piety and spiritual awakening. 9. Yet, as mentioned above, the move to renew the spirituality of the Church was found lacking in the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. In fact, the spiritual renewal of the Catholic Church in the late 14th century faced many political obstacles. Because of these obstacles the religious practices of the Church were gradually corrupted. 10. Corruption in the Catholic Church: Simony and the selling of Indulgences. These political obstacles arose whenever the Church tried to implement some reform or another in a local church within a given region or political territory. In the 15th century, Europe was experiencing the growth of nationalism. Regions or territories gradually became united under one political ruler or nobility (e.g. princes). Such regions or territories became political entities known as nations. In order for the Church to practice reform in a territory, the popes had to seek the approval of the ruler or nobility of the region. Usually, these rulers would demand a price from the Church before any permission was given to implement reforms in the region. Sometimes the price was not in the form of money alone; rulers and princes also demanded to have some official control of in Church matters. 11. In order to realize these political demands the Church ordained some of these political rulers as bishops of local dioceses and abbots of monasteries. Such a relationship between the Church and the rulers impoverished the Church's authority as well as its wealth. In response to this financial crisis, the Church resorted to two practices: a. The practice of simony. This was the selling of Church offices and spiritual authority to rulers and princes. The Church sold these to rulers at a very high price.8
6 7 8
A German Dominican. See Christopher Dawson, The Dividing of Christendom (Image, New York, 1967) 52-3. Some rulers were rich, so they were able to purchase two or more offices and became bishops of two or more local churches. This practice was known as pluralism. However, since these so-called bishops were never really interested in the local churches they were never really present to care for the local Christians. Rather, they usually paid someone else to do the work. This practice was known as absenteeism. Hence, simony led to pluralism, which in turn led to absenteeism.
Introduction 7
b. The selling of Indulgences. The Church also practiced collecting fees from pilgrimage sites or, more controversial, the selling of indulgences. Traditionally, the Church granted indulgences when it has been demonstrated that the believer has repented for his sins through good works and prayer. By the 16th century, such indulgences need not be earned because they could be bought. When anyone purchased an indulgence for a price, the Church pledged that the person would be freed from the consequences of his / her sin after death. The practice of simony and the selling of indulgences corrupted the spiritual intentions and morality of the Church. 12. The Renaissance and Humanism.9 Other factors added to the decline of Christendom. In the 15th century the popes acquired a taste for classical Greek and Roman culture. They spent huge sums of money obtaining the services of artists to create magnificent pieces of music, sculptures, literature and paintings. These works renewed and restored the ideals and values of ancient Greek and Roman culture and it was the hope of the popes that such renaissance would provide a moral rebirth for Christendom. Such reclamation of the past is known as the period of the Renaissance. St. Peter's Church in Rome is one such product of this period. 13. However, another product of the Renaissance was the intellectual movement known as Humanism. This movement was composed of Christians who were determined to reform the ideas of the Church by popularizing and synthesizing the classical ideas and values of the Scriptures, Greeks, and Romans. Among them were personalities like the Dutch scholar Erasmus of Rotterdam (14651536) and the English lawyer and politician, St. Thomas More. These Humanists likewise tried to revitalize the Catholic Church, but to no avail. In the case of Thomas More, he stood firmly for his loyalty to the Church and the pope against his King, Henry VIII. For this he was martyred. 14. Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation.A more radical sort of reform was needed to awaken the Church to its complacency and the corrupt nature of some religious practices. The German Augustinian monk, Martin Luther (1480-1546),10 initiated such a radical reform by
9 For a survey of the Renaissance and humanism, see D. J. Fitzgerald, Renaissance Philosophy, in the New Catholic Encyclopedia, 2nd edition, 10:120-125. 10 For a recent biography, see Samuel Willard Crompton, Martin Luther (Chelsea House Publishers, 2004). For a collection of Luthers basic writings see Timothy F. Lull (ed.), Martin Luthers Basic Theological Writings, second edition (Augsburg Fortress, 2005).
Introduction 8
contrasting the Church with the values of Christ found in Scripture, particularly those values found in the New Testament. His main thesis stated that man is justified by faith alone and not by good works. This corresponded to the message of St. Paul's letter to the Romans,11 which Luther studied and commented on thoroughly. Luthers doctrine of sola fidei (faith alone) was a desperate cry for a corrupted Catholic Church to return to purify its faith. 15. In 1517, Luther nailed some documents on the chapel door at the city of Wittenberg. These documents contained what is known as the Ninety-five Theses on Indulgences. In his theses Luther vehemently argued that too much dependence on good works (including indulgences) and the neglect of ones inner faith is contrary to Christianity. After several confrontations with Church authorities, Luther was excommunicated from the Catholic Church by the bull, Exsurge Domine, in 1521. This series of events involving Martin Luther and the 16th century Church is known popularly as the Protestant Reformation. 16. The Protestant Reformation gave rise to Lutheranism, the most Catholic form of Protestantism.12 Soon, other Protestant movements such as the Calvinists [followers of the French theologian, John (or Jean) Calvin, 15091564], the Anabaptists, and the Anglican Church (established by Henry VIII) followed suit. Christendom or the Christian civilization of the Middle Ages was now fragmented into different nations (nationalism) as well as different Christian groups. This sad situation forced the Catholic Church to assess and evaluate itself. This self-assessment led to the Catholic Reformation and the important reforming council, the Council of Trent (1545-1563). The Council of Trent laid down decrees for reform within the Roman Catholic Church. By now, however, the Catholic Church was wounded and became less catholic or universal in character. The Protestant Reformation forced the Catholic Church to purify and renew itself for the sake of maintaining whatever unity was left. 17. The Thirty Years War. Internationally, the situation worsened when the last of the so-called religious wars of Europe between Catholics and Protestants, and among Protestant nations (mainly in Germany), arose. This period of religious war is known as the Thirty Years War (1618-1648) in which religious persecutions of minority
11 12 Although Pauls letters also do emphasize the value of works, it can be argued that the moral quality of such works depends on the nature of ones faith. See also the Letter of James. Alan Schreck, The Compact History of the Catholic Church (Rome, 1987) 72.
Introduction 9
religious groups in respective territories took place. Certainly, there were also political and economical causes for the war and religion was actually not the main cause of the war itself; religion itself was subordinated to politics.13 Ultimately, however, this conflict brought about the disintegration of European and Christian culture and the religious identity of Europe was brought into question. 18. The conflict ended when the Treaty of Westphalia (1689). This treaty accomplished two things: (i) it established religious toleration and liberty for both Catholics and Protestant groups; (ii) it recognized the equality and independence of modern states or nations. Both religious liberty and the existence of independent states still govern the state-system of the world today. However, in the 17th century, the treaty was a significant testament to the fact that the Catholic Church the pope no longer had a dominant influence on modern society. Society had become religiously pluralistic and th secular in the 17 century. 19. Summary: Medieval decline and modern revival. Modern society and philosophy arises from the historical background briefly described above. The 13th century was a golden period for the Catholic Church. However, by the 17th century the religious and cultural identity of Europe was in crisis. This crisis was brought forth by a series of events that included the Protestant Reformation and the religious wars of Europe. In response to this declination, the Catholic Church did implement some measures of counter-reform or Catholic Reform. However, other factors prevented a return to the old days of Christian civilization. These factors include the rise of nationalism and secular learning (the rise of Renaissance humanism). The 17th and 18th centuries also witnessed the rise of science and technology (the Scientific Revolution), the Enlightenment (the philosophy of Reason, or rationalism), the establishment of democracy (the rule of the people, for the people, by the people) and secularization (the privatization of religion and its exclusion from public life). These movements radically transformed Christian Europe into modern society where religion no longer became the dominant factor of human life.
13
See William J. Bausch, Pilgrim Church, revised edition (Connecticut, 1989) 258. See also Carlton J. H. Hayes, A Political and Cultural History of Europe, vol. 1 (Macmillan, 1932) 274, cited in Bausch, Pilgrim Church, 259.
Introduction 10
Bibliography Bausch, William J. 1989 Pilgrim Church: A Popular History of Catholic Christianity. Revised edition. Mystic, Connecticut: Twenty-Third Publications. Dawson, Christopher. 1967 The Dividing of Christendom. Originally published in 1965 (Sheed and Ward). Reprint. Garden City, New York: Image Books. Schreck, Alan. 1987 The Compact History of the Catholic Church. Rome: ICCRO.
Introduction 11
Lecture 1. The Renaissance
Lecture 1.
The Renaissance Movement
1. Introduction: The Medieval Crisis. The previous lecture briefly surveyed the general historical situation from which the modern world arose. It was a situation of tension between movements of decline as well as development; some elements of medieval culture declined while other elements developed. Overall, however, there was a process of transformation in medieval society. 2. An essential element of this transformation is the fragmentation of Christian Europe, or Christendom. The Catholic Church was beginning to break up institutionally as well as politically. This caused a religious crisis for Europe a crisis that is still being felt today in parts of Europe as well as Asia. It is useful to bear in mind that medieval Christian history coincides with the history of medieval Europe itself; what effected the medieval Church effected medieval Europe and vice versa. Hence, the crisis of the Christian world was also a crisis of the European world. From the mid-14th century, the Church could no longer provide a stable or unifying foundation for the European world any longer; Europe began a self-transformation via the process of political fragmentation (into nationstates). As Europe fragmented, so did the Christian world. This fragmentation (as we will see in the rest of the course) happened at all levels of society. 3. 15th century Secularization Political and Intellectual. A cause for the crisis can be traced to the autonomous (i.e. independent) political development of parts of European society. Certain rulers of political territories began to free themselves from the constraints of religious (i.e.
St. Peter's College, Kuching 12
Christian or Church) authority. These rulers and their territories gradually grew more independent of each other and of the Church. In the 14th and 15th centuries Europe was experiencing the growth of what is known as city-states and national monarchies. These states and monarchies perceived the growing need to become independent from the political influence of the Church. Indeed, the rulers of these rising nations began placing political pressure on the Church in order to expand their political territories.14 In turn the Church had to find ways to cope with the growing autonomy and strength of these rulers and nations. Often, the Church compromised to political pressures, which sometimes meant compromising with the secular rulers. Hence, the conflict between Church and state intensified by the 15th century. This led to the beginning of the political secularization of society, that is, political autonomy of rulers to govern their territories without the influence of the Church. 4. The political secularization of society was just one aspect of the medieval crisis; there was also the secularization of human thought or the intellect, which was more widespread and significant. Political secularization involves the freedom of self-rule without restraints from any external religious authority. Similarly, the secularization of human thought involves the freedom of thought and expression without restraints from any external religious authority as well. Such a process did not happen overnight but developed through several intellectual movements, beginning in the 14th century. This course will discuss these main movements, namely, the development of (i) 14th century Renaissance philosophy, (ii) 17th century Rationalism and Empiricism (the Enlightenment), and (iii) 18th century Idealism. These movements contributed to the gradual separation between human reason and religious belief. It is not a real separation of a persons reason from his or her faith; it is a conceptual one. This intellectual separation is known today in modern philosophy and theology as the dichotomy of reason (or science) and faith (or revelation). This dichotomy gave rise to what may be called a secularization of reason, that is, the ability for independent human reasoning about the truth without the aid of religious authority, either in the form of the Church or divine revelation or faith.
14
Cf. W. W. Wilkinson, Renaissance, New Catholic Encyclopedia (2nd edition) 12:117d.
13
5. There is a consensus among scholars that the dichotomy or secularization is most complete during the time of the Enlightenment around the 18th century. However, this process was earlier evident in the 14th century movement known as the Renaissance.15 It is debated among some historians whether the Renaissance actually took place at all. However, among those who believe that there was such a movement, the Renaissance is generally accepted as a period of general cultural transition16 involving changes and transformations at all levels and aspects of European society; it is for them a transition period between the medieval culture of the 13th century and the modern secular world of the 17th century. If this is true, then the Renaissance becomes important as a background to understanding the beginning of the modern world. It is easier to understand what makes the modern world modern and secular once the spirit of the Renaissance movement is understood. 6. Francesco Petrarch Renaissance. Father of the
The term rinascita (meaning, rebirth) was first used by Giorgio Vasari (1511-1574) in the 16th century to refer the Renaissance as a historical movement in the 14th century.17 However, the concept of the Renaissance was developed earlier by writers of the 14th and 15th centuries beginning with the great Italian poet, Francesco Petrarch18 (1304-1374). Petrarch seems to have been the first to conceptualize history in terms of stages ranging from ancient, middle and modern.19 He referred to the period before the adoption of Christianity by the Roman Emperors (i.e. the period approximately before the 4th century, specifically, before the time of the
15 16 The Renaissance began in Italy in the 14th century; France, England and Germany experienced the movement later in the 15th century. W. W. Wilkinson, Renaissance, 12:109d. Christopher Dawson called the Renaissance period a period of cultural revolution which ushered in a new culture or a new way of life. Hence, it was not merely a revival of classical studies. See C. Dawson, The Dividing Christiendom (Image, New York, 1967) 42-3. Ibid 12:111a. Also known as Francesco Petrarca. His thoughts will be discussed in more detail in the next lecture. For a survey of his background, see R. Montano, Petrarch, Francesco, New Catholic Encyclopedia (2nd edition) 11:212217. Such a conceptual scheme is the convention of any history course today.
17 18
19
14
Roman emperor Constantine the Great20) as ancient history; from that time till his own time (i.e. 4th 14th century), Petrarch referred to the period as modern history. However, within this modern period Petrarch distinguished a middle period between ancient Rome and his own time that he called the Dark Ages; he termed it so because, for him, it was also a period of cultural darkness for humanity.21 Petrarch believed that between the 4th and 14th century there was a great decline and suppression of intellectual expression in the forms of poetry (literature) and art. For Petrarch and others, this religious and political suppression contributed to the decline of human society and enlightenment as a whole. Hence, the middle ages was for Petrarch a period of darkness for human culture, the Dark Ages. On the other hand, he regarded his own time (i.e the 14th century) as a period of intellectual revival. Petrarch seems to be the first to recognize and apply in his works this revivalist spirit. For this reason, many regard him as the father of the Renaissance movement. 7. The Spirit of the Renaissance: Rebirth of antiquity. Petrarch believed that it was possible for human society to gain enlightenment (literally, to be in-light or to shine). However, for this to happen, society had to do two things: First, it had to turn its back on the previous medieval culture and, second, it had to revisit the cultural wisdom of the ancient Greeks and Romans, which was considered by Petrarch and others to be superior to medieval culture. Indeed, 14th century Italian culture was still very much linked to medieval ways of being. The only way to revisit the wisdom of antiquity (i.e. ancient Greece and Rome before the 4th century or Middle Ages) was to study the written works or literature of the ancients. Therefore, poets and scholars like Petrarch worked tirelessly to collect, translated, study and understand ancient Greek and Roman writings in order to collate and apply the values of ancient culture. This was not a purely intellectual exercise for Petrarch and his followers; they intended to give ancient culture an opportunity to be reborn in the 14th century. To return to medieval culture would be to return to a cave of darkness, illusion and ignorance. Only by studying the ancient Greek and Roman poetry, literature, and philosophy could
20 21 Constantine lived between c.275 and 337. He embraced Christianity and was baptized in his deathbed in 337. See Wilkinson, 12:110c. Petrarchs modern period or Dark Ages is commonly known today as the Middle Ages (c. 6th 13th century).
15
modern humanity understand the true human values that make society perfect. For this reason, Petrarch called the study of ancient Greek and Roman literature the study of the humanities, or studia humanitas; to study the works of antiquity was, in a sense, to study humanity (i.e. man) in itself. Hence, humanistic studies or humanism22 was born in the 14th century with the original concern that men should help their fellow men.23 8. In the two major forms of intellectual and artistic expression poetry and art the concept of rebirth becomes central to the movement known as the Renaissance. Indeed, Renaissance is derived from the Latin word, renascent- (from re, again + nasci, be born), which means being born again.24 The Renaissance movement is essentially a movement of the rebirth of forms of human expression and knowledge that were previously overshadowed or suppressed in the Middle (Dark) Ages or Medieval period. Essentially, rebirth speaks of something being born again, this something being the human intelligence and expression that flourished before the formal institution of Christianity in the Roman world. What is being reborn here is the wisdom of antiquity, that is, the knowledge of the ancient and classical cultures of Greece and Rome. Study of the humanities or humanism will revive the values of true human culture for the good of modern man. 9. 14th century Renaissance. individualism and the
Central to the spirit of the Renaissance is the notion that humanity can be enlightened only by a return to the culture of antiquity; this return to antiquity demands a rebirth in of ancient cultural values in the 14th century. Such rebirth took place first and foremost in the literature form of poetry and, later, in art. However, this rebirth of literature and art could
Dante Alighieri
22
The term humanism refers to a world view in some way centered on man rather than on the suprahhuman or the abstract. W. J. Ong, Humanism, New Catholic Encyclopedia (2nd edition) 7:182b. 23 Wilkinson, 12:114a. Wilkinson observes the humanists like the poet Petrarch and the Coluccio Salutati (13311406) share the same concern for the practical welfare and happiness of humanity as a whole. 24 The New Oxford Dictionary of English, 1570.
16
not be possible without individuals of great intellectual minds.25 The Italian poet and writer Giovanni Boccaccio (1313-1375) observed in the 14th century that there was a growing number of illustrious men (i.e. men of genius and ability) in his own time. According to him, 26 personalities like the poet Dante Alighieri (1265-1321) and Petrarch were pioneers of the Renaissance because they revived the lost art of poetry. Yet, they could only do so because of their individual intellectual abilities. Both were poets but Dante explored poetry in a wholly different way from traditional poets while Petrarch was more conventional. Hence, individualism was a basis for the revival of literature and art during the Renaissance. According to Boccacio and Filippo Villani (1325-1405), while both Dante and Petrarch were responsible for the revival or rebirth of poetry in the modern period,27 they were first and foremost individual geniuses. Villani also believed that the painters Cimabue (1240-1302) and Giotto di Bondone (c.1267-1337) were responsible for the rebirth of modern art in their own way. 10. Civic (political) freedom the basis for revival. Without individual genius the forms of poetry and art could never have experienced a rebirth in the 14th century. On the other hand, it is also true that without the freedom to do so, personalities like Dante and Petrarch could never have the space to express themselves.28 This relationship between freedom and the rebirth of human intelligence and expression was explored by the 15th century Italian politician Leonardo Bruni (13701444), who suggested that the decline of human culture in the middle ages was due to the fact the there was little political freedom during between the 4th and 14th centuries. He observed that as political freedom becomes greater in his own time, education and expression in arts and letters increasingly flourish. As with Boccacio and Villani, Bruni believed that Dante and Petrarch were responsible for the recovery of modern literature. Bruni, however, believed that this was because the political circumstances of 14th century Italy allowed them greater political
25 26 27 28 See C. Dawsons evaluation of this characteristic in the 14th century in his Dividing of Christendom, 45-6. Some aspects of Dantes thoughts will be explored more fully next lecture. A survey of his life and work is found in R. Montano, Dante Alighieri, New Catholic Encyclopedia (2nd edition) 4:516-522. Wilkinson, 12:110c. See Ong, Humanism, 7:185a: Europe in places, notably Italy, had reached a state of opulence, civic organization, and cultural self-confidence sufficient for Petrarchs type of enthusiasm to have appeal and to be indulged on a significantly wider scale than before.
17
freedom,29 which in turn produced exceptional personalities such as Dante and Petrarch.30 11. Secular humanism.31 This notion of political freedom becomes another defining element of 14th century Renaissance in Italy. The rebirth of true human values is only possible if society allows such values to flourish. However, if there is suppression of any sort such a renaissance becomes impossible. Before Bruni, Coluccio Salutati (1331-1406) had already become aware of the need to first establish political freedom for members of the state.32 Such freedom would not be merely political but it would be a freedom that comes from the proper education of true knowledge for the mind. For this reason, both Salutati and Bruni (like Petrarch) encouraged the study of the humanities or studia humanitas for the young so that the proper human values could be instilled in society as a foundation for a true human society. This motivation to create a free space or situation of freedom for human growth and flourishing is known as civic humanism or political humanism. Being political, it is a practical sort of humanism that concentrates on the social and political values of society, such as education and politics. Salutati, for example, believed in the superiority of the active life that emphasized the welfare of family, friends and the state.33 Bruni also believed that the study of politics should supplement moral philosophy for both contributed to knowledge about the good and happiness of society. Both Salutati and Bruni, therefore, encouraged the study of humanities (i.e. the politics and morality of the ancient Greeks and Romans) for the perfection and elevation of free humanity.34 In other words, the study of the humanities leads to greater freedom, which in turn contributes to the
Dawson, 44-5. In the 14th century, the Italian city of Florence was a model of such a free state, in which the educated class had political rights and freedom. 30 According to modern studies there is a divergence in Brunis theory, namely, the literary revival of the Renaissance seems to have been greatest when Italy was under despotic princes or commercial oligarchs of wealthy businessmen. See ibid 12:111a; 12:116b. 31 See also Dawson, 46ff. 32 Ibid 12:114d-115a. 29 33 He wrote to one of his friends who was planning to become a monk: Do not believethat to flee from turmoil, to avoid the view of pleasant things, to enclose one self in a cloister, or to isolate oneself in a hermitage, constitute a way of perfection Without doubt you, fleeing from the world, can fall from heaven to earth, while I, remaining in the world, can raise my heart to heaven. Cited in Wilkinson, ibid. Ibid 12:115b. Bruni calls studia humanitas surely the best and most excellent of studies, those most appropriate for the human race, needed in private as well as public life, and distinguished by a knowledge of letters befitting a free born man. Cited in Wilkinson, ibid 12:115c.
34
18
good and happiness of society as a whole. This principle is the foundation of what is known as secular humanism, that is, humanism that concentrates on the social and political welfare of human society.35 12. Rebirth and perfection. If the 14th century was a period of rebirth for the arts and letters (i.e. humanities), then it would also usher in a period of progress and development toward perfection. For the Renaissance, the rebirth of antiquity was a only a means to an end, which was the perfection of human knowledge and expression. Therefore, the experience of the renaissance necessarily led to the perfection of humanity. This idea was already implicit in the works of 14 th century Renaissance thinkers like Petrarch but the notion that humanity truly begins its progress toward perfection in the Renaissance (i.e. after the Middle Ages) becomes stronger after the 14th century. For example, the 16th century Italian painter and architect Giorgio Vasari (1511-1574) believed that human culture rose to perfection in the ancient world but declined about the time of Constantine the Great. Vasari tried to describe this progression of history using the metaphor of birth, growth, age and death.36 With the Christian Roman Emperors after the 4th century the death of art and literature arrived. However, with painters like Cimabue in the 13th century art is revived and given a second birth, or rebirth. Therefore, as Vasari says, his was a time in which the arts were undergoing a process of rinascita or rebirth, which will naturally progress (i.e. grow) and develop into perfection in his own time. There is now only the possibility of progress but no longer the possibility of a return to the age of medieval literature and art. This general interpretation of human history as a whole is popular among historians even today. 13. The Renaissance and the Protestant Reformation. In the 16th century the Protestant Reformation took hold of Germany and, later, the whole of Europe. This historical event can be understood in two ways, namely, (i) as a crisis in the history of the Catholic Church or (ii) as a rebirth of Christian spirituality in another expression. Martin Luther
35 In principle secular humanism is neither atheistic nor fundamentally opposed to religious belief in God. It can deny and oppose the existence of God and the good of religion; this is a fair picture of secular humanism in the 21 st century. Nevertheless, understood historically, secular humanism does not oppose belief in God but rather concentrates on the life of man in society as a whole. Such a scheme must, therefore, include mans religious belief. Liberal educationin no way rejected the supremacy of Christian ethics and theology. Dawson, 47. 36 Ibid 12:111b.
19
(1483-1546) himself disliked certain theological elements of medieval philosophy and theology and sought to make people aware of teachings of the Church that he believed were either inadequate or erroneous. In this sense he attempted to lead the people back to the true spirit of the teachings of Christ and of Christianity by reviving study of the scriptures in contrast to reliance on rituals and tradition. For Luther, scripture was the source of the Churchs teachings; to understand how to rectify the Churchs teachings and practices, Luther had to return to the source, scripture. This notion of returning to the source is born of the Renaissance spirit. The Renaissance thinkers themselves believed that in order to re-establish the true values of humanity, one needed to return to the source of these values. For humanists like Petrarch, Bruni and Vasari the source was the writings of antiquity, not medieval works. It was not enough to rely on what religious or political authorities told people to believe about truth; one had to see for oneself what truth the sources really contained to read, study and interpret the sources themselves. Only then could one understand the truth for oneself. Luther and the Renaissance thinkers were of the same mind; they returned to the sources in order to reclaim and re-establish human and religious values for the good of society and the Church. For this reason, Luther himself understood the Renaissance movement as preparing the way for his religious revival.37 14. The Renaissance and the Enlightenment. The Renaissance harbored a general dislike for medieval culture. However, in the 18 th century, it was the French writer and poet Voltaire38 (1694-1778) that expressed most strongly his distaste for Medieval culture. Voltaire was a leading thinker in the 17th 18th century movement called the Enlightenment, which was a movement that upheld individuality and reason against the authority of tradition (religious or political). As described above, this dual characteristic of individualism and rationalism earlier flourished during the Renaissance in the 14th and 15th century and Voltaire clearly agreed with the spirit of the Renaissance. Voltaire considered the Latin language of the Middle Ages to be barbarous (i.e. inauthentic) and medieval Scholastic theology (i.e. Scholasticism) as an insult to the philosophy of
37 38
Ibid 12:111b. This is a pseudonym of Franois-Marie Arouet.
20
Aristotle.39 These factors contributed to the decline of human culture in the Middle Ages. For Voltaire, human intelligence revived (was reborn) in the 13th and 14th centuries and this was possible because of the growing wealth of Italy at the time.40 Yet, he also recognized that such growth in wealth and intelligence during the Renaissance also yielded a society of gifted individuals that was less moral and irreligious.41 The intellectuals of the Renaissance were generally men of great learning but critical of the religious and moral traditions and authority of their time. Hence, Renaissance (and humanist) thinkers were generally inclined to be suspicious of such traditions and authorities. Nevertheless, Voltaire hailed Renaissance irreligion as a necessary consequence of the destruction of Christianity. We need to remember that for Voltaire as well as for most of the Renaissance thinkers medieval Christianity was largely responsible for the deprecation (corruption or decline) of human culture as a whole. In this sense, Voltaire and the Renaissance thinkers believed that only by shedding ones faith in religious and moral authorities and traditions could there be greater freedom to develop ones reasoning.42 15. The Renaissance and Idealism. The 19th century German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831) had a similar opinion with Voltaire. For Hegel the Middle Ages was a period merely devoted to external rites or ceremonies and intellectual (i.e. scholastic) thinking; there was little emphasis on the spiritual element of religion. Furthermore, the medieval political situation (i.e. Church authority as well as feudalism) was oppressive of human freedom and this created a situation of bondage for the human spirit. However, during the 14th century, when the political situation was transformed and citizens became free once more, human intelligence began to gain selfconfidence. It experienced a rebirth, according to Hegel, and it was free again to study the arts and sciences and take real interest in the particular things of nature (i.e. the physical world).43 This was period of in which the human mind (or consciousness) was once more free to
39 40 41 42 43 Ibid 12:111d. Italy was then a major commercial hub in Europe. Murder, assassinations, and conspiracies were also widespread during the Renaissance in 14th century Italy. Ibid,12:111d. Ibid 12:112a.
21
explore and discover the world and man. For Hegel this freedom to discover the world and self is but a natural process and development toward a higher state of self-consciousness; expression in the arts and knowledge in the sciences contribute to this self-consciousness or selfawareness of who man is. In this sense, for Hegel, the Renaissance mind became to highest expression of individuality and individual expression; it was an individuality that worked against the corporative tendency44 (i.e. the over-emphasis on the masses or group) of medieval culture. 16. All the above elements found in the thoughts of Renaissance thinkers like Petrarch and later critics like Voltaire and Hegel are summarized and fully developed in the thinking of the 19th century philosophical historian Jacob Christoph Burckhardt (1818-1897). In his work, Die Kulture der Renaissance in Italien (The Culture of Renaissance in Italy), he concluded that the Renaissance developed the human being into an authentic human individual personality. Such individuality underwent a ban during the Middle Ages and people at that time were dreaming or half awake because they were under a woven veil of faith, illusion and childish prepossession.45 In other words, the people of medieval society never really understood who they were as human beings (cf. Hegel). Then, in the 14th century, the Italian states and emperors were involved in political contests and feuds. Eventually the Italian rulers gained political autonomy, which in turn allowed greater freedom and possibilities for Italian citizens to flourish. This freedom meant release from the previous illusions and restraints (i.e. the woven veil) of the Church. When this woven veil was lifted, human personality rediscovered itself. Not only did it recover itself but it also rediscovered the natural world for what it was; the Renaissance mind could now independently study the natural world as it was (i.e. objectively) and without too much intellectual abstraction (i.e. speculative metaphysics). In other words, the human mind was free to discover for itself and needed no authority to tell it what to think. In a sense this was a kind of excessive individualism. However, Burckhardt understood this excessive individualism as a historical necessity: The individual was politically and spiritually restrained by the medieval Church for so long that, once the chains were broken (or the veil of illusion was lifted) in the
44 45 Ibid 12:112b. This is a phrase coined by Georg Voigt. Ibid 12:112c.
22
14th century, it was only natural that the human spirit rushed to reclaim what it lost, namely, its individual sense of existence. For Burckhardt this was the essence of the Renaissance, namely, the reclamation of the individual spirit of the human personality. 17. Summary: Contemporary reactions to the Renaissance. Not all th th scholars and historians in the 19 and 20 century believed that Renaissance culture was really superior to Medieval culture. The Romantic school (composed of thinkers like F. Chateaubriand and F. Schlegel) held up Medieval culture as superior to the culture of Greek and Roman antiquity because it believed that Christianity offered a more accurate (i.e. realistic) understanding of humanity and the world.46 Similarly, 20th century historians (e.g. C.H. Haskins, J. de Ghellink, L. Thorndike, . Gilson and C. Dawson) studied closely the culture of the medieval period and concluded that it cannot be truly considered a period of darkness; the medieval period was not a period of the Dark Ages because the intellectual leaders of the period had a keen knowledge about the world and themselves. Hence, they debunked Burckhardts thesis that only Renaissance man was able to discover objective truths about humanity and the world; Medieval thinkers were clearly as self-aware and enlightened as the Renaissance thinkers claimed to be, even if Medieval culture did not emphasize individualism and reason as much as the Renaissance did. Therefore, for the 19th century Romantics and 20th century Christian scholars and historians such as Gilson and Dawson, it is an exaggeration to say that the Renaissance mind could have discovered the world and man on its own without the foundations of medieval culture. According to them, the Renaissance owes much more to Medieval culture than thinkers like Voltaire and Burckhardt believe.
Bibliography Dawson, Christopher. 1967 The Dividing of Christendom. Originally published in 1965 (Sheed and Ward). Reprint. Garden City, New York: Image Books.
46 Ibid 12:112d-113a.
23
Ong, W. J. 2003 Humanism. New Catholic Encyclopedia (2nd edition) 7:182193. Wilkinson, W. W. 2003 Renaissance. 12:109-120.
New Catholic Encyclopedia (2nd edition)
Renaissance Art The 'realism' of the Renaissance period is easily seen in works of art as well. Consider the sculpture David (originally called The Giant), which Michelangelo took three years to complete and was unveiled in 1504. Michelangelo captures David in a pose carrying the slingshot he uses to kill Goliath. But the details of the statue bear emphasis on proportionality and outline that represents a real man as closely as possible.47
47 The statue is 17 ft or 5.17m tall. It was struck by lightning in 1512 and had its arm broken off in 1527; a new one was made. In 1814, it was covered in wax and around 30 years later the statue had a 'hydrochloric acid bath', which left it scratched and porous (i.e. full of little holes). In 1991, a jealous artist smashed David's toe.
24
A History of Modern Philosophy Humanism
Lecture 2. Renaissance & Christian
LECTURE 2. RENAISSANCE AND CHRISTIAN HUMANISM

