Introduction
While the term “scholasticism” is a bit misleading because rather than being a formal tradition of philosophy, it is better known as a “method,” still, there are some individuals who are generally categorized under the umbrella term, “scholastic philosopher.” As a method, it is inextricably linked to another important development of the medieval period, which was the rise of the university. The university became the center of scholastic studies, which were focused on logic after a rediscovery of the dialectic method of the Ancient Greek philosophers. While there are several important figures associated with this style of philosophizing, some of the most towering names associated with working in this method are Anselm of Canterbury, Peter Abelard, Duns Scotus, William of Ockham, and Thomas Aquinas.
The Rise of Scholasticism
While in many ways the Middle Ages seem to be so very foreign to our times; from drinking urine to ward off the plague to the societal structure of feudalism, there are also important contributions of the period that have remained surprisingly unchanged, such as the judicial process of trial by jury, the governmental institution of constitutional monarchy, and most importantly for our purposes here, the university.
The rise of monotheistic religions intensified philosophical debate over the role of faith and the role of reason in everyday life. During the flourishing of Ancient Greek philosophy, the dominant view was that reason superseded faith, broadly speaking. Then, with the rise of Christianity came a switching of that view to see faith as superseding reason. That would remain mostly predominant during the Middle Ages when scripture reigned supreme as the ultimate authority on all matters. However, in the twelfth century, after the appearance of important translations of Ancient Greek thinkers, especially Aristotle, became more prevalent thanks to Arab transcriptions, an emphasis arose on trying to reconcile the two. However, they generally did not believe reason to triumph over faith; the work of those categorized under the term “scholastic philosopher” was mostly fundamentally religious. Most of this philosophical exercise played out in the university—hence the term “scholasticism,” as it referred to the ‘method of the schools.’
The First Western Universities: The Home for Scholasticism
The first universities in the West developed in the late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries, and as noted, they were remarkably similar to the universities today, but still with some very important differences, such as then of being only for males. There were several key reasons for the burgeoning of universities in Europe. One very influential factor was the rise of the city. The expansion of urban life itself also requires a complex explanation but suffice it to say for our purposes here in exploring the method of scholasticism, this urban shift required a more educated class. The growing city brought new socioeconomic needs and structures, which in turn required new skills to administrate it all. One such new skill was the use of dialectical reasoning to navigate all the new, and old, challenges, which is at the heart of the scholastic method.
The Method of Scholasticism
As noted, another important connection with the development of the scholastic method was the new prevalence of Ancient Greek texts, especially Aristotle. The books of the history of philosophy record Aristotle as the “father of logic”; thus, his logical method would become especially dominant among the scholastic thinkers. This method, initially referred to as “dialectics,” originally meant “the art of conversation” where structures and techniques were employed to rationally and critically arrive at logical conclusions in one’s philosophical reasoning. The goal was to solve problems, such as that of the aforementioned reconciliation between faith and reason. Thus, we could summarize “the scholastic method” as the term used to describe the dominant form of philosophizing in the High Middle Ages. And, while the methodology was generally similar among those labeled “scholastic philosophers,” there were of course also important differences among them. Two such examples will be examined next.
Central to the debates among the scholastic philosophers was that of realism about universalism versus nominalism. Realism about universalism is the position advocating for the existence of universals, independently of our thinking of them. Nominalists, on the other hand, argued that such “universals” were simply the names we gave to those concepts, but that they do not exist, only particular things do.
One of the earliest medieval proponents of the scholastic method was Peter Abelard. We could perhaps best classify him as a “moderate realist” in this dialogue, arguing that the kind of universals that exist take the form of “mental concepts,” which allow humans to be sharper, better critical thinkers. In one of his most important works, Sic et non, or For and Against (Or, also translated as, Yes and No), Abelard very clearly illustrates this method at work. In this book he applies principles of logic; tackling certain debated theological issues by analyzing all sides to work toward a settlement and resolution. Though ultimately, much of his work comprises meditations rather than answers. This, in fact, was before Aristotelian studies became especially prominent, but he was already working to analyze all the different points of view on a given subject.
