1. At first glance it seems like The Condemnation of 1277 is condemning reason and rationalized thought and instead positing that matters dealing with God should be excepted on faith. It seems as though God's existence has to b then taken upon as a matter of faith where reason has no say in the matter and that human's inborn and natural inclination to reason and think rationally should be rejected or suppressed when it came to the topic of God. When reading the first few sanctions on philosophical thought I couldn't help but be disgusted by the so called "errors in philosophy".
2. I was confused by the beginning of Henry of Ghent's argument. At first I thought he was saying that there was an infinite existence of human beings but then he went on to say that human existence started with one being, Adam, and will end with another human being who after which no others shall become. To me this seems like an entirely contradictory notion but I may be reading it wrong.
1. The condemnation of 1277 is an interesting conceptual shift for Christian Europe in the sense that it seems to mark an abandonment of attempts to study god with reason alone. I wonder if this has to do with the arrival of Muslim texts in to Europe from the trade at the time. I enjoy that they concede that knowthig can be known of God except that he is. In my mind this is a paradigm shift with regard to intellectual honesty in the time. Although I did wonder what they meant by infinite motion. 2. As for the piece by Henry of Ghent. I find the emphasis on Gods power to be a more coherent position. If a being created the entirety of the world of matter surely he could do all things. However the language he uses is very confusing, for instance is he making fun of the absurdity of the idea of there being infinite humans or is he genuinely adopting that position?
The condemnation if 1277 reads like an impatient politician does today. It’s almost comical to imagine any kind of leader, be they political, religious, or some combination of the two, scrambling with a team of lawyers or advisors to discredit decades (and arguably centuries) of a rising tradition because it threatens their way of life. As we know today Plato and Aristotle have scarcely been touched by this assertion of power. But at the time, one can imagine the impact this sort of proclamation would have had on the philosophical world.
What Scotus does to critique the determinism of God and the necessity of creation is much more effective than condemning the entire field of philosophy. Although I admit it might be my bias as a philosophy student almost 750 years after, constructing an argument that topples another is always a better goal than plainly telling your opposition that they are mistaken without offering any reason why. Replacing the idea of determinacy with contingency is a good move for the time. It replaces all the talk of what God cannot do with what God will not do. This is not to say it is impossible for God to do these things, keeping intact the true omnipotence that must be present according to the authority of the Church. (Despite the church holding the position that the subject shouldn’t be thought about at all.)
The Condemnation of 1277 read as a major shift for the disunion of God and the tactics and styles used to discuss the existence. It appears to b far more innately beloved and accepted as the truth as oppose to searching and exploring all of the possibilities for the existence of God. More so in a way of just accepting it as is.
Ghent was a bit more confusing on his position of the concept of infinite beings and the creations of them. perhaps its just his style of writing but the concept itself was interesting and easy to follow about how the world was started by one being and that was the catalyst of ll beings, I just was unclear on his positon
I found the argument about gods power to be a less articulate argument then previous readings. Aberlards argument for god not having free will makes more sense to me then god could do anything because he created everything.
The jump to studying god as not purley reason makes sense to me in the first reading because faith is needed. This is all arguments that have no way of ever being proven and it comes down to what you belive in and put your faith in.
I feel that the condemnation of 1277 is an interesting piece in what it tries to do. It tries to tear down centuries of tradition which can potentially change publics way of life. This piece is somewhat different from many pieces I have read in philosophy courses. Instead of arguing for reason or using reason to argue beliefs that involve faith in God it does something completely different. The piece attempts to argue that there is no use for reason and people should have faith in God just because he is God.
The notion of believing in God through faith alone is a notion that most thinkers of the time would likely shy away from but could be effective in another way. The masses would likely agree with this notion because most of them have been taught this their entire life. For the most it has been philosophers straying away from this notion. But this notion I see being widely supported by the general public.
It initially appears that the condemnation of 1277 is a writing attacking reason as a source of knowledge as opposed to faith however I read it as more of a concern between what limits reason has. It seems as though the Tempier does not want to do away with reason but instead limit its place.
In a time were many theologians are being strongly influenced by philosophy this may have been a rebuke against placing reason as the primary source of understanding God. It seems as though he wants to deny much of the metaphysical ground work of ancient greek philosophy.