Scope & Outline 18. Introduction: The quest for a new way. The cultural awareness of 14th century underwent transformation and change. Renaissance thinkers sought to give a direction to this transformation by educating society about true human values. Their cultural program is known as humanism. 19. Philosophy and theology: Different approaches to truth. Most medieval theologians emphasized philosophy as a tool or handmaiden of theology; philosophy was not really an independent discipline. Renaissance thinkers believed that philosophy was not subject to theology, but with theology it could lead to more universal learning. 20. Studia humanitatis (humanistic studies). Renaissance humanism was based on the studia humanitatis or humanistic studies, which was similar to scholastic learning but emphasized intellectual devotion to ancient Greek and Roman sources. Humanistic learning blended knowledge of the religious and secular aspects of humanity. 21. Secularism and Enlightenment. Political and intellectual secularization was important to the Renaissance. Without civic freedom there could be no opportunity and space for the enlightenment of society. Civic humanism worked for the creation of political freedom, which in turn allowed intellectual secularism to implement the humanistic system of education. 22. Renaissance humanism and modern research. Study of ancient sources led to the creation of new textual and historical methods to read, study, and interpret collected manuscripts. Even the sacred bible became subject to the modern research methods of the Renaissance humanists. Modern research led to a publication boom, which created institutions for the archive of manuscripts (i.e. libraries). 23. Christian Humanism: Grace works through nature. Renaissance humanism stressed the natural progress of humanity via human, cultural, and scientific knowledge. This gave humanism a very secular or St. Peter's College, Kuching 25
worldly face. There were Christian humanists, however, who tried the show that Gods grace builds upon, works with, and perfects nature. 24. Conclusion: The historical roots of religious (Christian) and secular humanism. Humanism prevails as a living attitude in philosophy today, but with two perspectives: The religious (Christian) humanist is open to transcendental action within human culture and history, while the secular humanist is closed to such action and emphasizes humanity as being responsible for its own future.
------------------------------------------------------Introduction: The quest for a new way. 1. The previous lecture tried to describe the spirit of the Renaissance movement in the 14th century. The Renaissance was a movement that grew out of a society that was undergoing tremendous transformation: States were discovering new found political freedom and used this freedom to expand their power against a crumbling Church (see introductory lecture); this gave rise to political secularization. Such a transformation of politics had a significant impact on the intellectuals at the time of the 14th century. It made them aware that the values of society were changing and that society could no longer depend on the old ways or traditional structures of existing. So, if human civilization is not to become more corrupt and crumble upon itself, then it must find a new model or structure of social existence. This political and social question became an urgent problem for Renaissance thinkers. It was an important question because it had practical consequences for the welfare (the good) of humanity. 2. The problem for the Renaissance thinkers was that no such new model or structure existed. The Medieval social and intellectual structure was developed and used for about 1,000 years (one millennium), so everyone in the 14th century still lived with a medieval mindset. In this sense, it was quite impossible for the Renaissance intellectuals to come up with another framework. So, they did the next best thing. If they could not construct their own model, they would revisit the past and inquire if there were human civilizations or cultures that succeeded in creating the ideal human society. These civilizations would have had their own human and intellectual virtues. The Renaissance would emphasize the study of these past civilizations and revive these virtues; it would do this with one
specific aim, namely, to restore these values into contemporary society with the hope of renewing humanity and society. Hence, the keywords to understanding the spirit of the Renaissance is, revive, restore, and renew. For this purpose, Renaissance thinkers worked out an intellectual discipline for their cultural program. This discipline is known today as humanism or, specifically, Renaissance humanism.48 It is the purpose of this lecture to describe the intellectual movement known as Renaissance humanism.
Philosophy and theology: Different approaches to truth. 3. The Renaissance thinkers were not outstanding thinkers as intellectuals such as Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, or Aquinas, Descartes, Kant, and so on.49 Renaissance thinkers did not create any new philosophy. In fact, most of them were transmitters of past ideas and knowledge rather than creators of new philosophies. Nevertheless, the Renaissance thinkers remain essential to history. They are unique because they were the first to emphasize (as a group) the need for a more human approach to understanding the world, humanity, and God. Theirs was a more humanistic approach to traditional Christian problems such as God, the soul, morality, predestination and free will.50 They chose not to rely on traditional methods or explanations to answer questions about their existence or faith. On the contrary; they began by studying the human condition and they provided explanations using models of human experience. Renaissance thinkers understood how to use abstract or logical arguments; their main objective now was to use the power of their intellect (reason) to help their fellowmen understand truth (natural as well as divine truth). 4. Hence, Renaissance thinkers had a different approach from the medieval scholars. Medieval theologians (including Albert the Great and Thomas
48 Humanism is a broad term. It can apply to any aspect of human activity (e.g. politics, science, philosophy, history, etc.). As a historical movement, it is practiced and defined in different ways depending on the period (i.e. ancient, modern, contemporary) in question. Since the period at hand is the period of the Renaissance, humanism here specifically refers to the intellectual movement that arose during the 14 th century. This is, therefore, referred to as Renaissance humanism. D. J. Fitzgerald, Renaissance Philosophy, the New Catholic Encyclopedia (2nd edition) 12:120c: There is no single philosopher of this time [during the Renaissance] who compares in importance to Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, and Aquinas, or Descartes, Hume, and Kant. Ibid.
49
50
27
Aquinas) were experts in using technical theological arguments to demonstrate truth. They tried to be as logical and technical as possible. The problem with this approach (as seen in the introductory lecture and first lecture of this course) is that such technical and abstract reasoning could seldom be understood by ordinary and intelligent people. Indeed, these theologians were not writing for ordinary intelligent men; they were writing to and against other theologians for the sake of winning intellectual arguments. For them, philosophical reasoning (philosophy) was a tool for theological argument; philosophy was seen as the handmaiden of theology, not universal knowledge. Therefore, these theologians seldom used or employed philosophical reasoning to explain other kinds of truth to laymen. 5. Therefore, medieval theologians generally accepted philosophy (human reasoning) as a tool used to explain the truths of Christian faith, and this restricted philosophy to one function alone. On the other hand, Renaissance thinkers thought of philosophy differently. For them human reason was not merely a tool or handmaiden of theology; philosophy has a wider function of providing universal knowledge about truth to humanity as a whole. It is not the handmaiden of theology but the mouthpiece of natural and divine wisdom. Neither did they believe that philosophy was opposed to theology.51 They understood philosophy as an independent and autonomous source of knowledge from theology, but this did not mean that human reason was opposed to divine revelation. On the contrary, Renaissance thinkers believed that philosophy and theology were different but complementary. During the Renaissance, philosophy developed a more secular face; it became increasingly freed from the shadows of theology.
Studia humanitatis (humanistic studies). 6. The Renaissance thinkers developed a method to educate others to use their reasoning more independently. In other words, they developed their own intellectual formation or curriculum, which was called, humanistic studies (or studia humanitatis). This system of humanistic education was basically similar to medieval learning: Both Medieval and humanistic study included subjects like grammar, rhetoric, poetry, history and moral
51
Ibid.
28
philosophy;52 both used the official language of the time, that is, Latin.53 So, humanism had common elements with medieval education and there was a sort of intellectual continuity between both approaches. 7. However, both were also different: Medieval theologians liked to engage in logic, natural science, and metaphysics. These were subjects that involved very technical, theoretical, and abstract thinking, which the medieval thinkers were very good at. Humanists, on the other hand, disliked these subjects; they knew about logic, science, and metaphysics, but they believed that such knowledge meant nothing if the student could not transmit wisdom to ordinary intelligent laymen. In other words, the technical knowledge of scholars was useless if such knowledge did not speak with relevance to the common experience of humanity. Therefore, the Renaissance humanists stressed the importance of traditional medieval scholarly study as well as a wider knowledge of secular (worldly) human values found in the writings of ancient literature (i.e. poetry, plays, etc.) and art. For the humanists, secular knowledge should complement religious knowledge. 8. For example, St. Thomas More (1478-1535) was an English humanist who attacked Medieval Scholasticism, saying that it was not appealing or relevant enough to the living human experience. For humanists like More, religious ideas are nothing if they do not provide meaning for real human experiences.54 Like other Renaissance humanists, More thought that medieval theology (Scholasticism) lacked what is called religious immediacy: Scholasticism spoke of truth in a language that the intelligent layperson could not understand and, therefore, could not apply in life. Scholastic knowledge, therefore, was not directly concerned with human existence. This is why humanists generally kept aloof (i.e. stayed away) from Scholasticism. Instead, they concentrated on the study of the ancient and classical thinkers (i.e. before the 4th century) of Greece and Rome, because humanists believed that the culture of ancient Greece and Rome had much more to say about the worldly or secular aspect of human experience. This was the main difference between Renaissance humanism and Medieval Scholasticism: Humanism considers it important to broaden its scope of knowledge by studying the ideas and values of ancient cultures. For them, education should not be restricted
52 53 54 W. J. Ong, Humanism, New Catholic Encyclopedia (2nd edition) 7:182d. Ong, Humanism, 7:184b-184c. Ong elaborates that at this time the vernacular languages were undergoing development as well and Greek was becoming important to the new learning, that is, humanism. Ong, 7:191c-d.
29
to religious knowledge alone. Humanist believed that human reason had to be secularized through more universal learning, which is what the studia humanista strived for. 9. The studia huumanista reformed the education system of in the 14th and 15th century. It offered society a different or alternative system of education. Because of this, the Renaissance humanists came to be regarded as reformers of education and their system of humanistic studies came to be known as the new learning. However, it was not an entirely new way of learning.55 As mentioned above, humanistic studies shared common elements with Medieval learning. Nevertheless, Renaissance humanism did have a new approach or direction: They cultivated an intellectual devotion to the study of ancient literature (i.e. study of antiquity).56 However, for the humanists, the study of antiquity was not merely an intellectual exercise. They believed that, by studying ancient culture and values, they could renew humanity and restore its nature. Therefore, the study of antiquity was necessary for the sake of modern cultural progress. This becomes the most essential characteristic of Renaissance humanism. For the humanists, the study of antiquity would provide humanity with the enlightenment it needed to progress toward universal happiness. With more universal knowledge comes the possibility of universal fulfillment.
Secularism and Enlightenment. 10. The humanists also understood that enlightenment and happiness would not be possible without an atmosphere of freedom. This aspect of freedom is important for the Renaissance, and it was discussed last lecture. Essentially, two kinds of freedom were necessary for the Renaissance humanist: (i) political freedom and (ii) individual freedom. During the 14th century, political freedom meant the secularization of the state (i.e. autonomy from the political influence of the Church); individual freedom consisted of the freedom of individual thought and expression (i.e. autonomy of the intellect from any external influences). Hence, humanists fought hard for the secularism of the state (civic humanism) and the human intellect.
55 56 Ibid 7:182b. Ibid 7:184c. As will be explained below, the study of antiquity involved more than the reading of past literature. It involved the revival of ancient languages (Greek, Hebrew and classical Latin) and a deeper appreciation for cultural history, linguistics, textual analysis, geography and other aspects.
30
Both political secularization and the secularization of reason are important but, of these two, the autonomy or freedom of the intellect is more fundamental for the Renaissance humanist. Civic humanism is important because it creates the ideal environment (politics, education, and so on) for the intellectual development of a people. However, it is the freedom of the intellect that enables people to explore independently and acquire more universal knowledge. Such freedom allowed people to extend their horizons of knowledge about the world and human experience. 11. So, Renaissance humanists believed in the secularization of reason. With this conviction, humanism freely embraced knowledge of the secular world; it had enormous respect for human experience, culture, language, and morals. Humanists immersed themselves in the human condition, hoping to help humanity improve by providing a better picture and understanding of what the world was really like; they tried to understand what present human experiences meant for the future of humanity. Using literature and art they attempted to express their knowledge in a way that intelligent laypeople could understand. Hence, humanism sought to educate people about the meaning of human existence so that people could become self-aware. The objective of humanist education was the awakening of humanity to their nature and purpose. In fact, as mentioned above, the education of humanity was the basic intention of the Renaissance humanism. This is why the studia humanista should be understood as humanisms quest for a more enlightened (i.e. knowledgeable) humanity. Through humanism, the secularization of reason provided society with better opportunities for self-enlightenment. Humanism tried to do this by providing a more humane or humanistic discipline of study, which involved the historical study of ancient culture (intellectual, moral, artistic, and so on).
Renaissance humanism and modern research. 12. In order to study the ancient works of Greeks and Romans, humanists needed to have access to those works. They needed to search for manuscripts of these works in order to translate (from ancient Greek and Latin), read, and re-interpret those works for the present generation. This project created the need for humanist scholars to update themselves
with two important things: (i) the Greek language: The lingua franca (common language) of society in the 15th century was Latin and few scholars knew Greek.57 If humanists wanted to study ancient Greek culture, they needed to have knowledge of the Greek language. This would make it easier for humanists to (ii) further develop methods of textual criticism, which was important if the humanists wanted to understand what the ancient texts say about the original intention and meaning of the author. 13. Today, study of any literature or source (including the Bible) involves the methods of textual criticism begun in the 15th century by the Renaissance humanists. It was the humanists (Petrarch and his successors) who paid attention to how texts were originally written. In the Renaissance, for the first time in European scholarship, scholars had to imagine and conceptualize literature as historical; humanists gradually came to realize that the ancient Greek and Roman authors had different manners of expressions and ways of thinking that were alien to the 15th century. This realization motivated humanists to study manuscripts with a new historical awareness, a historical consciousness about the past as different from the present. Hence, the restoration of ancient learning and values would not be a straightforward exercise; it would involve painstaking research about every aspect of ancient culture. From such research the humanists arrived at the fundamental principles for the modern scientific study of history, literature, language, politics, sociology, and religion.58 These principles remain the bedrock or foundation of modern scientific research in historical and religious studies. 14. The Renaissance humanists also established the basic rules for textual analysis of the Bible. To most of them in the 15th century, scripture was still largely understood as a divinely inspired text. However, for humanists, it was also becoming clear that the Bible was a work of literature that had roots in the past. In other words, they began to conceive of the Bible as a historical text. Being historical, the Bible was a product of a different way of thinking and expression; it became for them something less familiar and, therefore, something that needed to be studied like any other ancient manuscript. In the 15th century, the Bible was printed in Latin and many assumed that the Bible had always been written the way it was
57 58 Ibid 7:185c, 186d. Besides Latin and Greek, Hebrew was the third of the major ancient languages revived by the humanists. Ibid 7:187c.
32
(i.e. arranged and composed in its Latin version, the Vulgate). However, Renaissance humanists no longer assumed that the original meaning of the Bible could be understood without proper study about its cultural and linguistic origins. Therefore, the Bible came under very close scientific scrutiny or examination of the Renaissance humanists, who studied the Bible in order to be better able to express its original intention to all of humanity. In a sense, this meant that a divinely revealed text could (and should) come under the criticism of human reason if the meaning of scripture was to be authentic. Renaissance humanists understood this to be something beneficial for all humanity. On the other hand, the Church often perceived this situation unfavorably. 15. The collection of manuscripts became an intellectual obsession for many humanist scholars and many ancient texts were translated by humanists from ancient Greek and Latin to languages like modern Latin, Italian, and German. Such immense research and translated works led to an explosion of modern writings that were published in collections of manuscripts. Eventually, these manuscripts were collected and stored in places reserved for the safekeeping and access of these works. Such places are known today as libraries, and the first modern European libraries began in 15th century Europe. Even the Vatican Library (i.e. the official library of the Roman Church) finds its beginnings in the Renaissance period: Pope Nicholas V (1447-55) and his successors were passionate patrons of Renaissance humanist learning, literature and art.59 Hence, Renaissance humanism created a culture of modern and scientific learning that is still sustained till today; such a culture is epitomized by the prolific (many) books that continue to make up the great libraries of knowledge in Western Europe today.
Christian Humanism: Grace works through nature. 16. It becomes obvious that Renaissance humanists valued greatly the value of human knowledge not just religious or theological knowledge but knowledge that included worldly or secular experience and values. Hence, Renaissance humanists actively sought the expansion of what can be called, universal knowledge. This quest for universal knowledge is precisely the humanistic value that modern universities today base their existence on. Universities have more than one discipline or department in their institution; they include as many
59 Ibid 7:185d.
33
different departments and disciplines as possible, and they do this in order to bring together (collect) all kinds of knowledge about every aspect of human experience. This creates a wide variety and scope of human learning, which is not limited in terms of sources or interpretations. On the contrary, universities always strive to expand their resources for the sake of expanding scientific knowledge. This perpetual expansion of knowledge may be called the process of universalizing knowledge. It is a humanistic value that finds its origin in the modern mentality of the Renaissance humanists. Furthermore, just like modern universities today, Renaissance humanists strive after universal knowledge for the sake of a fundamental or ultimate concern: The education of humanity. For Renaissance humanists the best sort of education is universal learning, and universal learning encompasses (includes and integrates) knowledge of things that are of nature (i.e. worldly) as well as knowledge of things that are divine (i.e. of God). Universal knowledge can also be called integrated knowledge (of the divine and worldly). 17. However, it is true that humanists generally emphasize knowledge about the secular or worldly aspect of experience. As politicians, educators, or intellectuals, Renaissance humanists worked for the cultural and scientific improvement (or progress) of human society. In this sense, all humanists shared a world view [that] in some way centered on man rather than on the suprahuman or the abstract.60 This point is essential: Renaissance humanism placed strong emphasis on the study and knowledge of humanity. Humanism is essentially a natural (worldly) worldview that emphasizes humanity without over-emphasis on religious faith or belief.61 This does not mean that humanists did not consider the role of religious faith in their work. On the contrary, a common characteristic of all humanists is their stress on the need to pay attention to both the secular and religious aspects of society as a whole. However, while some humanists did place more emphasis on the secular aspect of humanistic studies, other humanists prioritized the religious (Christian) element. The consequence was that some humanists had greater regard for nature (and reason), while others held divine revelation (grace) to be higher than nature and reason. In this sense, a general intellectual problem arose within Renaissance humanism itself; it was a question about the
60 Ibid 7:182b. According to Ong humanism may have in fact arisen during the Middle Ages in personalities like the 8th century English theologian and education, Alcuin (735-804), and the English prelate and scholar, John of Salisbury (1115-1180). 61 See also Christopher Dawson, The Dividing of Christendom (Image, New York, 1967) 46.
34
relationship between nature and grace or reason and faith, state and Church, humanity and God, the human and the divine). This tension between nature and grace was not only felt in intellectual circles; it was a tension that was felt at every level of Renaissance society and culture. It was a sign of the times. 18. Some humanists were convinced that religious faith and theology were important in order to understand divine revelation, but they also believed that human reason or philosophy was important in order to understand how Gods grace is revealed in the world. Such humanists did not oppose natural reason (nature) and faith (grace); they tried to reconcile the two things. In this spirit, Renaissance humanists such as Thomas More believed that there was a positive relationship between divine grace and created nature.62 More (like the great Medieval theologian, St. Thomas Aquinas) believed that grace works with (or builds upon) nature and not against it in order to demolish nature. This was a major principle of Medieval theology, particularly the theology of Thomas Aquinas (who arrived at this understanding by studying the philosophy of Aristotle). The complementary relationship between nature and grace also continues to be a spiritual principle in the Roman Catholic Church today. 19. This principle emphasizes that Gods grace is given to the world for the good of the world. In this sense, human reason or natural philosophy is able to comprehend or know the truth of revelation independently and, in doing so, reason can help humanity understand revelation better in terms of human logic and expression. It is true that humanists like More had a higher respect for the Christian faith; for them no knowledge would could be perfected without knowledge of Christ. So, for them. Revelation is necessary for the Christian life. However, they also understood the need to secularize divine revelation to express the significance and meaning of Gods grace in ways that the ordinary intelligent layperson could understand and experience. Reason and philosophy can help explain divine matters in terms of human experience. Nature, then, is not an obstacle to Gods grace but a medium; in the same way reason or philosophy functions to translate and convey the message of revelation in terms of human experience and understanding. In this sense, a liberal education in no way rejected the supremacy of Christian ethics and theology.63
See Ong, Humanism, 7:191; D. J. Forbes, Humanism, Christian, New Catholic Encyclopedia (2nd edition) 7:194a; W. P. Haas, Humanism, Secular, New Catholic Encyclopedia (2nd edition) 7:198ab. 63 C. Dawson, Dividing of Christendom, 47. 62
35
20. The idea that nature and grace work together and complement each other is a central principle for religious (Christian) humanists. This religious aspect was clearly present in Renaissance humanists before the 14th century. As such, it is possible to argue that Renaissance humanism still made room for God despite strong emphasis on secularism, nature, and humanity. Humanism that continued to reflect on the role of religious faith or God for humanity may be properly called Renaissance Christian Humanism.64 However, not all humanists were religiously minded and not all remembered their Christian roots. Christian humanists were inclined to oppose other humanists who placed the secular or worldly aspect of humanism above the religious or spiritual element; some humanists emphasized humanity at the expense of Christian faith, hence, excluding the religious (Christian) aspect of humanism.65 Contrary to the spirit of Christian humanism, humanism that placed nature above grace may be referred to as a purely secular humanism. Indeed, secular humanism is not necessarily irreligious in nature; religious faith and God may still find a place in the reflections of secular humanists. However, secular humanism pays more attention to the worldly and natural part of humanity. It has higher regard for the things of man rather than God. In summary, therefore, Christian and secular humanism are like two sides or parts of Renaissance humanism. They represent the religious as well as secular tendencies of Renaissance humanism.
Conclusion.: The roots of Christian and secular humanism. 21. In fact, it is arguable that Renaissance humanists tended to be Christian humanists as well. This might not be true for humanism from the 18th century onwards but it is probably the case for Renaissance humanism. Society in the 14th to 16th century was still predominantly Christian and people still had strong respect for the religious teachings and authority of
64 Forbes describes Christian humanism as the view that human culture and its tradition have value in the Christian life to the extent in which they are subordinated, in some way, to Christs teaching, to what is preeminent in the tradition of the faith and consequently in the tradition of the Church. See Forbes, Christian Humanism, 7:193d. Haas, Secular Humanism, 7:194d. Haas traces the history of secular humanism beginning with the ancient Greeks to contemporary pragmatism and existentialism; his article ends with a critique of the relationship between the religious and secular element of humanism. Throughout the history of humanism (as Haas describes it), the relationship is one of tension and is contingent on the personal emphasis one places on either the religious or secular component of humanism.
65
36
the Church. Many humanists were faithful and practicing Christians.66 Though humanists regarded independent learning very highly, many (not all) pursued such learning in the context of their religious faith. As explained above, Christian humanists are humanists who reflect about humanity and society in relation to religious faith and God, and there are a few excellent examples of Christian humanists in the 14th, 15th and 16th century: The poets Dante Alighieri and Francesco Petrarch; the humanist philosophers Marsilio Ficino and Giordano Pico della Mirandola; and, the Cardinal-theologian Nicholas of Cusa. These thinkers were leading Medieval / Renaissance humanists as well as sincere and believing Christians. In their personalities and their work, humanism and Christianity are integrated; their ideas may be said to be the prime examples of Renaissance Christian humanism. Their thoughts illustrate that Renaissance humanism was not always or necessarily opposed to Christian or religious faith. On the contrary, there were Renaissance humanists that sought to reconcile the Christian or religious faith with secular reason (or philosophy). The above still holds true for humanism and humanists today for contemporary Christian and secular humanists: The former (Christian humanism) remains open to the religious or transcendent element in natural human experience, while the latter (secular humanism) remains closed to the possibilities of divine action but solely focus on the natural abilities of humanity and human society to determine and actualize itself. These two living attitudes or trends are both humanist, and they find their source in the Renaissance.67
Bibliography Dawson, Christopher. 1967 The Dividing of Christendom. Originally published in 1965 (Sheed and Ward). Reprint. Garden City, New York: Image Books. Fitzgerald, D. J. 2003 Renaissance Philosophy, New Catholic Encyclopedia (2nd edition) 12:120-125. Gardiner, H. C.
66 67 Fitzgerald, Renaissance Philosophy, 12:120c. For a brief survey of the roots and development of secular humanism (ancient and contemporary), see Haas.
37
2003 Humanism, Christian, edition) 7:193-194. Haas, W. P.
New
Catholic
Encyclopedia
(2nd
2003 Humanism, Secular, New Catholic Encyclopedia (2nd edition) 7:194-198. Ong, W. J. 2003 Humanism, New Catholic Encyclopedia (2nd edition) 7:182193.
38
A History of Modern Philosophy Lecture 3. Scholasticism & the Reformations
Lecture 3. Scholasticism and the Protestant and Catholic Reformations