The Via Antiqua Versus the Via Moderna
The scholastic dialogue later entered another rift that is known as the Via Antiqua versus the Via Moderna. The former was considered the “old-fashioned way,” and was akin to Aquinas’s view of the complimentary nature of faith and reason. The latter was considered the “modern way,” and sought instead to completely separate the two. The Via Moderna would eventually prevail, leading into the next historical shift in the history of philosophy, the Modern Period.
John Duns Scotus and William of Ockham are good examples of this split; Scotus represented the Via Antiqua and Ockham embodied the Via Moderna. Scotus argued for the ultimate power and authority of God as evidence for the superiority of faith over reason. God’s existence cannot be proven through the human use of our senses and our reasoning capacities, it can only be based on faith, he argued. Ockham agreed that belief in God could only be based on faith, but he did not want to take reason out of the equation but rather keep both faith and reason separate, in the realms where they belong; faith belongs in the realm of religion, and reason belongs in the realm of the physical world where we can directly access individual, particular objects. This led him to his famous “Ockham’s razor” (“entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily” I sone of the summarizing phrases), which was the position that we should strip away superfluous elements in reasoning about this world and use only relevant data when performing logical analysis; we should only use the minimum amount of needed data. The idea was to get at the core of a problem; essentially, when there are competing explanations, choose the simplest one.
Scholastic Philosophers
Perhaps the greatest and most important of the scholastic philosophers, however, was Saint Thomas Aquinas, who appeared in the period of the High Middle Ages when Aristotelian studies were well integrated into the dialogue. Aquinas followed a method similar to that of Abelard of rationally analyzing theological issues and the debate surrounding them; the for, and the against, of any given subject to ideally reach carefully and critically reasoned conclusions. Aquinas’s goal, as with the others, was the reconciliation of faith and religion; especially, to rationally explicate the existence of God, among various other profound inquires. He would also note cases where only one or the other could provide knowledge; reason versus revelation. But he mainly wanted to show how reason and revelation could work together. One of his most important works, Summa Theologica (which he spent close to a decade working on, and was published in 1274) was a summary corpus of virtually all the key issues to work through in his day. In this, he explored 631 questions with the scholastic method of presenting opposing views and analyzing where they err, where they conflict, and what we may reason from the dialogue.
Most of the significant scholastic philosophers come from this later period, the High Middle Ages, and most of them come from religious orders—secular philosophers are rare. From the Dominican Order, we have Saint Thomas Aquinas as well as Saint Albert, and from the Franciscan Order, we have John Duns Scotus, William of Ockham, and Saint Bonaventure. Thus, despite different positions on faith and reason as a source of knowledge, a faith-based life was predominant throughout the medieval period in Europe; faith ultimately usually reigned over reason.
Critiques of the Scholastic Method
This method, however, was not without its critics during its time. As we just saw, there were important fractures among the scholastic philosophers. Moreover, not so unlike the dissonance between those of the analytic tradition and those of the “continental tradition” today, some objected that this scholastic method focused too heavily on logic at the expense of some basic intuitions and even at times the loss of truth in the process. Logical methods can be so impressive, and it was argued that at times, this was too much the focus; the dazzling of audiences took precedence over the pursuit of truth. Dante was one such illustrious critic, concerned that some used this logical method more to impress rather than reach the truth.
Moreover, by the end of the fourteenth century, there were several universities of importance—no longer was the University of Paris so dominant. This expansion of institutions of higher education also led to different ways of philosophizing. The rigorous, logical method of Duns Scotus would be challenged by a more mystical, less analytic method of new thinkers such as Meister Eckhardt. Some would try to reconcile the two scholastic and mystical ways of philosophizing, as others had done with reason and faith. An important result was the widening of the long conversation that is the history of philosophy. As is so often the case in this perennial dialogue, often the inquiries raised rather than the answers proposed are the most influential.