What do you think?
Rate this book
兀亘賳丕亍 兀乇爻胤賵 賰賷賮 兀毓丕丿 丕賱毓賱賲丕亍 丕賰鬲卮丕賮 丕賱丨賰賲丞 丕賱賯丿賷賲丞 賮賷 丕賱毓氐賵乇 丕賱賵爻胤賶
廿賳 賮賰乇丞 丕賱毓氐賵乇 丕賱賵爻胤賶 丕賱賲馗賱賲丞 賴賷 賳鬲賷噩丞 賲賱丕夭賲丞 賱兀爻胤賵乇丞 兀氐賱 丕賱毓賱賲 丕賱丨丿賷孬: 兀賷 丕賱兀爻胤賵乇丞 丕賱賯丕卅賱丞 廿賳 丕賱亘丨孬 丕賱毓賱賲賷 賱丕 賷賲賰賳 兀賳 賷馗賴乇 亘丕毓鬲亘丕乇賴 賳卮丕胤丕 賲丨鬲乇賲丕 賵賲賳鬲賽噩丕 丨鬲賶 賷丨乇乇 賳賮爻賴 賲賳 亘乇丕孬賳 丕賱廿賷賲丕賳 丕賱賵孬賵賯賷 丕賱爻賱胤賵賷.
賵丕賱賲賵囟賵毓 "丕賱賲爻乇丨賷" 賴賵 賮賷 賰賵賳 丕賱毓賯賱丕賳賷丞 賲賯丕亘賱 丕賱丿賷賳貙 丨賷孬 賷丐丿賷 丕賱丿賷賳 丿賵乇 丕賱乇賯賷亘 丕賱賯賲毓賷 兀賵 丕賱賲囟胤賴賽丿貙 賵賷丐丿賷 丕賱毓賱賲丕亍 賵丕賱賲賮賰乇賵賳 丕賱兀丨乇丕乇 丿賵乇 丕賱亘胤賱 兀賵 丕賱卮賴賷丿.
廿賳 丕賱鬲賮賰賷乇 丕賱毓賱賲賷 賮賷 丕賱睾乇亘 賯丿 亘丿兀 賲毓 丕賱丕賳賮噩丕乇 丕賱賮賰乇賷 丕賱匕賷 兀毓賯亘 廿毓丕丿丞 丕賰鬲卮丕賮 賰鬲丕亘丕鬲 兀乇爻胤賵. 賱賰賳 丕賱賲爻賷丨賷賷賳 丕賱兀賵乇賵亘賷賷賳 賱賲 賷賳賯爻賲賵丕 廿賱賶 賲毓爻賰乇 "毓賯賱丕賳賷" 賵賲毓爻賰乇 "兀氐賵賱賷" 賰賲丕 鬲賵賯毓鬲購. 賱賯丿 鬲亘賷賾賳 賱賷 亘胤乇賷賯丞 丨胤賲鬲 賰賱 鬲氐賵乇丕鬲賷 丕賱丨丿丕孬賷丞 丕賱賲爻亘賯丞 兀賳 丕賱賯賵丞 丕賱賯丕卅丿丞 賱賱鬲睾賷乇 丕賱丕賳鬲賯丕賱賷 賮賷 丕賱鬲賮賰賷乇 丕賱睾乇亘賷 賰丕賳鬲 賯賷丕丿丞 丿賷賳賷丞 (丕賱賰賳賷爻丞 丕賱賰丕孬賵賱賷賰賷丞).
賵丕賱賲賵囟賵毓 "丕賱賲爻乇丨賷" 賴賵 賮賷 賰賵賳 丕賱毓賯賱丕賳賷丞 賲賯丕亘賱 丕賱丿賷賳貙 丨賷孬 賷丐丿賷 丕賱丿賷賳 丿賵乇 丕賱乇賯賷亘 丕賱賯賲毓賷 兀賵 丕賱賲囟胤賴賽丿貙 賵賷丐丿賷 丕賱毓賱賲丕亍 賵丕賱賲賮賰乇賵賳 丕賱兀丨乇丕乇 丿賵乇 丕賱亘胤賱 兀賵 丕賱卮賴賷丿.