Scope & outline: I. 22. SCHOLASTICISM
Introduction: Humanism and medieval learning. Humanists had a negative impression of Medieval education. They believed that medieval learning was elitist, divisive, and a source of spiritual distraction for priests and religious. In light of this, humanists tried to reform medieval education. Scholasticism, humanism, and the Reformation. These three major intellectual movements confront each other in the 16th century; they mutually influence each other and together they shape modern Church and society. Hence, it is important to understand this relationship, beginning with scholasticism. Scholasticism vs. humanism. Scholasticism differs from the method of humanism, but both strive for the understanding of reality. However, the core disciplines of scholasticism are metaphysics and natural (philosophical) theology. Scholastics used these to create systems of ideas about reality. Scholasticism and rationalism. The scholastic method is essentially rationalistic. It was a study that emphasized logic and reasoning, and it was optimistic that universal truth could be discovered by reason alone. Scholasticism never ceased attempting to create syntheses between knowledge and faith. Essential ideas of Scholasticism. The rationalism of scholasticism leads to common principles about moderate realism, the sources of knowledge (experience and reason), natural law, dualism in creation, rational theodicy, and the autonomy of philosophical reason. The significance of Aristotelian logic and philosophy. A major historical reason for the rationalist tendency of scholasticism is the philosophy of Aristotle, which was introduced to European intellectual between the 10th and 12th century. Aristotles philosophy transformed the way medieval thinkers appreciated reason. Further developments into the 18th century. 39
25.
A History of Modern Philosophy Lecture 3. Scholasticism & the Reformations During the 14th century, scholasticism remains strong in the universities. However, with the rise of humanism during the Renaissance, it declines and becomes less popular. Scholasticism survives and is revived after the Protestant Reformation and into the 18th century. However, humanism greatly influences the study of scholasticism in the universities. Scholasticism and Christian humanist reformers: Nicholas of Cusa Many scholastics during the 14th century became humanist scholars as well. Some tried to reform medieval education by introducing other intellectual elements that were not Aristotelian in perspective. One such scholar was the cleric and German Cardinal, Nicholas of Cusa. His idea of learned ignorance balances the scholastic emphasis on positive knowledge.
-----------------------------------------------I. SCHOLASTICISM
20. Introduction: Humanism and medieval learning. From the 14th century onward, humanism became an alternative to traditional medieval education (see lecture 01). However, both humanism and medieval education were very closely related: Both believed that a universal education was necessary for the betterment of humanity, and both desired to enlighten human society with knowledge of this universal truth. However, the approaches (i.e. method /content) of medieval learning and humanism were very different: Humanism emphasized an intellectual love for all kinds of knowledge, especially ancient and secular knowledge; it also emphasized the independence of human reason and its ability to know truth.68 On the other hand, medieval thinkers placed a greater emphasis on the theological and spiritual tradition of Christian knowledge, which was primarily based on faith. 21. The humanists spoke unfavorably of medieval learning and education (see the writings of humanists such as Erasmus). Humanists called medieval knowledge, scholasticism. This name referred to the learning or study of the schools of philosophy that were taught in universities during the Middle Ages. Hence, scholasticism is a useful term, for it shows what medieval education was all about: It was an education that emphasized scholarly, technical, and academic knowledge. In fact, scholasticism was active in the universities of Medieval Europe. In these universities, scholasticism was taught to students primarily through university textbooks, and these textbooks were often technical as well as lengthy. So, only highly intellectual people were capable of studying scholastic philosophy. Moreover, not only was scholasticism a highly intellectual study. Almost all the students of scholasticism (i.e. scholastics) were religious and clerics. Laypeople
68 Again, it must be emphasized that the humanists were Christians as well, and most of them strived to remain loyal to the teachings of the Christian faith. See previous lecture.
40
hardly ever had access to the universities, hence, scholasticism was not well-known among laypeople. 22. Therefore, scholasticism was very exclusive or elitist in nature. It was also divisive: Scholasticism created a distance between theologians (who were mostly religious and clerics) and laypeople; this gap in turn created a tension and division between church and secular society as well.69 Most Renaissance humanists did not like this tension that scholasticism created. For most of them, scholasticism represented a negative culture;70 it was narrow in its subject and it was too exclusive it catered for the religious and clerics, while laypeople were largely excluded. This was detrimental (i.e. harmful) to the progress and welfare (intellectual and spiritual) of society, because intelligent religious and priests became more concerned with intellectual debates and controversies and less interested in the spiritual development of the people. Hence, according to the Renaissance humanists, scholasticism was not good for society as a whole because it stressed intellectual knowledge at the expense of the spiritual well-being of human society. 23. Humanist criticisms against scholasticism soon became a major theme in the 16th century. Humanists called for a reform of education, and they devoted their efforts to the humanistic education of laypeople in society. Hence, humanists attempted to create a new education centered on the needs of the laity. Famous Christian humanists of this period who advocated such an approach to education included Erasmus of Rotterdam (Desiderius Erasmus, 1466-1536), Thomas More (1478-1535), and Martin Luther (1483-1546): Erasmus and More applied humanism to the study, critique, and reform of Christian ideals and practices of the Church; in the case of Martin Luther, his demand for religious reform in the Church resulted in the historical movement known as the Protestant Reformation. This movement is historically important, because it deepens the religious crisis in the 16th century. However, the Reformation is also philosophically important: Humanist and religious reformers criticized the limitations of scholasticism, and their attacks greatly influenced the way intellectuals thought about the study of Christian theology and philosophy: Why study theology and philosophy? What are its aims and method? What are its sources? The Renaissance and the Reformation posed these major questions, and the Church needed to respond. The Church later did this by instituting its own Catholic Reformation (via the Council of Trent, 1545-1563). With the Catholic Reformation, the pastoral practices and intellectual tradition of the Church were reformed, and
69 70 Christopher Dawson, The Dividing of Christendom (Image, New York, 1967) 48. I. C. Brady, Scholasticism 1. Medieval Scholasticism, New Catholic Encyclopedia (2nd edition) 12:757b. Some 19th century philosophers agreed with this opinion. The great German idealist, Hegel, is reported to have said that he would (if he could) put on boots that were seven-league (i.e. roughly 21 miles) in length in order to skip the Middle Ages and immediately reach the period of reason, beginning with Descartes. See Josef Pieper, Scholasticism, Britannica 2001 Deluxe Edition CD-Rom.
41
scholasticism was revived. 24. Scholasticism, humanism, and the Reformation. Therefore, scholasticism did not die out when the Renaissance and the Reformation happened. In fact, scholasticism regained its strength in the 16th century and continued to be strong into the 18th century (i.e. until the time of the French Revolution and the Enlightenment, when secularized politics and Rationalism took hold over Europe). Nevertheless, it is important to keep in mind the significant historical relationship between three medieval and modern movements: (i) scholasticism, (ii) humanism (Renaissance and Christian), and (iii) the Protestant and Catholic Reformations. The 16th century was the meeting point of these three intellectual events, and each movement influenced the other. Hence, it is worthwhile to study and understand the relationship between scholasticism, humanism, and the reformations. First of all, however, the Christian intellectual movement known as scholasticism needs to be better explained. (In part two, the relationship between scholasticism and the Protestant and Catholic Reformations will be discussed.) 25. Scholasticism vs. humanism. Renaissance humanists had a general dislike for the abstract and technical nature of scholasticism. However, although they attempted to break with traditional (medieval) scholasticism, this did not mean that the humanists ignored scholasticism altogether. In fact, humanism continued to use a similar curriculum with scholasticism and both shared a common approach to study (especially the subjects on grammar, rhetoric, and logic). However, humanism is different from scholasticism because of its emphasis on the study of ancient sources (antiquity). In other words, the humanists concentrated on historical study but not the abstract logical arguments of scholasticism. On the other hand, the scholastics were enthusiastic about two subjects: (i) metaphysics (which is the study of reality or the real) and (ii) natural theology (the study of divine revelation by human reasoning alone). Metaphysics and natural theology were very logical (rational) subjects, and these were the core disciplines of their study. Scholastic philosophers strongly believed that a foundation in metaphysics and natural theology would give the Christian a better understanding of the reality of God, creation, and man. Such rational knowledge was for them the foundation of universal truth. They were not deeply interested in the study of ancient sources, yet, they were knowledgeable of ancient learning. However, they believed that ancient wisdom alone could never be the basis of truth.
26. In fact, scholasticism went beyond (i.e. included but transcended) humanism. Scholastics believed that every kind of knowledge (historical, literary, and scientific) contained truths, and these truths could be
studied and collated (collected and arranged) into a universal system of ideas. In other words, they were optimistic in their belief that human reason could understand truth wholly, including the mysteries of the Christian faith.71 The goal of scholastic study, then, was not to restore the wisdom of ancient cultures. The aim was to observe, interpret, and explain reality and the nature of things as they were (or reality-in-itself, beyond all appearances). Scholasticism was (and still is) the intellectual study of the reality, the investigation of metaphysical truth, or metaphysics. With metaphysics, scholastics tried to understand and know Being72 itself not merely how being appears (i.e. not existence, or the particular ways in which Being exists), but Being-in-itself. With this aim in mind, scholasticism immersed itself in the rational investigation of every relevant problem in the liberal arts, philosophy, theology, medicine, and law; scholastics examined all possible human experiences and rational arguments with only one objective in mind, namely, to gain systematic knowledge or scientia (science). 27. Scholasticism and rationalism. Such scientific knowledge would be built up on basic philosophical principles about reality, just as a house is built on proper foundations. Reason or philosophy became an important instrument for scholasticism. In other words, scholasticism is truly a rational discipline, but the humanists criticized it as being too rationalistic. In the language of today, the humanists would say that scholasticism was too technical, abstract, impractical, or too scientific. This leads to the criticism that scholastics liked to rationalize Christian faith, and that scholasticism strived to make use of philosophical principles to rationally explain the mysteries of the Christian faith (i.e. theology).73 Indeed, scholastics used philosophy (logic, metaphysics) as a rational tool for explaining the divine truths of the faith. However, this does not mean that all scholastics believed that every Christian mystery could be explained by reason. Rather, scholastics never ceased trying to harmonize the principles of reason and the content of faith. 28. In the writings of the greatest scholastics during the Medieval ages, reason is always used in the service of faith and theology with the aim of understanding faith, but not with the intention of changing the contents
71 Such an attitude to knowledge may be called the positive approach to knowledge, or positive knowledge. In the 15th century, Nicholas of Cusa (a German Cardinal and humanist) stressed another form of knowledge which was negative in approach. He called it the doctrine of learned ignorance that is, a humble but educated awareness and recognition of ones limitations of knowledge that is reached after a period of intensive education or learning. This negative knowledge is also part of the so-called negative theology, which is a tradition of knowledge of God that stresses what God is not, rather than what God is. Being is a philosophical term to points to the ground or reason for existence in general. Without Being, there is no existence (no thing). Hence, metaphysics often equates Being with God. J. A. Weisheipl, Scholastic Method, New Catholic Encyclopedia (2nd edition) 12:747a. In response to this tendency in scholasticism, Nicholas of Cusa stressed that learned ignorance was the key to understanding the mysteries of faith.
72 73
43
of faith. Of course, the ways in which individual scholastic philosophers explained faith was different, and no scholastic provided the same answers to every problem.74 Indeed, scholasticism addressed every problem that could be raised: it encouraged communal research, debates, and discussions about these problems in schools, monasteries, and universities. However, this great project of scholasticism soon produced many different intellectual systems and philosophical methods. Scholasticism eventually became a community or collection of many and different (i.e. a plurality of) schools of philosophy and theology. Hence, the name scholasticism, or the learning of the schools. However, all these schools had a common feature: They used logic (not literature) as the universal instrument of debate,75 making scholasticism a strictly rational and logical science for understanding reality (i.e. Being) and the faith. This still remains as the outstanding and grounding character of scholasticism: The complement of faith and reason in the quest for Being and truth.76 29. In this sense, scholasticism is a [rational] synthesis that attempts to organize all questions [that] philosophy asks and to present the answers in a strictly logical format.77 It was concerned mainly with arguments about definitions and logical demonstrations, because scholastics firmly believed that human knowledge and language (human expression through words and symbols) were very closely related. Hence, the entire scholastic enterprise was filled with debates about the meaning of words, terms, sentences, and phrases; it strived for the improvement of thinking in terms of logic or reason. Such emphasis on the exclusive use of logic and reason is very abstract, but many scholastics believed that this rational emphasis was necessary: The most basic conviction of these scholastic philosophers is the conviction that human reason is able to know reality independently of religious faith. Of course, this did not imply that theology or faith (divine revelation) were unnecessary or different sources of truth. Scholasticism stressed the complementary nature of reason and faith, and both derived knowledge of the truth from the same divine source.78 However, reason attained truth in a different way, and the scholastics respected this different approach of human reason. Many of them strongly affirmed the autonomy of reason (philosophy), which was not opposed to theological faith. Ultimately, the scholastics were optimistic that the truth discovered by philosophy would not contradict
74 75 76 Brady, Scholasticism 1. Medieval Scholasticism, 12:757c. Weisheipl, Scholastic Method, 12:747d-748a. In the 6th century, a scholar by the name of Boethius wrote a work that tried to explain the Christian mystery of the Trinity. The last sentence of this work reads, as far as you are able, join faith to reason. Boethius is regarded as the father of scholasticism; even some his theological works were full of logical analyses but contained little or no biblical quotations. He is also the last layman of European philosophy for the next 1,000 years (i.e. until the 16th century). See J. Pieper, Scholasticism. W. H. Crilly, Scholastic Philosophy, New Catholic Encyclopedia (2nd edition) 12:749a. No doubt, certain scholastics in the Middle Ages would subject reason to the authority of faith.
77 78
44
the truth of revelation, but that reason would enhance or improve understanding of the faith. 30. Essential ideas of Scholasticism. Scholasticism had an immense or great trust in human reason to discover and know reality and truth. Hence, scholasticism was a rational science. Briefly explained below are some of the essential ideas or doctrines of scholasticism:79 a. Moderate Realism: For scholastics, reality is independent (i.e. exists separately) of the mind. Although reality can be experienced by the senses and known by the mind, this does not mean that reality is determined by the mind or by sense-experience. In other words, reality is not purely a subjective experience, and the individual human being is not the measure of what is real or true. Reality is autonomous and exists in itself. b. Two orders or sources of knowledge: Sense-experience and reason are the two orders or sources of knowledge. In fact, both are interrelated: Whatever enters the mind first enters the senses. However, this does not imply that intellectual knowledge is the same thing as knowledge by sense-experience. On the contrary, knowledge gained through reasoning is independent (of a different kind) from knowledge gained by sense-experience. c. Reality as complex (i.e. made up of more than a single element): The world is not monistic (i.e. made up of only one essence or nature). Scholastics agreed that the world is dualistic: It is composed of both matter and spirit. Hence, scholasticism opposed the philosophy of materialism (i.e. that reality is all matter) and idealism (i.e. reality is determined by the mind). (Materialism and idealism are called monist philosophies because they identify reality as having only one aspect or element either matter or spirit, but not both). In its dualistic nature, the world or cosmos develops and evolves in a complex way. d. Natural Law: Scholastics believe in an independent and natural standard (i.e. not man-made) standard of being. They called this natural standard, natural law, or the law of nature. It is not a human theory or invention; natural law exists and functions independently of human thought and action, and all things are subject to natural law. Everything, including human acts, exist in relation to this law of nature. However, since natural law is part of creation, it is not really independent: Since it is created, therefore, it is dependent on the creator, God. Ultimately, it is God who is the giver of natural law. Therefore, scholastics are convinced that
79 J. E. Gurr, Scholasticism 2. Modern or Middle Scholasticism, New Catholic Encyclopedia (2nd edition) 12:763c-d.
45
natural law is divinely revealed. On the other hand, human reason can discover natural law. e. Logical demonstration of Gods existence: The scholastics were also convinced that the existence of God could be demonstrated (i.e. proved) by rational principles and arguments. This gave rise to a different versions or arguments for the proof of Gods existence. These proofs are still studied today in courses on theodicy or the philosophy of God. f. Philosophy vs. Theology: The scholastics distinguished the realm of reason (philosophy) and faith (theology), but always insisted that reason should be supplemented by the authority of revelation. Reason or philosophy serves the higher truth of faith or theology; in this sense, philosophy is the handmaid of theology. 31. Therefore, scholastics were thinkers who tried their best to cultivate human and natural knowledge to the fullest. On the other hand, Renaissance and Christian humanists also often criticized scholasticism as being too intellectual. Indeed, this is true: Scholasticism is the cultivation of human reason for knowledge of the truth, and the primary question for scholastics was not the restoration of ancient learning but the restoration of human reason as a source of truth. Renaissance humanists, too, believed in the power of reason to uncover truth, but their approach was through literature. So, what separates humanism from scholasticism was the difference in approach to rational knowledge: Scholasticism centered on logical demonstration of truth, while humanists developed an understanding of existence (existentialism) through the study of ancient literature and art. 32. The significance of Aristotelian logic and philosophy. In order to express what the intellect knows, it is necessary to use logic to clarify the ideas, language, sense, and reality.80 Logic (as well as the learning of languages, grammar, and rhetoric) becomes an important tool for scholasticism, and the scholastics discovered the most advanced logic in the philosophy of Aristotle.81 Aristotles philosophy was introduced to th the Western world in the 13 century by Arabic and Jewish philosophers, and his philosophy was revolutionary for Christian learning because it introduced to scholasticism a new and broader cultural horizon and world-system (Weltanschauung).82 In other words, Aristotelian
80 Weisheipl, 12:747c. The scholastics believed that clarification of the ideas and language used to express the truth of what is real can come about only through a method of argument known as the quaestio disputa. For a description of this, see ibid 12:747d-748a. Aristotles philosophy is highly regarded for its systematic approach to investigating reality. According to the Aristotelian method, proper scientific questions fall into four categories: (i) does it exist (an sit), what is it (quid sit), does it have a given characteristic (quia sit), and why (propter quid). Ibid 12:748b. Brady, 12:759b-c.
81
82
46
philosophy transformed scholastic philosophy, especially in the 11th and 12th century; Aristotles philosophy gave Christian learning a greater confidence in reason and its ability to discover truth independently of religious faith. This encouraged scholasticism to place greater trust or reliance on human reason. In this spirit, scholasticism can be said to be rooted in Aristotelian thought. 33. Therefore, scholasticism is rational, metaphysical, and scientific in nature. However, this underlying rational unity of the scholastic method83 was not opposed to the Christian faith. In fact, scholastics did not believe that the truth found by reason could contradict the truth of the faith. If there was a contradiction between the two kinds of knowledge, then further study was still needed. To the scholastic mind, it is illogical to believe that two truths could exist and be opposed to each other (the theory of double truth). There is only one truth, and philosophy attains it rationally while theology reaches it through faith and Christian living. Hence, truth is one, but reason and faith have different ways of knowing truth. In the same way, philosophy and theology are different and independent disciplines, but both strive for the same truth though in different ways. St. Albert the Great would say, In matters of faith and morals Augustine is to be believed rather than the philosophers, if they are not in agreement. But if one is to speak of medicine, I should rather believe Galen or Hippocrates; or if of the nature of things, I believe Aristotle or some other who is expert in the nature of things.84 Therefore, scholastics were convinced in the underlying, metaphysical unity of truth in all aspects. 34. Further developments into the 18th century. Scholasticism fully th matured in the 13 century. Central thinkers in this golden age of high scholasticism85 included St. Albert the Great, Roger Bacon, St. Bonaventure, St. Thomas Aquinas, Jon Duns Scotus, and William of Ockham. These thinkers became the founders of the schools that existed in later scholastic philosophy during the 14th century and the Renaissance. However, because of this, scholasticism during the 14th century entered a period of continual intellectual conflict and confusion: Theologians and philosophers divided themselves into groups or schools, and each school represented different methods and intellectual beliefs. This created a highly controversial environment, and it gave rise to many different ways of understanding the Christian faith. For the humanists, this competitive situation was unacceptable; they believed that such scholastic debates distracted thinkers from more important issues. So, the Renaissance humanists attempted to reform this situation by reviving
83 It is the modern convention to separate scholastic philosophy from theology, since scholasticism is now increasingly understood as a discipline that emphasized the autonomy of philosophical investigation from any source of authority as a first criterion. See Crillys article, Scholastic Philosophy, 12:749c-d. Cited in Brady, 12:760d. This falls in the period 1200-1350. See ibid 12:759b-762b.
84 85
47
