Aristotle and Scholasticism

[@ryan82scott]

18:33 - "Landfranc of Bec, equipped with two turntables and a microphone..."

[@poconogym8611]

I have enjoyed every lecture so far and found new knowledge in each one. I think this lecture on Scholasticism might be confusing to people who have not been previously introduced to it. The explanation of Scholasticism that I have come across and find it the easiest to digest is that it is an exercises to take a passage from Aristotle and then a passage from the Bible and then use logical reasoning to explain that the two as saying the same thing. I understand it to be a reconciliation between Aristotle and the Bible but with now allowance for conflict. If necessary the logic would be "forced" to yield the desired results. Hence the reason by belief and faith must proceed logic in scholasticism. Please correct me if my understanding is false.

[@RyanReevesM]

+Pocono Gym // Certainly always an issue to not assume what students know. In this case I am tweaking the typical image that all scholasticism uses Aristotle. The point is not all scholastics use Aristotle, though some do. The idea that scholasticism is a marrying of the two is actually not true. What they would use is portions of Aristotle on logic and categories to help them think through established doctrines for new ideas. So it's more of how one uses Aristotle than it is merely Aristotle, and none of the scholastics would use Aristotle as equal to scripture. It's more that they saw his logical system and categories as a way to use natural human reason. But in terms of this course, this lecture is all setup, you might say. There are 5-6 more after this where we chart how specific scholastic theologians use or do not use Aristotle. Bernard of Clairvaux, for example, is pretty ironclad that one should only use the Bible in theological discourse, while Aquinas and others are pro-Aristotle. But you only get those pieces as you carry on through the lectures. Thanks for the comment and discussion! :)

[@acatssoftnose3940]

What evidence do we have for the inerrancy of scripture? And by inerrancy, I don't mean largely reliable. I already see scripture as largely reliable, in terms of its transmission throughout the centuries. I'm genuinely curious as I find inerrancy as difficult to believe.

[@Radomstuff-tf1lm]

I'm confused is scholasticism good or bad? And which organizations supports this way of thinking.

[@RyanReevesM]

+Radomstuff1234 // Good question. Essentially the point is there is no single answer. Scholasticism is a method of inquiry and not a worldview or philosophy. So really the support or rejection of scholasticism is often a debate if one particular scholastic thinker is right or wrong on an issue (e.g. Aquinas on sacraments). There are some (mostly Protestants) who do not like the tone of scholastic thinking overall, mostly because they worry it's arid and impractical, but even in Protestantism there is scholastic method.

[@Radomstuff-tf1lm]

+Ryan Reeves thanks and why did scholasticism go away. Also Is there any colleges that teach it or use.

[@Radomstuff-tf1lm]

+Radomstuff1234 it

[@CalcioEUnico]

+Ryan Reeves But in Orthodox Church there's no scholasticism bar one book from St John of Damascus. :)

[@colin200011226]

Did Europe benefit from contact with Muslim world? I read that the Muslims had preserved and studied the writings of Aristotle and Plato, and science and math was brought to Europe and enabled the renaissance

[@poconogym8611]

+Colin Alli A lot of Aristotle's writings were preserved in Constantinople and made there way to Europe from there. Some were not, those were preserved in Alexandria which was a Greek city and part of Byzantium until the Muslims invaded it. The library of Alexandria was the biggest one in the world, so it naturally had some writings not found in Constantinople.