> On Feb 6, 2017, at 7:19 AM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > > Yes, I agree with your outline of the neglect of Aristotle during the period > when the Church controlled knowledge - and the 13th c. re-emergence of his > works [Aquinas etc]..
I’m not sure it’s quite that simple. A lot of the texts, for whatever reason, simply weren’t widely available. I’d add that they heyday of Aristotle in the 13th century was still a period of Church controlled knowledge - thus the various condemnations at the University of Paris largely tied to Aristotelian works. Even those who became dominant in this era (Scotus and Ockham) arguably did so because they engaged with Aristotle and frequently disagreed with him. So that’s not really neglect. It’s later as Aquinas becomes more popular (he was always popular with the Dominicans) that an Aristotilean fused Christianity becomes more acceptable. Although of course other major figures from the early 13th century like Albertus Magnus were thoroughly engaged with Aristotle. Anyway I think while one can blame the church for the condemnations at Paris it’s unfair to blame them for a lack of engagement with Aristotle. And the condemnations occurred precisely because everyone had engaged seriously with him. One should also note that the identities of Plato and Aristotle weren’t always clear in the texts. That affected how people read them. The relative clarity of who wrote what we have today is of much more recent development. I’m not sure the timing on all that but I assume it’s a product of early modernism even if some roots go back earlier.
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