the ideas and values of ancient Greek and Roman culture, and transmitting these values via a new education. In the 14th century, in places such as Italy and France, scholasticism went into decline and the educational reform of the humanists caused further problems for scholasticism. However, despite the rise of Renaissance humanism, scholasticism experienced a revival of metaphysics in the 16th century,86 and it continued to have a significant impact on European learning well into the 18th century.87 This revival of scholasticism took place largely in Spain.88 Historians of philosophy call this period of revival of scholasticism in the 16th century as the period of modern or middle scholasticism (also, second scholasticism and Renaissance scholasticism).89 35. In fact, scholasticism remained as the center discipline of university or higher education. On the other hand, humanism was considered by universities to be elementary study.90 This situation is understandable: Scholasticism is an academic discipline focused on the learning of the university,91 while humanism strived for the kind of knowledge that would reform human society at all levels, and this is another difference between scholasticism and humanism that needs to be taken into account. Scholasticism, unlike humanism, was a very intellectual and elitist activity that flourished within the academia and the church; it demanded high intellectual ability. On the other hand, humanism was largely a secular-oriented and inclusive project of the Renaissance reformers. Humanism catered to both academics as well as the ordinary and intelligent laymen of the day. It is no surprise, then, that humanism was more fashionable among the reformers of the 14th and 15th century. For these reformers, scholastic culture had too many limitations. 36. Scholasticism and Christian humanist reformers: Nicholas of Cusa. So, humanists began to shy away from scholasticism. One major humanist argument against scholasticism was the criticism that scholasticism was too confident about the power of human reason to discover truth. This criticism did not merely come from lay scholars; some religious and clerics had the same opinion too. An example is the Christian humanist reformer,
86 87 88 89 90 91 Brady, 12:757b. J. M. Connolly, Humanism, New Catholic Encyclopedia (2nd edition) 7:192d. Brady, 12:762d; see also Gurr, Scholasticism 2. Modern or Middle Scholasticism, 12:763-772, especially Nicholas of Cusa 767d-768b. Gurr 12:763a; William A. Wallace, The Elements of Philosophy (Alba House, New York, 1977) 299. The next historical crisis that modern scholasticism confronts is the French Revolution (18th and 19th century). Today, humanism and its system of study has developed furthest in the U.S. Connolly, 7:192d-193a. Gurr, 12:763b-c.
48
Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa (c.1400-1464). He was a man of the Church as well as one of the most learned and knowledgeable humanist scholar of in the 15th century (he was a mathematician, scientist, botanist, astronomer, and so on). In addition, being a cleric, Nicholas was also well educated in scholasticism. He understood well the scholastic conviction that reason had the ability to know truth and God (see above). 37. However, for Nicholas, however, the majority of scholastic thinkers overemphasized this rational ability to know God and truth (i.e. positive knowledge). In contrast to the scholastic emphasis on positive knowledge, Nicholas stressed that true knowledge of God comes to the one who understands that (s)he as a reasoning being is ultimately ignorant of God.92 When Nicholas speaks of ignorance, he does not mean the same kind of ignorance that comes from an absence of knowledge; it is not ignorance that is caused by lack of study or knowledge. Rather, the kind of ignorance that Nicholas speaks of is the ignorance one knows or obtains after a long period of study and meditation. Through the acquisition or acquiring of much study and knowledge, the thinker finally arrives at the true knowledge: The experience of the true or authentic limitations of human knowledge. This implies a true understanding of what it means to be ignorant of God and reality. Hence, this is ignorance that is gained after being educated. For Nicholas, the positive knowledge of scholasticism is not true knowledge because it does not emphasize the limitation of knowledge enough; Nicholas believed that true knowledge of God is the realization that one is ignorant of God in other words, true knowledge is nonknowing (i.e. negative knowledge).93 Yet, such negative knowledge is attainable only through positive knowing. This principle is known as the doctrine of learned ignorance. Nicholas described this doctrine in his work, De docta ignorantia, which was written in 1440. -------------------------------------------------Scope & Outline II. THE PROTESTANT
AND
CATHOLIC REFORMATIONS
Scholasticism and the humanist reform. Humanism promoted educational reform by establishing a new learning, the humanities. This meant transforming the old learning or medieval education, scholasticism. By reforming education, the humanists believed that society could be reformed. Hence, scholasticism becomes a target of the reformation movement in the 16th century. Humanism and the Christian reform movement. The humanist reform included a religious or Christian element as well.
92 93 See J. Koch, Nicholas of Cusa, New Catholic Encyclopedia (2nd edition) 10:374. Nicholas of Cusa calls every positive knowledge about truth conjecture. This is the theme of his work, De coniecturis (1441), which was written after De docta ignorantia (1440).
Religious
49
A History of Modern Philosophy Lecture 3. Scholasticism & the Reformations humanist reformers and Biblical reformers sought to complete this religious reformation. In essence, the Christian reform movement was a reaction to the social and political changes taking place in 16th century Europe. Luther and the Protestant Reformation. Martin Luther was one of these religious or Christian reformers. He advocated a return to the source of religious faith, that is, scripture. The values of scripture would become for Luther the values for religious reform. Luthers Biblical humanism is a merge between humanistic study and Christian reform. Erasmus Christian humanism. Before Luther began his reformation, Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam was already a well-known Christian humanist who was well versed in humanist study as well as scripture. He did not specialize in the study of the bible, but he believed that scripture contained the philosophy of Christ. He believed that reason (humanist philosophy) should be reconciled with religious faith. St. Ignatius and the Catholic Reformation. After Protestantism spread, the Catholic Church began to implement its own spiritual and religious reform. St. Ignatius of Loyola offered himself in service to the Catholic reformation. His only work, the Spiritual Exercises, became a popular spiritual text for both Protestants and Catholics in the 16th century. Through the Exercises, Ignatius reformed the spiritual conscience of the believer. The Council of Trent. Between 1545-1563, the Church held a council to deliberate on needed reforms in the structure and religious life of the Church. Reform decrees on ecclesiastical structure, pastoral practices, and doctrines were passed. The Council also declared that higher religious studies included the humanities (i.e. philosophy) as well.
------------------------------------------------------
II. THE PROTESTANT
AND
CATHOLIC REFORMATIONS
38. Scholasticism and the humanist reform. During the Renaissance, humanists tried to reform the medieval education of scholasticism. They did this as part of a greater reform, namely, the reform of society in general. For them, societal reform had to begin with the reform of education, which meant putting into place a new kind of learning. This new learning that the humanists established was called the humanities, or the studia humanitatis. It represented the Renaissance spirit of change and renewal from the old (scholasticism) to the new (humanism). In this sense, the scholastic tradition was suddenly faced with the reforming values of humanism, which also implied the liberation of education from scholastic tradition. 39. Humanism and the Christian reform movement. Therefore, it may be said that humanism arose because scholasticism (as an
educational system) was not fulfilling the needs of society. Society and the Church were becoming more corrupt, and this was a sign that the medieval (i.e. scholastic) thinkers were no longer a major influence in society. As far as the humanists were concerned, scholasticism was not making an impact on the spiritual and religious values of humanity. Reform was needed and humanism was established as the new educational reform that would be responsible for the reform and renewal of society as a whole, including the Church. In other words, this humanist reform included religious or ecclesial reform as well, and this is important to note. 40. During the rise of humanism, a class of Christian scholars begins to study humanism as part of their formal education, and they studied with the intention of improving societys awareness about the Church. These are religious humanist reformers, who are also specifically known as Christian humanists. They applied their humanist learning to ancient religious and Christian sources, especially the Bible, and they used their knowledge of the Bible and the Christian faith to bring about reform in Church and Christian living. Hence, many of these Christian humanists were also Bible reformers. In this way, through the rise of humanism (which was a reaction to the limitations of traditional scholasticism), the Christian reformation was born. The Christian reform in the 16th century eventually took a more specific historical character in two important events: (i) the Protestant Reformation and (ii) the Catholic Reformation (Council of Trent, 1546-1563). 41. It is arguable that the Christian reform movement could not have existed without the rise of humanism. This is a matter of debate. However, it is obvious that there is a historical relationship between these three movements: (i) scholasticism, (ii) humanism, and (iii) the Christian (i.e. Protestant and Catholic) reformation.94 When medieval society and Church had been corrupted badly, many thinkers saw the need for a radical reform. Both humanism and the reformers began to challenge previous religious authority and traditions; they saw religious authority as no longer competent to lead society. Corrupted practices of the church (see also introductory lecture) included pluralism (one bishop controlling several offices), absenteeism (a local bishop being absent for long periods of time from his diocese or parish), simony (the buying and selling of church offices), the lack of proper formation of clergy, and ignorance of religious of the laity.95 Also, the church had become too immersed with economical and political interests, which caused neglect of their spiritual responsibilities to the faithful. In other words, the church had become secularized (i.e. to involved with worldly matters), and the leadership of the church was looked upon by Christians with suspicion, and often was criticized by humanists with disgust.
94 95 Connolly, Humanism, 7:190c-191a. Dawson, The Dividing of Christendom, 64.
51
42. Indeed, the secularization of the church during the 15th and 16th century came about because of the political transformation of European governments. In places such as France, England, Scotland, Denmark, and Germany, secular rulers (nobles, princes, and Kings) began to assert their independence from Church authority. However, this was not a question of merely wanting to be free from external rule. Until the 16 th century, the church had the right and privilege to acquire and own wealth (land and property) from different territories; the papacy was in Italy but it drew its revenue (income) from the land and citizens of other political territories. Hence, much of the wealth of the church came from other nations. The political rulers of these nations knew that there was only one way to preserve the wealth and resources of its territory: Asserting independent rule from the Church. This was especially true in Germany, where Church and secular authority worked very closely together. In the 16th century, the princes and people of Germany were discontent with the way the Church was using the native wealth of the land and people, and this economical and political discontent became the material cause of the Protestant Reformation. In other words, the Reformation was not merely a spiritual or religious call for reform; it was rooted in the political and economical reform of European society as well. In essence, the Reformation was just as much a reform of society as it was a reform of the Church.96 43. In the 16th century, Germany was also a country of free education.97 The princes of the land each had a university in his own territory, and these universities taught both scholasticism as well as humanism. Humanism was not academically as popular as traditional scholastic learning in the German universities (for the Germans were very traditional in their methods and religious practices). However, humanistic ideas were well known among the nobility and some intellectuals of the time. The scholar Ulrich von Hutten was one of these humanist intellectuals who agreed that scholasticism (the old learning) and the papacy were obstacles to the progress of education and political freedom.98 Von Hutten advocated the political and national reform of the state against the authority of the Church. This aspect was accompanied by another element of the German reformation, namely, the religious element. Martin Luther was the protagonist for this religious reform, which eventually led to the Protestant Reformation. According to the renowned Catholic historian, Christopher Dawson, it was Luthers coming that marks the beginning of the new world age, or modernity.99
96 97 98 99 Ibid 67. the Reformation that they [German people] brought about was not a reformation of the Church but rather a reformation of the medieval state at the expense of the Church. Ibid 68. Cf. ibid 68-9. Ibid, 69.
52
44. Luther and the Protestant Reformation. With Martin Luther (1483-1546) and his call for reform, scholasticism also came to an end in Germany during the 15th and 16th century. Luther disliked the philosophy of Aristotle and scholasticism100 and he was adamant (i.e. strongly convinced) that scholasticism was responsible for the decline of the learning of the Church. Hence, like the humanists, he believed that a new learning had to be established. 45. However, Luthers ideas were not determined by the secular orientation of the humanism of his time.101 Although he knew about the benefits of humanistic learning, he was not interested in the improvement of knowledge through the study of ancient Greek and Roman sources. Rather, he was interested in the betterment of religious knowledge, and Luther was convinced that the only way to improve religious knowledge was to return to the source, that is, scripture. Luther developed his ideas from an intense study of scripture alone, which is the primary source of religious knowledge. In this sense, Luthers method was not unlike the humanists. Humanists turned to the ancient sources of Greek and Roman thought for guidance on how to be more human; Luther turned to the ancient source of the Bible for guidance on how to be more Christian. The Bible became Luthers basic text and he drew the ideals and values of the faith by studying it. This led him to the conviction that all people should be able to have access to and read scripture for themselves in order to become better Christians. This return to scripture as the source of spiritual renewal was the essence of Luthers reformation, which can also be called a Biblical humanism102 (a sort of humanist learning that studies religious sources such as scripture and the early Church Fathers, rather than ancient or classical texts in general). 46. Erasmus Christian Humanism. However, Luther was not the only scholar to pursue Biblical humanism. Luthers older contemporary, Erasmus of Rotterdam (1466-1536),103 also denounced scholasticism (or medieval learning) as sterile and lacking in intellectual creativity and , because of this, he immersed himself in the new learning, or humanist approach to the historical-critical study of languages and literary texts. He did this with the aim of bring closer two things, namely, the contemporary
100 101 102 103 Gurr, 12:767d. Dawson, 69. This term is cited in Dawson, 54. For a discussion on his life and intellectual development, see Ibid 54-7.
Desiderius Erasmus
53
learning of the Renaissance with the values and ideals of the Christian faith.104 Eventually, Erasmus turned his attention to the critical study of the Bible, as well as the Church Fathers, both of which led to his ideas of religious reform. Hence, Erasmus (like Luther) was an example of a 15 th century reformer who was also a Christian humanist who advocated Biblical humanism. 47. Erasmus believed that the Bible was not first and foremost a work of dogma or teachings; Scripture was for him a source of moral wisdom, which Erasmus called the philosophy of Christ, or philosophia Christi. Hence, Erasmus wanted to return to the essential ideals found in Scripture, and he criticized the scholastic culture of the Middle Ages for substituting metaphysical (i.e. philosophical) ideas for the philosophy of Christ; he also expressed distaste for medieval religious devotions and practices, which he believed distracted believers from the essential teachings of the Gospel.105 In these criticisms, Erasmus was calling for a reform of the Church, which was a call that Luther would later echo.106 However, unlike Luther, who was responsible for planting the seeds of the Protestant Reformation,107 Erasmus called for reform but remained faithful to the Catholic Church. 48. Erasmus also advocated his own program of docta pietas or learned (educated) piety.108 In this educational program, little interest was paid to religious institutions, rites, and rituals. Instead Erasmus focused on the interiorization of religious inspiration or motivation. For Erasmus, natural reason had its place in this program but faith is somehow the ultimate end of education; reason is used to improve ones faith. Therefore, like the Luther and the Protestants, Erasmus emphasized that the Christian folly of the cross was essential and beyond the abilities of reason alone to bring about an authentic Christian identity.109 In this sense, Erasmus was of the same mindset as reformers such as St. Ignatius of Loyola and Martin Luther. Unlike the Protestants, however, Erasmus did not deny the role of reason in the renewal of faith. In fact, while Luther and the Protestants denied natural reason and emphasized sola fidei or faith alone, Erasmus strongly affirmed that both reason and faith needed to be reconciled to each other. For Erasmus, reason was now represented by humanism, and his primary objective was to
104 105 106 Ibid 21. Dawson claims that, Christian Humanism held a central place in both Catholic and Protestant culture and provided an important link between them. For his treatment of the Renaissance, see ibid 42ff. Ibid 55. Erasmus was considered by his peers as the man who laid the egg that Luther hatched, and his peers also suspected him of being a secret heretic who was all the more dangerous because he was so plausible and moderate. Ibid. See ibid 69-78. Connolly, 7:192a. Ibid 7:192b.
107 108 109
54
reconcile humanism to the Christian religion.110 Through this reconciliation and establishment of Christian humanism, Erasmus hoped to construct a new Christian culture in Europe. With this spirit of reforming religion via the new learning (humanism), Erasmus wrote many works, which were the most widely read by European scholars of the 16th century. In essence, Erasmus spread the culture of Christian Humanism throughout reformation Europe. 49. St. Ignatius and the Catholic Reformation. In the early 1500s, Luther wrote a number of works111 that called for a revolt against the entire structure and tradition of the Catholic Church.112 This religious revolution is known today as the Protestant Revolution. It was an event that shook the foundations of the Church because, as Dawson describes it so well, Luther not only appealed to the council against the Papacy, he appealed to the laity against the clergy and denied the autonomy and independent jurisdiction of the spiritual power.113 It Ignatius of Loyola was Luthers intention to deny legitimate authority to the Papacy altogether and, therefore, Luthers spirit of reform was more of a revolution than a mere reformation. Luther believed that the Church was too corrupt beyond the point of reform. He advocated that these corruptions be solved by placing secular rulers (rather than clerics) as heads of local churches.114 This situation was unacceptable to the Catholic reformers, who began work for the reform of the Church when the Reformation broke out. While these Catholic reformers were working out their plans for a counter-reformation, St. Ignatius of Loyola (1491-1556) and his followers came to Rome and offered themselves as servants of the Church and the Papacy. In 1540, the Society of Jesus (now known as the Jesuits) was formed, and it became the most effective instrument of the Catholic reformation.115 50. Luther was a reformer-theologian. However, Ignatius of Loyola was no theologian but, rather, an ex-soldier who had a life-changing spiritual encounter in 1522; from this encounter he wrote only one book, which contained directions for a course in spiritual exercises. He wrote these as a tool to help other Christians come face-to-face with the principles of Christian living as found in the Gospel. The followers of Ignatius were required to perform these exercises, but during the Catholic reform of the
110 111 112 113 114 115 Dawson, 56. Among them were Appeal to the Nobility of the German Nation and Babylonian Captivity. Ibid 120. Ibid. Ibid 120-121. Dawson 124.
55
16th century, both clerics and laypeople did the same exercises as a means of spiritual reform.116 In other words, Ignatius book of Spiritual Exercises became the primary or fundamental text of the Catholic reformation. In Ignatius and in his single work, there is a new Christian philosophy that is not theological or intellectual in nature. Hence, it was not like the philosophy of Erasmus but quite the opposite;117 Ignatius did not use classical or religious sources. Rather, he spoke directly to the conscience and will of the Christian, and asked if the reader will so choose or decide for or against the values of Christ, to choose to reform himself his way of thinking, doing, and being. This was a philosophy that sought to transform the personality of the Christian by asking the Christian to decide to transform himself. In this sense, the Spiritual Exercises of Ignatius may be regarded as the starting point of the Counter-Reformation.118 It was so popular that even Protestants began studying and writing from it. Eventually, the spirituality of Ignatius itself later created a new religious movement (the Jesuits) that gave birth to a new generation of Catholic humanist scholars that raised the standard of Christian humanism in the 16th century;119 they reformed the Church through their extensive missions and their devotion to the education of the people. 51. The Council of Trent. When the Protestant Reformation spread throughout Europe, the Catholic Church could do nothing to prevent the war between the Catholic Emperors and the Protestants. The Church tried to negotiate with the Protestants120 but such negotiations always failed. Finally, in 1542, pope Paul III convoked the Council of Trent (1545-1563). The council itself began proceedings in 1545, and it was held in the midst of physical conflict between Protestants and Catholics in Europe. It was clear that the Council of Trent was not going to be able to offer an answer to the Reformation; it was now too late for the Catholic Church to begin a Counter-Reformation because the Reformation had already taken its full course. 52. Nevertheless, the Council of Trent remained important to the Catholic Church because it implement radical reforms throughout the structure and tradition of the Church herself. Practices such as simony, pluralism, and the abuse of indulgences were condemned and began to be rectified (i.e. given their proper or original meaning); the pastoral responsibilities of priests and religious (e.g.
116 117 118 119 120 Ibid. In fact, Dawson characterizes the Ignatius as anti-Easmian. Ibid 128. Dawson, 127. See ibid 129-130. Catholic reformers carried out a conference with the Protestants at Ratisbon in 1541, where basic theological disagreements were discussed and reconciled. However, the meetings failed when both Catholics and Protestants realized that there were other more basic obstacles that prevented agreement between both parties. See ibid 131.
56
preaching, education) were clearly outlined; the fundamental doctrines and teachings of the Catholic Church were explicitly defined in opposition to the doctrines and teachings of the Protestants. However, when the Council tried to implement some its pastoral reforms, it experienced violent opposition from the secular rulers. The Council did try its best to maintain the rights of the Church against the power of these rulers. 53. It was in the area of doctrine and teaching that Council was most successful. Reform of Church doctrine ensured that Catholics began their renewal on the right footing, as it were, and the doctrinal reform of the Council gave rise to a spiritual and intellectual renewal in the Catholic Church in the 16th century:121 (i) The rise of new religious orders, and the revival of preaching, catechetics and spirituality; (ii) the re-establishment or restoration of clerical education (seminaries), and the institution of Catholic schools and colleges (mostly run by the Jesuits); (iii) the broadening and liberalizing of higher education through the disciplines of philosophy, theology and history, including the study of the Church Fathers (patristic study) and ancient Church history; (iv) the revival of mysticism through the works of St. Teresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross, and the Carmelite reform. 54. Summary: Education and religious th renewal into the 17 century. It is clear by now that the period of the Middle Ages, the Renaissance (and humanism), and the Reformations all have something in common: They all face the challenge of secularization and the need to renew culture in all its aspects. The Renaissance humanists and reformers were the first to respond to this new development in history, and they responded by renewing the intellectual education of their generation. Specifically, they encouraged a liberal vision of education that included secular as well as religious sources. For many of them, this new educational vision was more authentic than the previous system, scholasticism, which was often regarded as too elitist, abstract, and intellectual. The humanists instituted humanism as a response to the limitations of scholasticism, and the religious reformers similarly reacted against the negative culture of the scholastic learning as well. Nevertheless, scholasticism remained important for the Catholic Church after the reformations. It was regarded as an educational system that had a positive attitude toward the scientia or science of truth. After the Council of Trent, the Church integrated scholasticism with the new humanistic learning, but it did so with the aim of strengthening scholasticism to renew the intellectual culture of the Church. By this renewal, the Church hoped to redress the damage done by the past corruption of its pastors and the rupture of the Protestant Reformation. However, the story does not end here. At the advent of the 17th century, the effort toward cultural renewal was to face further obstacles, which appears in two distinct cultural movements: (i) the