廿賳 丕賱鬲賮賰賷乇 丕賱毓賱賲賷 賮賷 丕賱睾乇亘 賯丿 亘丿兀 賲毓 丕賱丕賳賮噩丕乇 丕賱賮賰乇賷 丕賱匕賷 兀毓賯亘 廿毓丕丿丞 丕賰鬲卮丕賮 賰鬲丕亘丕鬲 兀乇爻胤賵. 賱賰賳 丕賱賲爻賷丨賷賷賳 丕賱兀賵乇賵亘賷賷賳 賱賲 賷賳賯爻賲賵丕 廿賱賶 賲毓爻賰乇 "毓賯賱丕賳賷" 賵賲毓爻賰乇 "兀氐賵賱賷" 賰賲丕 鬲賵賯毓鬲購. 賱賯丿 鬲亘賷賾賳 賱賷 亘胤乇賷賯丞 丨胤賲鬲 賰賱 鬲氐賵乇丕鬲賷 丕賱丨丿丕孬賷丞 丕賱賲爻亘賯丞 兀賳 丕賱賯賵丞 丕賱賯丕卅丿丞 賱賱鬲睾賷乇 丕賱丕賳鬲賯丕賱賷 賮賷 丕賱鬲賮賰賷乇 丕賱睾乇亘賷 賰丕賳鬲 賯賷丕丿丞 丿賷賳賷丞 (丕賱賰賳賷爻丞 丕賱賰丕孬賵賱賷賰賷丞).
600 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2003
238 people are currently reading
2,966 people want to read
About the author
Richard E. Rubenstein
27听books30听followersRichard E. Rubenstein is an author and University Professor of Conflict Resolution and Public Affairs at George Mason University, holding degrees from Harvard College, Oxford University, and Harvard Law School.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 123 reviews
October 6, 2011
I鈥檝e always been more than a little fond of Aristotle. In fact, I love just about everything about him. Look, I know he said horrible things about women and that he also thought slavery was ok 鈥� but then, so did Jesus, so it is probably a little much to expect him to be more politically correct than God was able to manage. At anytime between when he was kicking up the dust with his sandals in Athens until about the 15th Century if you wanted to know where the action was, where people were actually thinking philosophically 鈥� then you simply had to ask who knew the most about Aristotle and go there. The test was that if he was banned then you were dealing with morons 鈥� if people considered him 鈥榯he Philosopher鈥� then you were among friends. History rarely offers such a simple or consistently effective test.
For nearly 2000 years Aristotle鈥檚 works were referred to as 鈥榚nquire within about everything鈥� 鈥� he was a virtual encyclopaedia. Think about that for a minute 鈥� for 2000 years he dominated Western thought. It is an achievement that is unlikely to ever be repeated.
His works are highly readable 鈥� although some are pretty dull. His ethics and his poetics, however, are masterpieces of our philosophical tradition and remarkably readable. I鈥檝e also read his On The Soul and Rhetoric 鈥� but these are much more dry and more 鈥榟ard work鈥�.
He wrote on politics, biology, astronomy, anatomy, physics, logic and metaphysics and each of these are seminal works in our tradition. Unlike his teacher, Plato, he was much less interested in the perfect world of forms and much more interested in the world we live in. What is also interesting about his philosophy is that where Socrates and Plato were mostly interested in the unity of opposites (you can鈥檛 talk about how hot something is without also and already having defined cold), Aristotle鈥檚 dialectics was much more sophisticated. For Aristotle was much more interested in quality and quantity than just opposites. For example, instead of talking about hot and cold, Aristotle spoke about what he called the 鈥榞olden mean鈥� 鈥� about the reconciling of opposites as being the path to living a good life. And that is the point 鈥� just what is a good life? Aristotle felt that avoiding extremes was as good a definition e as he could come up with.
This book is mostly a series of biographies of various philosophers and theologians who were strongly influenced by Aristotle鈥檚 philosophy over that 2000 years. Some paid for such belief with their lives.
The author makes an interesting point that where we are likely to see the history of philosophy as the struggle and eventual victory of reason over faith 鈥� the author questions that this 鈥榮truggle鈥� was never quite as black and white as it is often presented. Aristotle鈥檚 logic is a remarkably powerful tool. However, for much of this book what is most obvious is just how pitiful the problems were that Aristotle鈥檚 remarkable tool of logic was used on. I mean, using Aristotle鈥檚 logic to try to deduce whether or not God is a single person of three parts or three divine persons in one godhead or whatever other nonsense medieval philosophy wasted its time on. But I guess this nonsense did allow logic to be applied to scientific questions too.
This book ends with a call for a new, a modern reconciliation between faith and reason. I found this part less than convincing and a bit unnecessary. I understand people still feel the need to have a faith as a way to confirm them in their prejudices 鈥� but I hope that over time this need will become increasingly less pronounced.