1. Tempier's Condemnation of 1277 is more of an exercise of power than one of reason, thus it is not all that interesting as a philosophical text. It seems to have more to do with theology than philosophy. He sparsely inserts reasoning behind the condemnation of certain propositions which don't hold much weight rationally. I'm a little surprised though that he is able to understand some of these propositions enough to reject them. I suppose that I'm not very familiar with the language used in these propositions, partially due to its antiquity, but they are still challenging for me to understand in the first place. Although Tempier's Condemnation seems to reject rationality, I'm interested in what kind of reasoning he would provide in support of rejecting philosophy and inquiry. 2. I'm not as familiar as I should be in respect to the language and matters being argued by Scotus, but I still think that I have the right to question what he means in certain places. I also realize that this may not be entirely relevant to the selections as a whole, I think that understanding the parts is necessary to understand the whole. Of course I can guess at what he means, but that leaves room for misinterpretation. I feel that some of his terms are too generic to be understood correctly. For instance, I'm not sure I understand what it means to produce, what an effect is, and what it means to be first.
1) The Condemnation is structured just like the argument it's trying to make. It's attempt to bury a philosophical tradition that relies on rationality when interpreting God gives us a list of rules and regulations when diving into such matter. Also, does #13 suggest that we don't have a personal relationship to God?
2) I think the philosophical idea that Ghent was interesting. He lands on the point that God could not have created us in eternity. In other words, Ghent understands the history of man and God as being linear in terms of creation.
Tempier seems to really get behind the notion that God has free will, but that is problematic for multiple reasons. If intelligence and rationality are a virtue and part of God’s identity is being perfect thus also being perfectly rational. Why would God do something in which God had no reason or motivation. If God is all intelligent then God will always make the most rational choice and if the most rational choice was to create the world then there couldn't be a scenario otherwise. If the world and its properties are as infinite as God then is the world like an extension of God or does there now exist two infinities. Tempier seems to argue that God can only create one world because that world is infinite, but if you can have two infinities then why not three?
1. At first glance it seems like The Condemnation of 1277 is condemning reason and rationalized thought and instead positing that matters dealing with God should be excepted on faith. It seems as though God's existence has to b then taken upon as a matter of faith where reason has no say in the matter and that human's inborn and natural inclination to reason and think rationally should be rejected or suppressed when it came to the topic of God. When reading the first few sanctions on philosophical thought I couldn't help but be disgusted by the so called "errors in philosophy".
ReplyDelete2. I was confused by the beginning of Henry of Ghent's argument. At first I thought he was saying that there was an infinite existence of human beings but then he went on to say that human existence started with one being, Adam, and will end with another human being who after which no others shall become. To me this seems like an entirely contradictory notion but I may be reading it wrong.
1. The condemnation of 1277 is an interesting conceptual shift for Christian Europe in the sense that it seems to mark an abandonment of attempts to study god with reason alone. I wonder if this has to do with the arrival of Muslim texts in to Europe from the trade at the time. I enjoy that they concede that knowthig can be known of God except that he is. In my mind this is a paradigm shift with regard to intellectual honesty in the time. Although I did wonder what they meant by infinite motion.
ReplyDelete2. As for the piece by Henry of Ghent. I find the emphasis on Gods power to be a more coherent position. If a being created the entirety of the world of matter surely he could do all things. However the language he uses is very confusing, for instance is he making fun of the absurdity of the idea of there being infinite humans or is he genuinely adopting that position?
The condemnation if 1277 reads like an impatient politician does today. It’s almost comical to imagine any kind of leader, be they political, religious, or some combination of the two, scrambling with a team of lawyers or advisors to discredit decades (and arguably centuries) of a rising tradition because it threatens their way of life. As we know today Plato and Aristotle have scarcely been touched by this assertion of power. But at the time, one can imagine the impact this sort of proclamation would have had on the philosophical world.
ReplyDeleteWhat Scotus does to critique the determinism of God and the necessity of creation is much more effective than condemning the entire field of philosophy. Although I admit it might be my bias as a philosophy student almost 750 years after, constructing an argument that topples another is always a better goal than plainly telling your opposition that they are mistaken without offering any reason why. Replacing the idea of determinacy with contingency is a good move for the time. It replaces all the talk of what God cannot do with what God will not do. This is not to say it is impossible for God to do these things, keeping intact the true omnipotence that must be present according to the authority of the Church. (Despite the church holding the position that the subject shouldn’t be thought about at all.)