121 Ibid 132.
57
Scientific Revolution and (ii) the Enlightenment. It is to these movements that we turn to next. Bibliography Brady, I. C. 2003 Scholasticism 1. Medieval Scholasticism, New Catholic Encyclopedia (2nd edition) 12:757-762. Connolly, J. M. 2003 Humanism. New Catholic Encyclopedia (2nd edition) 7:182-193. Crilly, W. H. 2003 Scholastic Philosophy, New Catholic Encyclopedia (2nd edition) 12:749-750. Dawson, Christopher. 1967 The Dividing of Christendom. Originally published in 1965 (Sheed and Ward). Reprint. Garden City, New York: Image Books. Gurr, J. E. 2003 Scholasticism 2. Modern or Middle Scholasticism, New Catholic Encyclopedia (2nd edition) 12:763-772. Koch, J. 2003 Nicholas of Cusa, New Catholic Encyclopedia (2nd edition) 10:372-376. Pieper, Josef. 2001 Scholasticism. Britannica 2001 Deluxe Edition CD-Rom. Wallace, William A., O.P. 1977 The Elements of Philosophy: A Compendium for Philosophers and Theologians. New York: Alba House. Weisheipl, J. A. 2003 Scholastic Method. New Catholic Encyclopedia (2nd edition) 12:747-749.
58
A History of Modern Philosophy
Lecture 4. Scientific Revolution
Lecture 4. The Scientific Revolution Mechanism and Empiricism
Scope & Outline The Renaissance, humanism, and the Reformations These movements sought a break with the past by means of reforming the present through the wider education of society. The Secularization of Knowledge The educational reform of the humanists contributed to the liberalization and secularization of reason and knowledge. Science and Modern History Renaissance humanism and the Reformations prepared the way for modern history. However, 17th century science gave birth to a modern way of seeing the world. The Scientific Revolution Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo were catalysts of the Scientific Revolution. They formulated and verified the Copernican theory, which replaced the old world-system. Reformation vs. Revolution Revolutions, like the Scientific Revolution, are more violent and radical than reformations. Revolutions replace the old with something completely new. The Modern Scientific Picture of Reality In the Scientific Revolution, what was new was the scientific picture of reality. Science understood reality in terms of mechanics, mathematics, and empiricism. Science and Religion The discoveries and methods of scientists like Copernicus and Galileo came into conflict with the 17th century authority on knowledge, the Church. This was not the case with the 15th century German scientist-Cardinal, Nicholas of Cusa.
59
The Inductive Method Francis Bacon further developed the inductive method of science. This method allows science to listen to the Kingdom of Nature as well as to use it for the benefit of humanity. The Scientific Revolution Significance and Implications The scientific worldview has improved knowledge of Nature, but it has also fragmented the unity between man and nature, faith and reason, science and religion. Some contemporary thinkers are trying to reconcile them again.
------------------------------------------------------
The Renaissance, humanism, and the Reformations 1. Throughout the early part of modern history in the west, social and religious fragmentation was responsible for another phenomenon that we have called the secularization of reason. We have been trying to understand this process by studying the following social and intellectual movements in the 15th and 16th century: The Renaissance, Christian humanism, and the Protestant and Catholic reformations. In these movements, the common emphasis was to break with the immediate past (which was corrupt) in order to return to the original or pure spirit of human culture and religion. Hence, intellectuals like Petrarch, Erasmus, and Luther began a reform of society and church.
The Secularization of Knowledge 2. However, they did this in a particular way: Education. The early modern reformers attempted to renew society and Church by renewing the ideas of people. This implied, firstly, that there needed to be a new kind of learning, which the Renaissance intellectuals called studia humanitatis, and secondly, by this new learning, the authentic meaning and relevance of culture and religion (including scripture) needed to be made more accessible to the laypeople. In doing these things, the Renaissance and humanist thinkers from the 15th century onwards were, in a sense, liberating knowledge for the laity. In other words, no longer was knowledge and learning exclusively for clerics and religious (i.e. people of the Church), but it was now being made available to ordinary laypeople in
the secular world. In this sense, these early modern intellectual movements played a great part in the secularization of reason and knowledge. People found a new way of reasoning, and they began to think for themselves. This is one way reason became secularized.
Science and Modern History 3. Moving on from 15th century Renaissance humanism and the 16th century reformations, another intellectual movement in modern history was to play a major role in making human reason more independent and more influential. Like the previous movement mentioned above, this movement is also an intellectual movement, but at the same time it is a scientific movement. It is a movement that continues to have a powerful influence and impact over the way we think about reality today. 4. Today, we live in a scientific culture, and many people would agree that this science is what makes culture modern. In other words, some say that if a culture is not scientific, it is not modern. For example, if people in a particular society still believe that the earth is flat, that it is the center of the cosmos, and it is always stationary (i.e. does not move), would we not think to ourselves that such a society was backward, obsolete, uneducated, and, therefore, pre-modern (ancient)? If such a culture still believed in gods who controlled nature and human destiny, that fate is controlled by the stars, would we not believe them to be superstitious? So, if we suddenly found ourselves alone in such a culture or society, where everyone had an unscientific picture of the world, where ideas were still pre-modern, we would certainly feel uncomfortable. Yet, we would know that our worldview, because it is based on scientific facts, is the right one. However, it would be difficult to persuade the rest of pre-modern society that the earth is round, that it is not the center of the world, and that it rotates on itself and revolves around the sun.
The Scientific Revolution 5. This is precisely what happened during the 17th century movement known as the Scientific Revolution. Like the events of the Renaissance, humanism, and Protestant Reformation, the Scientific Revolution points to a particular period of history in which something new happens or
arises from the old. Here, the 17th century scientific worldview that is based on new findings in science opposed or contradicted the science of the medieval period (4th 14th century). There were many developments in 17th century science. Among these was the understanding of the physics or the law of nature, particularly the concept of force. However, a more essential or important discovery of 17th century science was the so-called heliocentric122 theory, which argued for two things. Firstly, the earth revolves around the sun (helios), which was understood by the new science to be the center of the world.123 Secondly, the earth rotates. 6. These findings were confirmed progressively by three scientists Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543),124 Johannes Kepler (1571-1630),125 and Galileo Galilei (1564-1642).126 They were able to observe astronomical movements as well as use mathematics to explain and demonstrate how the planets moved. In this way, they were able to show or proof that their scientific theory was accurate because they were able to match theory with facts. Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo used mathematics as well as physical observations to confirm the heliocentric nature of the system. In this sense, the Scientific Revolution began with astronomy and mathematics. 7. This theory is known as the Copernican system. It was a revolutionary theory that eventually replaced the geocentric127 worldview. It also transformed how people saw the world and reality, and greatly increased their respect in the authority of human reason. Because of its revolutionary character, the Copernican theory is also popularly called the Copernican Revolution of the world-system. When Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo insisted that their theory was accurate, they experienced resistance from the authorities, particularly the Church.
122 123 124 125 Heliocentric, from helios (sun) and centrum (center or fixed point). We now know, of course, that the sun is merely the center of our solar system and not our universe, the Milky Way. In fact, the sun and our solar system resides on the edge of the universe, not the center. Nicolaus Copernicus (or Mikoaj Kopernik) was a Polish astronomer. His work that proposed the heliocentric theory was entitled, De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium (1543). Johannes Kepler was a German astronomer who discovered the three laws of planetary motion: First, that planets move in elliptical orbits, second, that they move at a constant speed in the same path, and third, that the distance from the orbit of each planet to the sun does not change. These are known as Keplers Laws. Galileo Galilei was an Italian astronomer and physicist. He discovered such laws as inertia, momentum, and gravity all physical laws that act on moving objects in space and time. He also applied the telescope to observations of the moon, Jupiter, and Venus, which led to his confirmation of the theory of Nicolaus Copernicus. Geocentric, from geo (earth) and centrum (center or fixed point).
126
127
62
During the 17th century, the Church was also the authority on scientific matters. It had adopted the geocentric model for almost 1500 years. 128 Hence, when Copernicus proposed the theory and Galileo argued that this theory was true based on his observations, the Church authorities were not pleased. Galileo himself was brought to trial by the Churchs Inquisition.129 At his second trial, when he was already an old man, he was forced to recant his scientific findings. Galileos trial is now an example often used today to illustrate the ongoing tension between modern science and religion, reason and faith.
Reformation vs. Revolution 8. The Scientific Revolution consists of more than the astronomical discovery that the earth is not the center of the world. It is a revolution because it transformed the way society began to think about reality. In other words, the Scientific Revolution changed the worldview of society. When Copernicus and Galileo and others began describing the physical world in scientific terms, they did not just speak about reality. They were also able to physically demonstrate (i.e. through experimentation) how the world worked. For example, theology and philosophy may logically argue that God is the First Mover, the Uncaused Cause, or the First Principle. To the layperson, these were meaningless concepts. Scientists, on the other hand, could show or demonstrate what a cause is. Science can make visible the hidden laws of nature by demonstrating force, gravity, speed, inertia, and so on. It could reveal the hidden processes of nature. So, the discovery of the heliocentric system is a major discovery in modern science. However, the real revolution lies in reasons ability to know and understand physical reality. 9. This brings us to the difference between a reformation and a revolution. All things considered, it is the Scientific Revolution that has made the greater impact in the way we think today. The reformation of Renaissance humanism and the religious reformers are important, too. However, the revolution in science caused an even more radical change in the way people think about the world. Because of the scientific revolution, even the way people began to think about God changed in a
128 129 This geocentric model is also known as the Ptolemaic system, a theory that was worked out by the 2 nd century Greek astronomer Ptolemy. Pope Gregory IX instituted the papal Inquisition in 1231 in order to seek out heretics and offenders against the faith. It was a powerful medieval institution that had considerable influence and authority during the medieval period.
63
drastic manner. God was now something different from the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. God was also the God of Nature, a universe full of mechanical forces, a machine. The Scientific Revolution, therefore, implies a kind of change that is quite different from the sort of change implied by a reform. A reformation signifies an internal kind of change, such as the kind of change which Martin Luther and Erasmus envisioned within the Church. It is the kind of transformation that one undergoes when one decides to renew or restore something that one has lost such as purity, authenticity, originality, and so on. This kind of change grows from within the institution, idea, community, or person itself. 10. A revolution, however, is more violent. It is an external kind of change, such as the kind of change that the pioneers of the French Revolution envisioned when they overthrew the old Aristocratic government and replaced it with a democratic republic. A revolt does not seek to renew anything but eventually replaces or substitutes the old for the new. In this sense, revolutions are violent, and they go to the root of the old system, kill it, and plant a new root in its place. Such is the kind of transformation that the Scientific Revolution caused. Hence, the violence of revolution happens in a few steps: (i) a new teaching, idea, or system replaces the old; (ii) the new idea or system changes human understanding; (iii) the change reforms (internally changes) the way a human person understands and sees the world or reality.
The Modern Scientific Picture of Reality 11. This same process belongs also to the Scientific Revolution. There is a new science (new aims, methods, and values); this new teaching replaces the old scholastic way of doing science (i.e. metaphysics and natural theology); this new science dominates the mindset and attitude of society and the individual, thus reforming perceptions and understandings of the world and reality. In all kinds of revolution, what finally becomes clear is a change in the worldview of humanity; it is a change in the way reality is conceived by the individual and society as a whole. In the same way, modern science is revolutionary because it is a new system of ideas that creates a new worldview that is radically different from the medieval worldview. Specifically, modern science introduces two new ways of seeing reality: Mechanism and mathematics.
64
Mechanics, Mathematics, and Empiricism 12. In fact, one historian of science has described the Scientific Revolution as the mathematization of the mechanistic view of the world.130 In other words, one aspect of the revolution in modern science is the ability of scientists to speak about the world in mathematical language, especially geometry.131 However, another aspect to modern science is the development of a particular method the empirical method. This method involves a process of observation, theorization, experimentation, demonstration. It is a different approach to reality from that of philosophy or religion. Previously, the medieval scholastics and humanists generally preferred metaphysical or theological speculation. They reasoned about reality using logic. However, they did not use the empirical method.
13. In the new science, the empirical method involves some manual labor such as observing the physical process of nature, measuring and weighing physical elements, collecting and recording down data, evaluating the data, formulating theories about what is observed, experimentation (trying to repeat the process and to test physical elements under varying conditions), re-formulation of theory, and, finally, demonstration of the theory to prove the facts. In the face of this developed method, modern science progressed and developed into a powerful instrument for knowing the world. 14. As the new scientific picture began to become popular, modern thinkers tried to reconcile the new science with philosophy and theology. This was already a characteristic with one of the scholastic-humanist scholars, the German Cardinal, Nicholas of Cusa (1401-1464).132 Cusanus docta ignorantia or learned ignorance is a popular version of negative theology, but it is more than theology. It is also a mathematical teaching. Cusanus teaches that human reason is essentially ignorant of all things infinite, including God. It can never know the essence or existence of God directly. However, for Cusanus, the mind can represent the infinite using mathematical symbols. For him, mathematics is the ultimate container or deposit of symbols, and it
See E. J. Dijksterhuis The Mechanization of the World Picture (Princeton, 1986), originally published in 1950. Geometry is a branch of mathematics that deal with the relationships between points, surfaces, solids, and dimensions. Geometry, from geo (earth) and metry (measure), implies a form of measuring the earth. Nicholas of Cusa (Nicolaus Cusanus) was a German cardinal, mathematician, experimental scientist, and natural philosopher.
130 131 132
65
is able to express the relationship between the infinite and the finite. In this way the mind can catch a glimpse about the divine and transcendent using human and rational principles. Although the mind remains ignorant of the infinite, through mathematics and measurement (i.e. geometry) the minds ignorance becomes more learned. Hence, for Cusanus, one essential way of coming to know the infinity of God is by the scientific study of nature (i.e. research into nature, such as biology, astronomy, metaphysics, mathematics, etc.). Human wisdom will never know what God is, but Cusanus believed that such ignorance can be cultivated into a kind of positive knowledge (a doctrine or science) through the study of empirical science, which investigates nature using the empirical method. This is an example of how science (even before the Scientific Revolution) was already becoming an influence on how intellectuals thought and spoke about God. 15. The real catalyst of the revolution, however, was Galileo Galilei. Galileo was attracted to mathematics and also the Copernican system, which he tried to demonstrate with his science. He dedicated his efforts to studying how bodies moved (how they fell or flew etc.), but he did not try to study what caused them to move. To him, these are different questions. If I ask how a car works, I can find the answer easily by observing the process of using a car. First, I start the engine by turning the key, and so on and so forth. However, if I ask what makes a car work, the question is so general that it is almost impossible to answer it (is it the car-maker, the driver, the car itself, God, a demon, etc.). Science, for Galileo, is about asking how the world works and not what makes it work. In other words, science is more interested in the natural world or natural universe. Like Cusanus, Galileo believed that one needed to understand the language of nature in order to understand nature itself. This language of nature is mathematics, specifically, geometry. In a work he wrote in 1623 entitled, Il saggiator (The Assayer or The Tester), Galileo writes about the physical universe and the new scientific method (i.e. mathematics): Philosophy is written in this grand book, the universe, which stands continually open to our gaze. But the book cannot be understood unless one first learns to comprehend the language and read the letters in which it is composed. It is written in the language of mathematics, and its characters are triangles, circles, and other geometric figures without which it is humanly impossible to understand a single word of it.
16. A second insight of Galileo is that he did not believe that the real cause of nature could be known to the human mind; all that the intellect can do is observe the event in nature (the phenomena), isolate it, and study it for its details. He believed that we can give names to the phenomena around us (e.g. force, inertia, soul, nature), but by doing so, he believed we are merely naming the concepts we already have. The real causes and effects in nature will always be unknowable to the human mind. Hence, for example, when we see an apple fall from a tree, Galileo would say that it is gravity that caused the apple to fall from the tree and hit the ground at a precise location with a precise speed and force. Yet, if we asked Galileo if such a thing as gravity actually exists, Galileo would answer that he would not know. All he would claim to know is what his senses observe, namely, something causes the apple to fall down at a constant rate of acceleration (i.e. faster and faster). He called the cause of such an event, gravity. 17. Hence, Galileo defined his empirical method: First, analyze and describe what the senses observe, and secondly, formulate a theory and try to prove the theory by demonstration. Again, sense observation and verification become essential to the scientist. Authority is not given a role here. Experimentation here is meant to prove or disprove the theory. Using this method of his, Galileo successfully demonstrated the Copernican system. He developed the telescope and observed the planetary motions of the moon and other planets. Using his calculations he showed that Copernicus theory fit most of the facts that he observed. Because of this, on 24 Feb 1616, the Churchs Inquisition stated its verdict on the Copernican system: Copernicus book, De Revlutionibus, was suppressed and Galileo was not allowed to adopt the system, teach it, or defend it in any way by speech or writing. Galileo did recant his scientific views and promised to obey church teaching, but he continued to defend the Copernican theory in a book he published in 1632. In 1633, Galileo was put on trial. He was already an old man by then, but he was still forced to deny what he believed was true as a scientist.
Science and Religion 18. The controversy between Galileo and the Church is due to two factors: First, the Church at the time insisted that science is not independent of religion, reason is not independent of faith; second, the
67
Church believed that the findings of Galileos science was contradictory to theological statements about reality. Galileo insisted on the correctness of the Copernican worldview, which stated that the earth moved while the sun was at rest. The Church, using the bible as its source,133 asserted that God had specially given the earth and humanity a pivotal or central place in creation. For the Church, this meant that the earth and its inhabitants was immovable and everything else revolved around it; it was the center of the world. Understanding Galileos method and the history of his conflict with the Church brings into question the following what the limitations of scientific explanation are, and the relationship between science, the bible and religion. These issues are still discussed today.
The Inductive Method 19. After Galileo, however, scientists tried to develop the empirical method further. One theoretical scientist, Francis Bacon (1561-1626), tried to help scientists understand how research and experimentation were important instruments for the scientific mind to know the true nature of things. To Bacon, the empiricist (someone who just collects data) is like the ant that likes to collect scraps of food (i.e. data); the rationalist (mathematician and metaphysician) is like the spider that likes to spin beautiful webs (i.e. theories or systems of ideas); but the scientist is like the bee that collects the nectar (data) from the flower to make its own honey (discoveries). In this sense, Bacon understood the scientist to be the middle way between the empiricist and the rationalist: He collects and experiments with nature in order to reason about the form or reality of nature. 20. According to Bacon, scientific research requires a disciplined mind as well as independent reasoning. This means that the scientist has to be confident in his own theories based on studying the facts, not assumptions or the authority of others. Bacon identified 4 idola idols of the mind that obscure research and independent thinking. These idols must be overcome in order to do science: (a) Idola Tribus, the idol of the tribe As a tribe, human beings tend to judge things according to the emotions. This leads to onesided and biased judgments. Bacon believed that the scientist
133 See for example quotes from Jos 10.12; Ps. 18.6; Ps.53.5; Eccl. 1.4.
68