It is true that Aristotle relied too heavily on reason, expecting that what we would call today 鈥榯hought experiments鈥� would be enough to confirm the truth of any theory 鈥� clearly, this is not enough (despite the success of Einstein鈥檚 theories) 鈥� all the same, I鈥檓 still proud to count myself as one of Aristotle鈥檚 children.
For nearly 2000 years Aristotle鈥檚 works were referred to as 鈥榚nquire within about everything鈥� 鈥� he was a virtual encyclopaedia. Think about that for a minute 鈥� for 2000 years he dominated Western thought. It is an achievement that is unlikely to ever be repeated.
His works are highly readable 鈥� although some are pretty dull. His ethics and his poetics, however, are masterpieces of our philosophical tradition and remarkably readable. I鈥檝e also read his On The Soul and Rhetoric 鈥� but these are much more dry and more 鈥榟ard work鈥�.
He wrote on politics, biology, astronomy, anatomy, physics, logic and metaphysics and each of these are seminal works in our tradition. Unlike his teacher, Plato, he was much less interested in the perfect world of forms and much more interested in the world we live in. What is also interesting about his philosophy is that where Socrates and Plato were mostly interested in the unity of opposites (you can鈥檛 talk about how hot something is without also and already having defined cold), Aristotle鈥檚 dialectics was much more sophisticated. For Aristotle was much more interested in quality and quantity than just opposites. For example, instead of talking about hot and cold, Aristotle spoke about what he called the 鈥榞olden mean鈥� 鈥� about the reconciling of opposites as being the path to living a good life. And that is the point 鈥� just what is a good life? Aristotle felt that avoiding extremes was as good a definition e as he could come up with.
This book is mostly a series of biographies of various philosophers and theologians who were strongly influenced by Aristotle鈥檚 philosophy over that 2000 years. Some paid for such belief with their lives.
The author makes an interesting point that where we are likely to see the history of philosophy as the struggle and eventual victory of reason over faith 鈥� the author questions that this 鈥榮truggle鈥� was never quite as black and white as it is often presented. Aristotle鈥檚 logic is a remarkably powerful tool. However, for much of this book what is most obvious is just how pitiful the problems were that Aristotle鈥檚 remarkable tool of logic was used on. I mean, using Aristotle鈥檚 logic to try to deduce whether or not God is a single person of three parts or three divine persons in one godhead or whatever other nonsense medieval philosophy wasted its time on. But I guess this nonsense did allow logic to be applied to scientific questions too.
This book ends with a call for a new, a modern reconciliation between faith and reason. I found this part less than convincing and a bit unnecessary. I understand people still feel the need to have a faith as a way to confirm them in their prejudices 鈥� but I hope that over time this need will become increasingly less pronounced.
It is true that Aristotle relied too heavily on reason, expecting that what we would call today 鈥榯hought experiments鈥� would be enough to confirm the truth of any theory 鈥� clearly, this is not enough (despite the success of Einstein鈥檚 theories) 鈥� all the same, I鈥檓 still proud to count myself as one of Aristotle鈥檚 children.
October 25, 2007
Okay. A book about the middle ages, right? Uh-huh. But wait, not only about the (ugh!) middle ages, but about PHILOSOPHY in the middle ages? You're kidding, right? But, you say, there's more? It's not just about medieval philosophy and philosophers, but also about the intricate, and delicate balance between rationalism and faith in revelation, is that what you're telling me? And about how three distinct strains emerging? One that rejected faith for reason, one that rejected reason for faith, and one that desperately tried to hold the other two together? Yeah, like anyone would want to read THAT!!!
Well, this is one of the most beautifully written, intelligent, intriguing, and thought-provoking books I've read in a long time, and it was actually FUN TO READ. It was like a good novel, with surprisingly vital characters, even though they've all been dead for a millennium or so.
Go on. Give it a try.
Well, this is one of the most beautifully written, intelligent, intriguing, and thought-provoking books I've read in a long time, and it was actually FUN TO READ. It was like a good novel, with surprisingly vital characters, even though they've all been dead for a millennium or so.
Go on. Give it a try.
November 21, 2022
UPDATE ... 15 years later, I'm planning to re-read Aristotle's Children along with Cahill's Gifts of the Jews ... so many unanswered and unanswerable questions
This is part of my summer research on a novel I am writing (a sequel to THE HERETIC), set in the humanist world of Lorenzo de Medici's Florence. It is fascinating for me to trace the changes in the Church's thinking as it first embraced Aristotle and then rejected him. Many of the issues - faith vs reason, the immortality of the soul, the purpose of life, the existence of God - are as relevant today as they were then. Now if I can only get some of this excitement (but not too much) into the lives of my characters in my novel-in-process, tentatively titled THE POPE'S CONSPIRACY.