The Condemnation of 1277 read as a major shift for the disunion of God and the tactics and styles used to discuss the existence. It appears to b far more innately beloved and accepted as the truth as oppose to searching and exploring all of the possibilities for the existence of God. More so in a way of just accepting it as is.
ReplyDeleteGhent was a bit more confusing on his position of the concept of infinite beings and the creations of them. perhaps its just his style of writing but the concept itself was interesting and easy to follow about how the world was started by one being and that was the catalyst of ll beings, I just was unclear on his positon
I found the argument about gods power to be a less articulate argument then previous readings. Aberlards argument for god not having free will makes more sense to me then god could do anything because he created everything.
ReplyDeleteThe jump to studying god as not purley reason makes sense to me in the first reading because faith is needed. This is all arguments that have no way of ever being proven and it comes down to what you belive in and put your faith in.
I feel that the condemnation of 1277 is an interesting piece in what it tries to do. It tries to tear down centuries of tradition which can potentially change publics way of life. This piece is somewhat different from many pieces I have read in philosophy courses. Instead of arguing for reason or using reason to argue beliefs that involve faith in God it does something completely different. The piece attempts to argue that there is no use for reason and people should have faith in God just because he is God.
ReplyDeleteThe notion of believing in God through faith alone is a notion that most thinkers of the time would likely shy away from but could be effective in another way. The masses would likely agree with this notion because most of them have been taught this their entire life. For the most it has been philosophers straying away from this notion. But this notion I see being widely supported by the general public.
It initially appears that the condemnation of 1277 is a writing attacking reason as a source of knowledge as opposed to faith however I read it as more of a concern between what limits reason has. It seems as though the Tempier does not want to do away with reason but instead limit its place.
ReplyDeleteIn a time were many theologians are being strongly influenced by philosophy this may have been a rebuke against placing reason as the primary source of understanding God. It seems as though he wants to deny much of the metaphysical ground work of ancient greek philosophy.
1. Tempier's Condemnation of 1277 is more of an exercise of power than one of reason, thus it is not all that interesting as a philosophical text. It seems to have more to do with theology than philosophy. He sparsely inserts reasoning behind the condemnation of certain propositions which don't hold much weight rationally. I'm a little surprised though that he is able to understand some of these propositions enough to reject them. I suppose that I'm not very familiar with the language used in these propositions, partially due to its antiquity, but they are still challenging for me to understand in the first place. Although Tempier's Condemnation seems to reject rationality, I'm interested in what kind of reasoning he would provide in support of rejecting philosophy and inquiry.
ReplyDelete2. I'm not as familiar as I should be in respect to the language and matters being argued by Scotus, but I still think that I have the right to question what he means in certain places. I also realize that this may not be entirely relevant to the selections as a whole, I think that understanding the parts is necessary to understand the whole. Of course I can guess at what he means, but that leaves room for misinterpretation. I feel that some of his terms are too generic to be understood correctly. For instance, I'm not sure I understand what it means to produce, what an effect is, and what it means to be first.
1) The Condemnation is structured just like the argument it's trying to make. It's attempt to bury a philosophical tradition that relies on rationality when interpreting God gives us a list of rules and regulations when diving into such matter. Also, does #13 suggest that we don't have a personal relationship to God?
ReplyDelete2) I think the philosophical idea that Ghent was interesting. He lands on the point that God could not have created us in eternity. In other words, Ghent understands the history of man and God as being linear in terms of creation.
Tempier seems to really get behind the notion that God has free will, but that is problematic for multiple reasons. If intelligence and rationality are a virtue and part of God’s identity is being perfect thus also being perfectly rational. Why would God do something in which God had no reason or motivation. If God is all intelligent then God will always make the most rational choice and if the most rational choice was to create the world then there couldn't be a scenario otherwise.
ReplyDeleteIf the world and its properties are as infinite as God then is the world like an extension of God or does there now exist two infinities. Tempier seems to argue that God can only create one world because that world is infinite, but if you can have two infinities then why not three?