must be more disciplined than ordinary people in the way he reasons about reality. (b)Idola Specus, the idol of the cave There is also the tendency toward individualism in science. For Bacon, the scientist who develops his study by himself will develop a cave-like mentality. In such a mentality, ones ideas cannot be tested with the findings of others. Hence, it will be impossible to know if ones theory is accurate or not. The scientist, according to Bacon, cannot be an individual student of the world, but he must study within a community of scientists. (c) Idola Fori, the idols of the marketplace Bacon insisted also that scientists must develop a language that describes reality as accurately as possible. Scientists cannot use words loosely but must think about their significance and meaning. Scientific language needs to be precise and accurate descriptions about reality. (d)Idola Theatri, the idols of the theatre Bacon also warned about the atmosphere of ones thinking. This refers to the scientists presumptions or pre-existing opinions based on philosophical ideas, religious beliefs, and so on. For Bacon, such non-scientific presuppositions are self-created worlds of illusion and fiction, and the scientist must be liberated from them. 5. Bacon proceeded to lay out a new method for science. In his work, Novum Organum (1620), he argues for the inductive method, which comprises of the following: (f) Humility of the intellect before the Kingdom of Nature the mind must be childlike in order to be able to learn from nature, the Kingdom of Man; (g)Aids for the intellect the mind needs instruments and aids to learn, namely, the aid of research (collection of data) and experiment (testing and observation of data). The inductive method will provide for science a more accurate understanding of nature. It will help ultimately to form science into a discipline that studies and controls nature in order to improve the living
standard, relief and abolition of human anxiety, distress and grief. Fr Bacon, science is a humanistic discipline. In this endeavor, he believed that technology which involves much experimentation and observation of nature in order to know how to create perfect instruments will take the lead in scientific discovery. Scientific research has much to gain from the technical arts of craft, instrument making, architecture, and so on. 8. Bacons contribution to science is one of understanding the theory behind scientific discovery, and it is a theory that used by science today. Science is a listening to nature and using what is learnt to produce knowledge. This knowledge is inductive from the ground up, so to speak. Such an approach to science has become the fundamental attitude today to many other disciplines, including theology and religion, where it is the listening to the data (sense experience) that matters as much as the creation of theories.
The Scientific Revolution Significance and Implications 9. Modern scientific culture has not always been understood as a positive thing in human history. For some scholars, especially humanists who recognize the need for spirituality and religion, modern science has led to the fragmentation of Nature and the person. This is not surprising when one considers that modern history is full of fragmentations the fragmenting of society, the Church, and Christianity has been described earlier in the events of the Renaissance, Christian humanism, and the Protestant Reformation. With the development of science, nature and the human person become the final victims of this process of fragmentation. Modern history seems to be a single process of fragmentation of reality. 10. The Italian-born German Catholic priest and scholar, Romano Guardini (1885-1968), wrote about the fragmentation of the human person after the scientific and industrial revolution, saying: There came a human type cut adrift from the ties which make means physical and mental life organic. [Man] has fallen away on the one hand into a world of abstraction [i.e. rationalism], on the other into the purely physical sphere [i.e. science]; from union with nature into the purely scholastic and artificial; from the community into isolation [i.e.
individualism].134 Mans relationship to nature is a persistent question even today, where technology and science dominate culture. The scientific revolution separated nature and man. In a sense, this is also a good thing because it identifies the freedom and autonomy of man from nature; man has a will of his own, and unlike nature he is not determined. 11. In fact, science and technology shows that man can control and manipulate nature; Bacons idea of science is one of listening to Nature so as to be able to use Nature. On the other hand, this separation has created problems because man in his freedom can overly stress his control over nature; man can forget that nature encompasses him, that man is part of a greater system of creation. This is the problem today a kind of amnesia about the natural roots of humanity. It is being rectified by environmental philosophies and theologies that stress the communion between man and nature. 12. Finally, the relationship between science and religion is an ongoing debate. Some insights into this history can be gained by studying the Churchs response to scientific theories since the inquisition of Galileo by the Church. The Church has made an apology for its part in the controversy, and much contemporary Christian and scientific literature has dealt with the issue of compatibility between the theory of evolution and Christian faith.
Discussion Questions: 1. What sort of change did the Scientific Revolution bring about? 2. Describe the empirical method of Galileo and Bacon. method important for modern science? Why is this
3. What are some of the major implications of the Scientific Revolution for humanity?
134
Cited in Shaw et. al., Readings In Christian Humanism, 361.
71
Lecture 5. French Revolution
Lecture 5. The French Revolution
Extra Readings: Ibrahim, Anwar, 'Universal Values and Muslim Democracy', Journal of Democracy, 17.3 (July 2006) 5-12 [A modern Muslim's perspective on the co-existence of democracy and Islamic values.] Thomas, Tommy, 'Human Rights in 21st Century Malaysia', Insaf, The Journal of the Malaysian Bar, 30.2 (June 2001) 91-106, online <http://www.aliran.com/oldsite/hr/tt1.html > accessed 25 July 2011 [How the notion of 'human rights' should / has been applied in Malaysia's political and legal system.]
Democracy and independence today 1. The 1900s is famous as the period in which many countries gained their independence as a modern state. This is especially true for modern nations in Asia. Nevertheless, all declarations of independence have universal themes attached to them. One of those themes is the right to self-determination, which presupposes another theme, namely, freedom or liberty. This freedom and right to self-determination is the foundation of political independence. More specifically, these are foundations of the political system still known today as Democracy the rule (kratia) of the people (demos), by people, for the people. 2. However, such a system of government was created in the 18th century, not in the 20th century. Furthermore, it was a system of government that began as a revolution, not a statement in the press or news report. In
the 18th century, when the fragmentation of Europe and the papacy was in motion, the traditional rulers (monarchs) gradually lost their connection with the people, who were under severe distress. This caused a revolt among the people against their rulers, and such revolutions were determined to break with the old, traditional form of government in favor of a new one. The system that arose out of the 18th century political revolutions is the system of democracy.
The French Revolution a brief history 3. The French Revolution is also known as the Revolution of 1789. It replaced the old or ancient government the monarchy and feudalism with a new form of government, democracy. Furthermore, this event during this period had the most impact on the Roman Catholic Church; France had the most Catholic population in Europe and many monastic orders had most of their monasteries in France. Theologically and spiritually, France was a major part of the Roman Catholic faith. 4. Root causes of the Revolution include (i) Frances inability to feed its population, which was then the largest in Europe, (ii) the exclusion of the rich and powerful bourgeoisie (culture of the middle class) from political power, (iii) the discontent and suffering of the peasants, (iv) the great influence of the ideas of the Philosophes (intellectual thinkers of all disciplines who believed in the supremacy and efficacy of human reason) in France, and (v) the bankruptcy of Frances treasury due to the French participation in the American Revolutionary War (1760s). 5. In the face of financial crisis, some ministers in the government decided to draw up a plan to restructure the state government. However, in their attempts to do so, there was a conflict of interest between these several parties: (i) the king and the nobles, (ii) the clergy, (iii) the bourgeois and the peasants, or the common people. These three classes were represented in the government and together they were called the three Estates the king and nobles, the clergy, and the commoners. 6. Eventually, after much debate and a vote, the Third Estate (i.e. the representatives of the aristocrats and common people) won the right to work out a new constitution. However, the king Louis XVI was not satisfied with the results and planned (with the help of the nobles) to reassert his will on the people by military force. This led to what is
known as the Great Fear of July 1789, when the common citizens of France began panicking when they saw soldiers surrounding Paris. This caused the people to revolt, and on July 14, 1789, the people entered the Bastille (a medieval fortress that was a symbol of the monarchy) and tried to persuade the prison governor a man called Bernard Jordan there to release weapons for purpose of revolt against the King. The prison governor refused, so the people captured the palace. This event was symbolic also for the people for it signified that the end of the ancient regime had arrived. When the Bastille was captured, the Revolutionary government ordered the people to destroy the prisonfortress.
The Declaration of the Rights of Man 7. In other parts of France, the peasants were also revolting against their landowners, or lords, who often placed heavy taxes on the peasants. On August 04, 1789, the government tried to calm the revolt by abolishing (i) the feudal structure and (ii) taxes or tithes placed on the peasants. This was an important step to improving the practical situation of the peasants. However, on August 26, the government also introduced something far more revolutionary for the creation of the new state: The Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen. 8. This Declaration forms the preamble or guiding principles to the French Constitution, which was adopted in 1791. It is also affirmed by the French Constitution of 1958. In other words, this Declaration contains the foundation of the ideal human society, which the French revolutionaries were trying to create. Today, modern democratic states or governments follow the principles of this Declaration in some form or other. 9. The Declaration contains 17 articles or clauses. Among them are the following: (i) all men are born free and have equal rights; (ii) all men have the right to freedom, property, personal dignity, and resistance of oppression; (iii) all citizens are equal before the law, and all citizen have the right to participate in making laws (legislation), directly or indirectly; (iv) all have freedom of religion; (v) all have freedom of speech; (vi) property cannot be taken from any citizen unless he is compensated; and (v) the middle class (i.e. the bourgeoisie) have the right to participate in government. Pope Pius VI, however, regarded these articles of the declaration as contrary to revelation and indifferent to truth and the true religion.
10. On the major themes of the Declaration is this: The state (or government) must respect the individual rights and liberties (freedom) of the person or citizen. Hence, there is a primary separation between the government and its citizens. In fact, the government is conceived as an institution that safeguards the rights and freedoms of the citizens. The government can best safeguard the interests of its citizens when power is shared or separated among many, rather than being possessed by the few. It is necessary to take some time to reflect on the ideas that gave rise to this primary doctrine in the Declaration.
Theories and ideas behind the French Declaration
Montesquieu and the distribution of political powers 11. Firstly, the notion that there must be a separation of powers comes from the ideas of a political philosopher named, Charles de Montesquieu (1689-1775). Originally, Montesquieu believed that social reality was governed by rational and universal principles that applied to all societies. Later, however, after touring the world between 1728-1731, Montesquieu became conscious that social realities varied from place to place. He became conscious of different cultures, and of the importance of customs and local traditions. 12. Since cultures vary from place to place, Montesquieu argued that social realities depend on two things: First, geography where the state resides, and second, politics the kind of constitution that the state adopts (i.e. republic, limited monarchy, or despotism). He observed that in terms of geography, man is already determined as a passive and subject creature of natural forces and the environment. In terms of political doctrine, however, man is assumed as an active and morally responsible agent. 13. Therefore, it is in politics that man determines the kind of society that exists. For Montesquieu, the ideal society he pictured for his generation was one where the powers of the monarchy were limited, that is, not absolute. Power should be shared and divided among different social bodies, especially the middle class, which would act as an
intermediary between the monarch and the people. Hence, Montesquieu envisioned a society where government was shared by the people, and the different levels of society would complement and cooperate for the good of the entire state. Such is the essence of a state ruled by the whole (i.e. the people) rather than just by one person or a few. This idea is also earlier present in John Locke.
Locke and natural rights 14. The idea of natural rights comes from John Locke (1632-1704). Before and during Lockes generation, there was a popular idea that kings and rulers were set on the throne because of divine authority. In other words, many believed that rulers were rulers by divine right. Locke did not believe this, and he argued that the authority of rulers were of human origin and were limited (i.e. not absolute). In fact, rulers derived their authority from society, particularly the individuals of society who trust the ruler with the power invested in him or her. The rights of the ruler are, in this sense, the rights given by human society itself. In this sense, the power of rulers are conditioned (i.e. depend on) by the needs of the people. If these needs are not met, the authority of the ruler becomes limited. 15. Locke also believed that political authority should be used to protect the rights of individuals to property. For him, when an individual enters into a society or community, (s)he does not surrender all his or her rights. One of the basic rights of the individual is the right to property and possessions that are the produce of the individuals sweat and labor (i.e. work). Hence, a basic responsibility of the government or ruler is the protection of this individual right to property. However, this also means protecting the person of the individual. This is because the value of work is based on the value of the person, and the person contains certain natural rights or freedoms given by nature. The ruler exists to protect these natural rights of humanity, including the right or freedom of thought, speech, religious belief, and worship. These are human acts that arise from the natural constitution or makeup of the person. 16. However, one natural right is given up when a person enters a community of society, and this is the right to punish others. When a person enters a community or society, (s)he gives this right to the ruler or government. The person becomes a subject to the laws and
decisions of the state. However, if the state fails to fulfill its duties in protecting the individual, the person has a right to withdraw his or her support of the government or ruler and, if (s)he needs to, to rebel against and overthrow the government. This is one of the rights of the individual. Lockes political theory is known as the theory of Liberalism.
Rousseau, freedom of the will, and the social contract 17. The theory of the general will and of the Sovereignty of the nation, from Jean-Jacque Rousseau (1712-1778). This theory actually begins with a theory about individuals in nature and society. For Rousseau, every individual is born unequal to others. This is because everyone is endowed with different abilities and talents by nature when they are born. Rousseau calls this natural inequality. Some are born stronger than others, some are more intelligent than others, and so on. However, there is also such a thing as artificial inequality, which is the kind of inequality that is created by the laws, customs, and traditions of human societies. Some are given authority over others, some are considered better than others, and so on. For Rousseau, human beings are originally animals of solitude. That is, humans originally naturally like to be alone, or at least in small groups. Such a natural state was healthy, happy, good and free for the individual. He argues that it is in society that human beings stop being natural, and because they stop being natural, individuals become corrupt and unhealthy. 18. Therefore, society is to blame for the corrupted nature of humanity. Society began when human beings began to live in small units or groups, and they built their huts next to each other. Hence, families are the first or original societies. However, such a social arrangement also brought about internal changes or developments in human beings. While they lived next to each other as a community, individuals began to compare themselves with each other; they began to become jealous with each other, and so on. Such intense passion and competition created a situation where the individual was no longer a happy and healthy human being. In fact, this was unnatural. Rousseau argues that human beings began to develop pride and other passions that created instabilities in society. Such competition led to rivalry, inequality, and vice or evils. 19. One of the ways that a person exerts his superiority over another is by obtaining more property over the other. Hence, property becomes a
means of gaining status in a society. For Rousseau, this notion of property is wholly unnatural; it presumes that human beings can become he owners of things that rightfully belong to nature. Nevertheless, he admits that modern society is built on the notion of property. Society had even created governments for the sake of protecting the right to have property. Clearly, therefore, society becomes artificially unequal when it is found on the notion of property, since property itself is an artificial notion. On the other hand, society is artificially unequal because it institutes governments to protect the property of the richer, but not to enhance the poverty of the poor or those without property. In this sense, Rousseau agues that society can never be a happy or good situation because it is based on greed, but also because society alienates human beings from nature and the state of happy solitude (i.e. innocence). 20. The solution was to try and establish a balance between the natural equality given to each person by nature and the artificial equality that is created by society. Human beings cannot return to the state of nature anymore, hence, they need to learn to create good societies. By this, Rousseau means societies that are able to allocate duties and responsibilities to individuals properly based on the talents and gifts of individuals. In other words, a good society is one where everyone is in their rightful place. In order to achieve this, Rousseau argued for the need of social contracts between the individual and the state. In these contracts, the individual surrenders his or her natural freedom and declares obedience to the law of the state, but (s)he does so in exchange for political freedoms. In such contracts, what becomes fundamental is the element of human will, or the freedom of the will. Without this willingness to enter society, society can never be free but remains a society of bondage. 21. Therefore, for Rousseau, a society is a collection of individual wills. He calls this collective society of wills a general will. A society and its laws are to be based on this general will, which determines what is good for both individuals and society. Certainly, this general will sometimes clash with the individual will or interest. However, a society that is created on the freedom or willingness of individuals to be part of that society such a society will always have a collective will (or general will) that tries to harmonize the collective interests with individual interests. Hence, in a society or state, it is the general will that dominates. More importantly, because the ideal state is founded on the freedom and will of the people, a state is therefore independent, autonomous, or sovereign (i.e. absolute in itself).
22. From such philosophical ideas, the Declaration was able to identify the most universal principles that are basic and fundamental to human beings. Hence, the Declaration is still understood today to be universally applicable to all. One 19th century historian (Jules Michelet) called the Declaration, the credo of the new age. It is the basic document for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (United Nations).
The French Revolution and Christianity 23. Another important aspect of the French Revolution concerned religion, specifically, the Roman Catholic Church in France. The government decided to nationalize the church. In doing so, the state owned church property, which was then sold off and redistributed to pay off the government debt. This benefited the middle class, the common landowners, as well as farmers (who were able to buy land from the government). 24. However, this meant that the church was now without property. The government, therefore, decided to reorganize the church in accordance with government laws. It did this first by framing what was called the Civil Constitution of the Clergy (July 12, 1790). The constitution decreed the following: (i) to reduce the number of bishops (from 135 to 83); (ii) to have each diocese under the control of local or territorial government bodies (departments); (iii) to allow enfranchised citizens (i.e. citizens given the right to vote) to elect bishops and priests; and (iv) to let the state government pay the wages of the clergy. 25. However, the pope and most of the French clergy rejected this constitution, and this created much unrest among Roman Catholics. It also made many Catholics turn against the Revolution itself. It was clear to many of these Catholics that acceptance of the constitution meant acceptance of (i) subordination of Church to state, and (ii) limitation of popes power merely to spiritual affairs, while the government controls the political and financial affairs of the church. 26. On November 27, 1790, the government ordered the clergy to take an oath declaring their support for the constitution and the reorganization of the church. Some of the clergy, who were afraid of losing their parishes, took the oath, and these are known as jurors or constitutional priests. Others who refused the oath were known as
nonjurors or refractory priest. Hence, there was a split or schism in the ranks of the bishops and priest. Nonjurors were seen by the Revolutionary governments from the 1790s as enemies of the state, but in some areas of France, these clergy were supported by the people. In 1791, Pope Pius VI condemned the Civil Constitution of the Clergy. 27. In its effort to pursue state reconstruction, the government began the process of dechristianization. That is, the Revolutionary government began to act against all forms of Christianity by (i) imprisoning, deporting and executing clerics, (ii) closing churches and destroying religious monuments and symbols, (iii) prohibiting worship and religious teaching, and (iv) condemning all religious traditions. The government tried to replace Christianity with revolutionary and civic religions, also known as the cult of the Republic and natural morality. The deities of this cult were Liberty and the Goddess Reason. In order to erase any memory of its Christian roots, the government even changed the names of children and streets that followed the names of saints. On October 1793, the government abolished the Gregorian calendar and created a revolutionary calendar that had no Sundays or feast days.
Consequences of the French Revolution 28. Therefore, in all aspects of political and social life, the French revolutionaries believed that a people had the right to selfdetermination. This was a very new and modern political idea, which is now the foundation of all states that advocate international and democratic politics. The right to self-determination thus created among the French a sense of patriotism and nationalism, and these are two virtues that are also strongly witnessed in the independence of many states during the 1940s onwards. However, during the 1790s, this idea of self-determination was not a popular one with other European countries. Many of the rulers of these countries still had relationships with the Pope. So, when the French revolutionaries tried to restructure their national identity by declaring freedom of self-determination, many counter-revolutionaries in France had the ideological and military support of the ruler of the Christian states. In fact, because of this, France declared war on Austria and Prussia (now Russia) in 1792. 29. This war increased the anxiety and tension within France, and resulted in terrible consequences. As the Austrians and Prussians came
nearer to Paris, the people panicked and imprisoned the royal family; they also broke into the prisons and murdered the many noble men and women, and clergy, who were prisoners of the revolutionary government. At the same time, the revolutionary government abolished the monarchy and declared itself an independent republic. The government eventually charged the king, Louis XVI with treason. The king was executed (beheaded) in 1793. Thus began what is known today as the Reign of Terror. The revolutionary government proceeded to arrest and execute those who were suspected with treason. Many were executed without trial. In the name of independence (which included dechristianization), priests, nobles, and the king were executed; it is said that 300,000 people were arrested and 17,000 executed, while many more died in prison.