This is part of my summer research on a novel I am writing (a sequel to THE HERETIC), set in the humanist world of Lorenzo de Medici's Florence. It is fascinating for me to trace the changes in the Church's thinking as it first embraced Aristotle and then rejected him. Many of the issues - faith vs reason, the immortality of the soul, the purpose of life, the existence of God - are as relevant today as they were then. Now if I can only get some of this excitement (but not too much) into the lives of my characters in my novel-in-process, tentatively titled THE POPE'S CONSPIRACY.
March 24, 2019
That Aristotle's works were a major influence on Medieval thought can hardly be denied by anyone who looks at the evidence. I'm not sure if the author is attempting to make the case that Aristotle's influence wound up being the major catalyst for fractures in the hegemony of the Roman church, but he seems to be making that case. I would attribute a more decisive element to the tyrannical corruption of the ecclesiastical hierarchy than to any literary influence from writers like Aristotle.
I would say that much of the book is only loosely relevant to Aristotle's influence on the Medieval church. A more prevalent theme is the response the Medieval church had to ideas it found troublesome; Aristotle being one among a number of such. He discusses groups like the Spiritual Franciscans and the Cathars which can tie in with Aristotle in only a very tangential sense. He makes much of a fragment attributed to the Cathars that seems to utilize Aristotelian thought to advocate for gnostic dualism. If the Cathars had been influenced by Aristotle, they were as good at cherry picking him as they were at cherry picking scripture. Aristotle was notably opposed to even the mild dualism of Plato, let alone an extreme dualism of the type found in gnostic sects like the Cathars. The Roman church could have easily used Aristotle to counter Catharic use of the same if they had chosen to. Whatever influence Aristotle's writings had on the Cathars, I would say it was minimal, and only chosen because of expediency and what might have appealed to those who would have been familiar with the Aristotelian thought of the day. Most cultic sects are more prone to expediency than consistency; potential conversion being far more important.
One should note that his treatment of Islam is fairly cursory given the fact that Islamic foray into Aristotelianism was an even more short-lived dalliance than it was in Christian countries. I am not nullifying the importance of Islamic philosophers like Ibn Sina (Latinized as Avicenna) and Ibn Rushd (Latinized as Averroes), but one has to acknowledged that philosophy was not any more tolerated in the Islamic countries during this period 鈥� indeed, even less. The author seems to make much of the Islamic reintroduction of Aristotle into the West from Islamic commentators. I personally find the situation to be more complicated than is indicated here. Firstly, the Eastern church had important Aristotelian thinkers like Philoponus, and he was certainly an major influence on Scholastics like Bonaventure. Also, part of the reason the Western church had become ignorant of the Greek language and Greek thought was due in large part to Islamic expansionism that had cut the two regional churches off from each other. It cannot be denied, however, that with the forced closing of the Academy by Justinian, a less than inviting climate was made for philosophical thought. But both factors played a role into a loss of knowledge in the West when it came to Hellenistic thought.
The influence on Jewish thinkers was also treated rather cursorily here; probably simply due to the fact that it wasn't that notable apart from Maimonides and maybe a few others. As with Christian thought, Plato wound up being a far more pervasive and more easily integrated influence on Jewish philosophy.
I agree with the author that Aristotle probably was a major catalyst for the subsequent scientific movement, but I would also say that that came from the Hellenistic philosophical influences in general. It just happened to be that Aristotle was the writer of choice for the Scholastics, so that became the more notable influence. I agree with the author that the relationship between science and faith has often been oversimplified. Indeed, the commonly repeated canard that science and faith has been continually at odds is simply a falsehood perpetuated by people who have done next to no historical research. The former is repeated as a religious axiom by anti-theists that treat science as a competing religion. Their ignorance of actual religions is only surpassed by their ignorance of history.
I think it's interesting that the author holds that Aristotle undeniably held that his prime mover was a part of the universe and not separate from it. This does seem to be the most consistent way to read Aristotle, but it doesn't do anything for Aristotle's consistency overall. It still doesn't explain how a prime/unmoved mover can be anything other than an ideal mover when the cosmos is eternal. Movement can only be eternal and infinite in such a scheme, thus an unmoved/prime mover cannot be literally a part of that system. I do agree with the author that Aristotle's unmoved mover can hardly be equated to the Christian creator, but one must assume that Aristotle believed in the gods that all Greeks believed in. No one as far as I'm aware ever accused Aristotle of atheism in his own day. How his first mover related to the Greek pantheon is a mystery. Ironically, Aristotle may have had a temperament similar to the Scholastics where ideas were simply posited as experiments of reason rather than as statements of dogma. We cannot be certain that Aristotle wasn't simply theorizing. I certainly would be more willing to overlook the inconsistencies if that were the case.
