3 ms·

> the Church of the time was very into Scholasticism, Thomas Aquinas' fusion of Classical Greek philosophy (principally Aristotle's ideas) with the theological,

> the Church of the time was very into Scholasticism, Thomas Aquinas' fusion of Classical Greek philosophy (principally Aristotle's ideas) with the theological, moral and even epistemic and metaphysical teachings from the Bible. When the Catholic Church got upset at Galileo, they were upset that he was contradicting Aristotle, not the Old Testament. I would be careful here to distinguish between Aristotelian philosophy from Aristotelian natural science. Scholasticism, especially Thomism, is still the preferred intellectual tradition and point of reference, and rightly so, but there is no refusal to entertain whatever valid insights may be found elsewhere. It is rather that many of Aristotle's scientific explanations have fallen out of favor and been superseded.

baryphonic 5y ago
This is true. At the time, there wasn't really a distinction between science and philosophy. In fact, what we call science was called natural philosophy in those days. Newton's Principia is "Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy," after all. Philosophy still exists around science at the edges (for example, questions about mind-body dualism or consciousness or even the criteria for mental illness, not to mention various interpretations of quantum mechanics or probability, often involve philosophical argument more than scientific measurement these days). But you're entirely correct that even in those days, Aristotle wasn't some sort of incontrovertible source of truth for natural philosophy, but someone who should not be cast aside lightly.
- DemocracyFTW 5y ago
  This sounds horrible, as if philosophy is now some kind of fringe pseudo thing. Quite the contrary, Richard Carrier for one is arguing[1] that what we are doing is (natural) philosophy and we should call it that (again) (and in fact some university departments have been renamed to contain the word 'philosophy' again). As for the other poster's remark on Thomism, Carrier writes[2]: "Thomism [...] the Medieval Dumbity that consists of purely armchair, and often pseudological, theorizing about natural reality, which ignores the entirety of the sciences and pretends facts and evidence don’t matter—and even don’t exist, contradicting its every conclusion", so not sure how viable that school of thinking is. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Lvg4di3sAw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Lvg4di3sAw [2] https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/18356 https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/18356
  - stareatgoats 5y ago
    Richard Carrier may have a point about Thomism being theoretical, but using invectives like "dumbity" is mostly only helpful to his, by now dwindling, set of adoring new atheists. It doesn't belong in the scientific discourse he aspires (aspired?) to. To be clear, I totally sympathize with the skeptical cause when it comes to rooting out prejudices based on shallow religiosity. I just don't believe there is a place in rational discourse for this type of argumentation that skews towards "bierstube" mockery.
  - jfengel 5y ago
    In a lot of ways philosophy is some kind of fringe pseudo thing, by dint of having been constructed that way. As soon as something isn't fringey and pseudo, they stop calling it philosophy. What's left is a mishmash of unrelated notions: metaphysics, ethics, axiology, and (for some reason) logic. Or whatever other slicing you want to apply; the whole point is that what's left as "philosophy" is specifically the stuff that's not locked down. Except logic, which philosophy clings to, rather than letting it live in the math department, even though geometry and arithmetic (also formerly the domain of philosophy) live there. I agree that we ought to just call it all "philosophy" again, since we all love wisdom. Even the "scientific method" is really just a thing we all do every day, even when we're not practicing "science".

baryphonic 5y ago

This is true. At the time, there wasn't really a distinction between science and philosophy. In fact, what we call science was called natural philosophy in those days. Newton's Principia is "Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy," after all. Philosophy still exists around science at the edges (for example, questions about mind-body dualism or consciousness or even the criteria for mental illness, not to mention various interpretations of quantum mechanics or probability, often involve philosophical argument more than scientific measurement these days). But you're entirely correct that even in those days, Aristotle wasn't some sort of incontrovertible source of truth for natural philosophy, but someone who should not be cast aside lightly.

DemocracyFTW 5y ago
This sounds horrible, as if philosophy is now some kind of fringe pseudo thing. Quite the contrary, Richard Carrier for one is arguing[1] that what we are doing is (natural) philosophy and we should call it that (again) (and in fact some university departments have been renamed to contain the word 'philosophy' again). As for the other poster's remark on Thomism, Carrier writes[2]: "Thomism [...] the Medieval Dumbity that consists of purely armchair, and often pseudological, theorizing about natural reality, which ignores the entirety of the sciences and pretends facts and evidence don’t matter—and even don’t exist, contradicting its every conclusion", so not sure how viable that school of thinking is. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Lvg4di3sAw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Lvg4di3sAw [2] https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/18356 https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/18356
- stareatgoats 5y ago
  Richard Carrier may have a point about Thomism being theoretical, but using invectives like "dumbity" is mostly only helpful to his, by now dwindling, set of adoring new atheists. It doesn't belong in the scientific discourse he aspires (aspired?) to. To be clear, I totally sympathize with the skeptical cause when it comes to rooting out prejudices based on shallow religiosity. I just don't believe there is a place in rational discourse for this type of argumentation that skews towards "bierstube" mockery.
- jfengel 5y ago
  In a lot of ways philosophy is some kind of fringe pseudo thing, by dint of having been constructed that way. As soon as something isn't fringey and pseudo, they stop calling it philosophy. What's left is a mishmash of unrelated notions: metaphysics, ethics, axiology, and (for some reason) logic. Or whatever other slicing you want to apply; the whole point is that what's left as "philosophy" is specifically the stuff that's not locked down. Except logic, which philosophy clings to, rather than letting it live in the math department, even though geometry and arithmetic (also formerly the domain of philosophy) live there. I agree that we ought to just call it all "philosophy" again, since we all love wisdom. Even the "scientific method" is really just a thing we all do every day, even when we're not practicing "science".