Conclusion 30. The history of the French Revolution does not end here. In fact, it includes the entrance of Napoleon Bonaparte in world history and the political decline of the Holy See. However, it is clear that certain ideas were responsible for the rise of revolution in France and the way it developed. 31. First, there is the idea of political liberalism. This is a theory that stresses (i) individual rights, (ii) freedom of self-determination, and (iii) property. These are notions that are important for a broader theory of government called democracy, where it is the freedom and will of the people that determines who should govern. 32. Second, there is the modern idea that religion and state should be separated. This was a theory popularized by some renaissance scholars, but the French Revolution actually carried out this separation when it tried to recreate its nation. Despite the attempts of other European Christian rulers to maintain the church-state relationship, it was gradually accepted that liberalism and democracy could never work if the individual and state were not free of an absolute authority. 33. These ideas gave birth to a secular philosophy based on reason and natural philosophy. These were briefly introduced above by way of Montesquieu, Locke, and Rousseau, but they need to be discussed more deeply in the context of the 17th and 18th-century intellectual movement known as the Enlightenment. This movement stressed the power and
benefits of human reason and independent thinking, which provided the intellectual framework used by the leaders of the French Revolution. Discussion questions: 26. What were the main theories about man and society during the 18th century? 27. Compared to the French Revolution, does the Malaysian declaration of Independence have any similarities? 28. Should liberalism and democracy be the idea models of modern government today?
Democracy and human rights The American and French Revolutions of 1779 and 1789, respectively, are important to the beginning of democracy. Of course, since this was only the beginning, their version of 'democracy' was still being conceived and was nothing like the democracy of the 21st century. However, all democracies in any time and place do emphasize a common value: Freedom. As we have seen from our discussion on John Locke, Rousseau and others, freedom is something that is natural to being human. But this was not something everyone knew right away. They had to reason it out. Specifically, they had to ask: What makes a human being human? This question is the beginning of the modern science called anthropology.
Democracy, Human Rights and Malaysia After discussing the American and French Revolutions, and their impact on the rise of 'democracy' in Europe, it is proper to turn our attention to a more immediate context: democracy and Malaysia in the 21st century. According to an article in Aliran written by Tommy Thomas ('Human Rights in 21st century Malaysia'), human rights was already being practiced before the independence of Malaya in 1957. A culture existed in the land that respected the freedoms of every person, irregardless of their cultural background.
Immediately before Independence, this freedom was also respected by the British as well as local leaders even though at the time there was the Malayan emergency due to Communism. The Federation was born in a time of emergency but human rights was always respected. It is a myth that our people did not enjoy human rights prior to Merdeka. However, as Malaya became Malaysia and progressively matured as a fully independent State, equipped with the full judiciary and executive system, the story changes. The State Malaysia, slowly corrupts the foundation of its Independence, namely, the respect for human rights. This corruption makes true what Thomas says in his article: Quoting Jefferson, he says that the State is antagonistic or opposed to human rights.
83
A History of Philosophy Enlightenment
Lecture 6. Rationalism and the
Lecture 06. Rationalism and the Enlightenment
Readings: Kant, Immanuel, 'What is Enlightenment?', The Philosophy of Kant: Immanuel Kant's Moral and Political Writings, ed. and trans. by C. J. Friedrich (Random House, 1949) 132-9
The roots of modern political theory 1. The fragmentation of Europes social, cultural, and intellectual life brought Europe to a crisis about how to move forward in history. In the 16th to the 17th century, there was the religious reformation, scientific revolution, and many civil (and religious) wars. All these events shook the people with terror and anxiety, but they also motivated thinkers to explore and envision new ways to develop and improve human society. Therefore, 17th and 18th century thinkers began to have new ideas about society and politics. 2. Politics deals with questions about the relationship between individuals and the state, the nature of authority of governments and kings, and (ultimately) the foundation of a just society. However, 17th and 18th century political and social theories often dealt with more basic questions such as (i) the nature of human knowledge (epistemology what/how the mind knows and how much it can know) and (ii) human nature itself (anthropology what makes human beings human). Nature (not authority) was understood as the foundation of a just society.
Knowledge of Nature
84
3. In other words, for modern political thinkers, knowledge about politics must now be based on a keen understanding of nature (the nature of the world and human nature). They believed that nature could be known through independent human experience and reflection. Therefore, reason and reasonableness become the criteria for determining the nature of things, including the aims and objectives of society, politics, education, and even religion. In this sense, it is not authority or tradition that determines the nature of things, but reason by itself is able to understand the nature and function of things themselves. Reason th th becomes the battle-cry of the 17 and 18 century. Hence, this period is also known as the Age of Reason, or the Enlightenment. Rationalism 4. With this new faith in reason, many thinkers rejected religious belief as something that did not have any rational foundation; they were generally more committed to reason rather than faith, feeling, prejudice, habit, or any other irrational sources of knowledge. Some thinkers were still religious believers. However, they argued that religion needed to be founded on reason and natural explanation (not revelation, which many saw as superstitious or irrational). These 17th and 18th century Christian believers were known as Deists, who explained the divine in terms of the scientific and rational knowledge of their day. In contrast to the traditional theists, Deists gave little or no emphasis at all to revelation or traditional authority (i.e. the Church). 5. This new spirit of rational thinking in religious matters is just one example of the powerful influence of the movement known as rationalism. Rationalist thinkers placed great confidence in human reason, arguing that reason by itself is able to discern the essence and structure of reality. This way of thinking was in opposition to another popular way of thinking, Empiricism the theory that knowledge is not based on reason alone, but is derived from sense-perception. Empiricism was the essence of scientific knowledge. Nevertheless, many empirical thinkers were also partly rationalists in spirit. In the 17 th and 18th century, thinkers developed their rationalist philosophies into philosophical systems that included theories about the nature of mathematics, logic, epistemology, and ethics. 6. In essence, rationalism maintains that:
85
a. It is possible to know the essence or nature of things using reason alone, b. All knowledge is connected and form a single system of knowledge (i.e. a body of knowledge), c. Knowledge is based on principles, not experience (i.e. knowledge is deductive), d. Everything can be known and included in a single body of knowledge (total knowledge).
Ren Descartes (1596 1650) 7. In France, the mathematician-philosopher, Rene Descartes (1596-1650), was the first philosopher to attempt to reconstruct human knowledge in a new way by using reason alone. He believed that traditional knowledge, based on scholasticism and medieval theology, was knowledge that did not have a strong foundation. This was because much of traditional knowledge was based on religion and authority, rather than reasoning. 8. For Descartes, traditional knowledge was doubtful. Descartes own ideal of knowledge comes from the kind of knowledge similar to that of geometry. In geometry, reason is able to demonstrate how principles and theories are all inter-connected. Ultimately, geometrical and mathematical knowledge is a system of truths that can be demonstrated by reasoning with certainty (i.e. without doubt). Therefore, according to Descartes, knowledge should be based or rooted on this idea of interconnectedness that gives rise to a system of knowledge that is certain and indubitable. Importantly, such a system of knowledge can only be a result of careful and meticulous reasoning from principles alone. 9. In his most famous work, Meditations on First Philosophy (1641), he describes how the knower can discover certain knowledge by reflecting on the things that he knows. The senses can mislead the knower, but by reflecting on his / her own mind, the knower will eventually realize that (s)he is not a result of sense-experience but, rather, consciousness or thought. In other words, after deep reflection, I become conscious that there are many things about the self that the I can doubt, but I know for certain of my existence. This consciousness is the ability to be constantly aware that I exist.
86
10. During Descartes meditations, therefore, he discovers that the foundation of all knowledge is the knowledge that I exist as a thinking or conscious self. Such knowledge is certain, and it gives all other kinds of knowledge certainty as well. Hence, man is mind, reason, and consciousness (cogito, ergo sum I think, therefore I am). The subjectivity of thought (consciousness of self-existence) is the foundation of knowledge. The nature of man, then, is thinking (to think), and this rational subject mind that is different from body becomes the only source of knowledge. This idea is essential to rationalism.
Rationalism - Developments 11. During the 18th century, rationalism was developed in France by other thinkers known as les philosophes (the philosophes, thinkers who wrote on intellectual issues of the day). These people were not really philosophers in the same way that Descartes or Locke was a philosopher, but they nevertheless were the leading social and political thinkers of 18th century France. 12. Such thinkers included Bernard de Fontenelle (1657-1757, who popularized science in France), Pierre Bayle (1647-1706, who skeptically argued that morality is independent of religion), Voltaire (pen name of Franois Marie Arouet, 1694-1778, who strongly argued against traditional authority and advocated humanist and scientific progress through education), Denis Diderot (1713-1784, a principal editor of the worlds first encyclopedia, the Encyclopdie), and Jean-Jacque Rousseau (1712-1778, a political philosopher who emphasized freedom of the citizen based on freedom of the will). The philosophes advocated social, political, and economic reforms that influenced thinkers in France and abroad, and they eventually led to the French Revolution in 1789. 13. These thinkers each had different ideas about the notion and future of social progress, but all of them had immense trust in (i) senseexperience and (ii) reason or science. They were familiar with the findings of the science of their day. Also, they were immensely critical of doctrine, religious authority, and traditional theology/philosophy. Such emphasis on reason and knowledge was crucial to the modern idea of enlightenment leading the individual and society into a better future via progress based on liberal reason.
87
14. Another thing that they had in common was their knowledge of the works of John Locke (1632-1704), whose liberal ideas became the cornerstone for many of the French philosophes, and ultimately, the Enlightenment.
John Locke 15. Lockes background is both religious (Puritanism) and scientific (acquaintance with Robert Boyle 1627 1691, who experimented with chemicals and gases at Oxford from 1652). At Oxford, Locke was impressed by the scientific method advocated by Boyle, who was committed to observation and experiments in his studies on chemicals and gases. Locke also became acquainted with the work of the French mathematician and philosopher, Rene Descartes (see above), whose works inspired Locke to study philosophy. Lockes famous work on epistemology, Essay Concerning Human Understanding, is a response to Descartes work. Hence, to understand Lockes philosophy, it is necessary to understand Descartes ideas. 16. Lockes observations of the political and social issues of his day convinced him that the answer to resolving societys problems is to study the nature of man not only his actions (ethics, politics, education, and religion) but also his knowledge (what man can know and what allows him to know). Knowledge, then, is to be founded on reasoning about Nature, not traditional authority. Two of Lockes most important works are Essay Concerning Human Understanding and Two Treatises of Government (both published in 1690). [His other works include: Some Thoughts Concerning Education (1693), The Reasonableness of Christianity (1695).] In his two main works, Locke explains the nature of knowledge and politics.
Lockes Epistemology 17. Descartes was a rationalist because he argued that human reason could attain true knowledge of things without the help of the senses. He believed that the task of the philosopher, then, is to work out a foundation of knowledge; this foundation had to be worked out using clear and indubitable (un-doubtable) principles (essential knowledge). He argued that such a foundation was something innate (internal and
existing) in the human mind already, so (according to Descartes) reason is perfectly capable of knowing and understanding existence. In fact, for him, thinking (or reasoning) is existence. Hence, his famous statement, I think, therefore, I am (cogito, ergo sum)! In other words, reason is the not only the foundation of knowledge, but it is also the foundation of human existence. 18. Locke was quite impressed by Descartes ideas, and was motivated to study Descartes philosophy deeper. Locke also came to believe that the task of the philosopher is to prepare a strong foundation for human knowledge. However, he did not believe that knowledge was something innate (found naturally inside) to human reason. Because of this, he argued against rationalism, and he affirmed that knowledge arises in our minds via experience (sensation) as well as reflection on our experiences (what psychology would terms as, introspection or recollection). Nevertheless, he still believed in the power of human ideas that it, that our ideas alone help us know the objective world, but not with absolute certainty because ideas are derived from our sense-experience. Unlike Descartes and the rationalists, he was convinced that ideas could never penetrate or intellectual grasp the essence or nature of things (contra rationalism). 19. So, like Descartes, Locke believed knowledge (ideas) is essentially something intuitive to the mind (i.e. to reason), but knowledge depends partly on sense-perception. Because of this, knowledge of things is never absolute, but knowledge of ideas (via reflection or introspection) can be certain and indubitable. Locke, therefore, distinguished between knowledge of things (which depends on sense-experience and therefore, is empirical) and rational knowledge. Since empirical knowledge is derived from sense-perception, knowledge is therefore limited to the ideas we have of things but cannot penetrate the essences of things. 20. Scientific knowledge, then, is never certain knowledge because it is empirically based. It can only be probable knowledge. Locke in this regard advised against placing false or unrealistic aspirations in scientific study: Science can know and reason about sense-data, but not the essence or inner-life of things. For him, the true philosophers were the scientists of his day who appreciated the role of sense-experience and were humble about the power of reasoning. 21. Major critics of Lockes philosophy were George Berkeley (1685
89
1783, empiricist who stressed the importance of sense-perception and ideas like Locke, but criticized Locke for not being empirical enough) and G.W. Leibniz (1646 1716, a rationalist in the tradition of Descartes who argued against the tradition of Lockes empirical philosophy).
Lockes Political Theory 22. The main work of Locke on politics is Two Treatises of Government (published in 1690). The first treatise argues that rulers are not appointed by divine right and all are created equal. This argument opposed the ideas found in Sir Robert Filmers work, Patriarcha, which was published in the mid-17th century. Filmer argued for the conservative position, that Kings or rulers had divine right to rule. For Locke, God did not appoint Kings to rule over others, nor did God appoint Adam and his descendents to rule over the world. 23. The second treatise is the greater contribution. It lays out Lockes positive ideas on political philosophy: He argues that in the state of nature, man is free and equal, but such freedom is constrained (restricted or qualified) by the law of nature which gives to each man certain natural rights. Each has a right to life and liberty, as long as such rights do not infringe the rights of others. Each also has a right to property; his body and the products that arise from his labor are his (the labor theory of value). In this state of nature, everyone produces as much as they need, but he has no right to surplus produce. 24. However, the state of nature is unstable because man frequently infringes on the rights of others. Only a social contract between men can protect the natural rights of man and prevent each from taking away such rights. This social contract appoints a government to enforce laws that protect rights and resolve disputes between members of the state. In other words, in entering civil society, man surrenders the right to punish others. This right is reserved for the government alone. Hence, the primary function of the ruler is to preserve and protect the rights and interests of the citizen. Should the ruler fail to carry this out, the citizens have the right to remove the ruler. In this sense, the power of government is conditional, not absolute. 25. Locke further believed that power should be shared between a legislative government (elected by the people) and an executive
government (the king, monarch, etc.). In this system, the people are sovereign, not the ruler (hence, democracy). 26. The notions of natural rights, rule of law (constitution), the legislative function of the state, and the rule of the majority (democracy) became the foundation values for the American and French Revolutions. It is also the foundation of what is now known as liberal democracy the accepted ideal political structure in most modern independent nations.
The German Enlightenment 27. In Germany, rationalism was promoted by Christian Wolff (16791754, who like G.W. Leibniz argued that philosophy is the systematic study of essences rather than existence), Moses Mendelssohn (17291786, a German-Jewish philosopher who combined rationalism with religious truth or revelation), and Gotthold Ephraim Lessing (17291781, who studied the value of art and religion as independent of any authority but rooted in feeling alone). These trends culminated with the philosophy of Immanuel Kant (1724-1804, whose works demonstrate the limitations of human reason to the realm of the senses, and not beyond, which is the realm of religious faith). These German Enlightenment thinkers are known as the Aufklrung. Amongst them all, Kants philosophy embodies the philosophy of the German Enlightenment.
The Scottish Enlightenment 28. In Scotland, the Enlightenment also produced similar emphasis on reasoning, progress, and independence. The thought of David Hume (1711-1776) is the summit of the Scottish Enlightenment. Together with Charles-Loius Montesquieu (1689-1755) and John Locke, Humes political theory became a strong influence in the establishment of the American constitution. 29. Hume tried to study human nature in order to understand what it is that the mind could or could not know. Hence, he was joining hands with
Locke, and Kant would later also join the discussion and, in a sense, bring it to completion. These three philosophers would critique the knowledge of man and conclude that man could only know what his senses presented to him, and nothing more. Hume would argue that reality is nothing more than the way the mind associates ideas, which are derived from sense-impressions. In this way, reality is never really presented as it is to us; rather, reality is a projection or construction of the mind. 30. Kant would later express it this way: Reality conforms to the way we think and reason, not the other way around. In this sense, human reasoning about reality is based on the ideas we have. This perspective is known as idealism (that knowledge of the world arises from ideas alone), which has a very close connection with rationalism.
Principles of the Enlightenment 31. Through these philosophers, the Enlightenment became a widespread movement that dominated the intellectual climate of European culture. Because of its emphasis on the power of human reason, the Enlightenment is also known as the period of the Age of Reason. Indeed, the rationalism of the Enlightenment produced many independent thinkers. It also created great developments in science, literature, and technology. Even though the leading thinkers of the 18 th century understood the nature of reason differently, most of them were convinced that reason (not religion) would help humanity progress and achieve enlightenment, hence, happiness. 32. Therefore, the fundamental principles accepted by most (not all) Enlightenment thinkers are the following: a. Mans central ability is reason, which allows him to think and act correctly. (Primacy of human reason over morality grounded on religious belief.) b. Man, by nature, is rational and good. (Compare Christian anthropological understanding of original sin.) c. Both individual and humanity as a whole can progress toward perfection. d. Since all men (and women) are equal in respect of rationality, everyone has individual liberty (freedom) and is equal before the
e. f.
g.
h.
law. (Radical equality of persons based on human nature.) Religious tolerance is a way of life. (Freedom of religion based on freedom of thought. See Lessings play, Nathan the Wise.) Religious beliefs can only be accepted if they are reasonable, not based on authority, sacred texts, or tradition. (Atheism, agnosticism, natural religion, natural theism or deism). All men and women share a universal nature (of reason) that is not determined by local customs and traditions. (The ahistorical character of man. However, Voltaire would characterize history as mans struggle for a rational culture.) Art and education must be based on knowledge and should show humanity how to think, rather than develop human feelings (emotions) and character. (Society as rational.)
33. Kants description of the Enlightenment as humanitys emergence from his self-imposed immaturity is perhaps the summary of what the Enlightenment is about. Compared with the darkness and irrationality of the medieval ages, the Enlightenment would be a time of thinking, illumination, reasoning, and understanding.
Roots of Contemporary Philosophy: Romanticism, Idealism, and the Rise of Marxism 34. In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, a reaction grew against the rationalist and empiricist tendencies of the Enlightenment. A movement of ideas criticized the Enlightenment rationalists for putting too much emphasis on reason, while undervaluing the importance of other human ways of knowing. Besides reason as a source of knowledge, one should also consider the more subjective elements of human experience, such as feeling, emotion, imagination, and wonder. These aspects of the self are more than rational; they are transcendental. They are the intuitive ways through which the self knows the world. The movement that affirms the transcendental (intuitive, idealist) and subjective aspect of knowledge is known as Romanticism. 35. Romanticism and its reaction to rationalism would have an ironic consequence in 19th century philosophy. Beginning with his critique of Kant, the 19th century idealist philosopher, G.W.F. Hegel (1770-1831), would later demonstrate that the growth of subjective knowledge contributes to the progress of history and civilizations. In other words,
the quality of individual consciousness would lead to quantitative progress as well. Existence is about consciousness. 36. However, the materialist philosopher, Karl Marx (1818-1883), would argue that Hegels theory that subjective consciousness influences material progress was upside down. For Marx, it was historical and material progress that would influence the development of subjective identity. In other words, it is quantitative (material) progress that would determine the quality of the individual (identity). Hence, Marx argued for a materialist idealism where existence is about work and material progress. This theory would later be adopted by other thinkers who developed the philosophical doctrines of Marxism into the 20 th century. 37. Hence, through the reaction against rationalism, Romanticism, idealism, and Marxism would give rise to the contemporary movements known as Existentialism and Liberal theology. These two movements will come to play an important role in the development of contemporary ideas.
Discussion questions: 13. How does Kant define the Enlightenment? definition. 14. Comment on his
What are the main tenets or principles of Rationalism? relationship between Rationalism and the
15. Explain the Enlightenment.
94

Notes To Modern Philosophy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Notes To Modern Philosophy

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Notes To Modern Philosophy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE HISTORY

MODERN PHILOSOPHY ENLIGHTENMENT AND THE RISE OF SECULAR REASON

Jacob Moh Yii Jenq

Second Year Philosophy

St. Peters College, Kuching

Course Description & Lecture Outline

COURSE ASSESSMENT 1. 2. Participation in discussions: Two (2) response papers

St. Peter's College, Kuching

Course Description & Lecture Outline

Course Description & Lecture Outline

St. Peter's College, Kuching

Introduction. A Historical Preface

History of Modern Philosophy Introduction A Historical Preface to Modern Philosophy

St. Peter's College, Kuching

Introduction. A Historical Preface

St. Peter's College, Kuching

Introduction. A Historical Preface

St. Peter's College, Kuching

Introduction. A Historical Preface

St. Peter's College, Kuching

Introduction. A Historical Preface

St. Peter's College, Kuching

Introduction. A Historical Preface

St. Peter's College, Kuching

Introduction. A Historical Preface

St. Peter's College, Kuching

Introduction. A Historical Preface

St. Peter's College, Kuching

Lecture 1. The Renaissance

The Renaissance Movement

Lecture 1. The Renaissance

Cf. W. W. Wilkinson, Renaissance, New Catholic Encyclopedia (2nd edition) 12:117d.

St. Peter's College, Kuching

Lecture 1. The Renaissance

St. Peter's College, Kuching

Lecture 1. The Renaissance

St. Peter's College, Kuching

Lecture 1. The Renaissance

St. Peter's College, Kuching

Lecture 1. The Renaissance

St. Peter's College, Kuching

Lecture 1. The Renaissance

St. Peter's College, Kuching

Lecture 1. The Renaissance

St. Peter's College, Kuching

Lecture 1. The Renaissance

Ibid 12:111b. This is a pseudonym of Franois-Marie Arouet.

St. Peter's College, Kuching

Lecture 1. The Renaissance

St. Peter's College, Kuching

Lecture 1. The Renaissance

St. Peter's College, Kuching

Lecture 1. The Renaissance

St. Peter's College, Kuching

Lecture 1. The Renaissance

New Catholic Encyclopedia (2nd edition)

St. Peter's College, Kuching

A History of Modern Philosophy Humanism