I think this book can really be only an introduction into the topic of what role philosophy played in general, and Aristotelianism in particular, on the Medieval church. A rather annoying aspect of this book was the author's tendency to quote a historical anecdote, but cite a secondary source. This occurred repeatedly. For example, I am less interested in Chesterton's use of a source, than in the original source. There is no substitute for primary sources when one is composing a work that is investigating history. The more contemporary the source, the better as far as I'm concerned. I don't usually like taking secondary sources as authoritative in themselves. It's even more problematic when a secondary source cites other secondary sources. If one wants to check the citation, you can actually expose yourself to the Quixotian quest (yes, I've done it) of going through a whole line of secondary sources that end in nothing that is even remotely contemporary to the period in question. I am left unconvinced by anecdotes only found in such sources.
I give the book around 3-and-half stars. It was interesting and it can be read rather quickly. If this was one's only exposure to the subject, however, you would be left in a rather meagerly informed state. I recommend this as an introduction only.
I would say that much of the book is only loosely relevant to Aristotle's influence on the Medieval church. A more prevalent theme is the response the Medieval church had to ideas it found troublesome; Aristotle being one among a number of such. He discusses groups like the Spiritual Franciscans and the Cathars which can tie in with Aristotle in only a very tangential sense. He makes much of a fragment attributed to the Cathars that seems to utilize Aristotelian thought to advocate for gnostic dualism. If the Cathars had been influenced by Aristotle, they were as good at cherry picking him as they were at cherry picking scripture. Aristotle was notably opposed to even the mild dualism of Plato, let alone an extreme dualism of the type found in gnostic sects like the Cathars. The Roman church could have easily used Aristotle to counter Catharic use of the same if they had chosen to. Whatever influence Aristotle's writings had on the Cathars, I would say it was minimal, and only chosen because of expediency and what might have appealed to those who would have been familiar with the Aristotelian thought of the day. Most cultic sects are more prone to expediency than consistency; potential conversion being far more important.
One should note that his treatment of Islam is fairly cursory given the fact that Islamic foray into Aristotelianism was an even more short-lived dalliance than it was in Christian countries. I am not nullifying the importance of Islamic philosophers like Ibn Sina (Latinized as Avicenna) and Ibn Rushd (Latinized as Averroes), but one has to acknowledged that philosophy was not any more tolerated in the Islamic countries during this period 鈥� indeed, even less. The author seems to make much of the Islamic reintroduction of Aristotle into the West from Islamic commentators. I personally find the situation to be more complicated than is indicated here. Firstly, the Eastern church had important Aristotelian thinkers like Philoponus, and he was certainly an major influence on Scholastics like Bonaventure. Also, part of the reason the Western church had become ignorant of the Greek language and Greek thought was due in large part to Islamic expansionism that had cut the two regional churches off from each other. It cannot be denied, however, that with the forced closing of the Academy by Justinian, a less than inviting climate was made for philosophical thought. But both factors played a role into a loss of knowledge in the West when it came to Hellenistic thought.
The influence on Jewish thinkers was also treated rather cursorily here; probably simply due to the fact that it wasn't that notable apart from Maimonides and maybe a few others. As with Christian thought, Plato wound up being a far more pervasive and more easily integrated influence on Jewish philosophy.
I agree with the author that Aristotle probably was a major catalyst for the subsequent scientific movement, but I would also say that that came from the Hellenistic philosophical influences in general. It just happened to be that Aristotle was the writer of choice for the Scholastics, so that became the more notable influence. I agree with the author that the relationship between science and faith has often been oversimplified. Indeed, the commonly repeated canard that science and faith has been continually at odds is simply a falsehood perpetuated by people who have done next to no historical research. The former is repeated as a religious axiom by anti-theists that treat science as a competing religion. Their ignorance of actual religions is only surpassed by their ignorance of history.
I think it's interesting that the author holds that Aristotle undeniably held that his prime mover was a part of the universe and not separate from it. This does seem to be the most consistent way to read Aristotle, but it doesn't do anything for Aristotle's consistency overall. It still doesn't explain how a prime/unmoved mover can be anything other than an ideal mover when the cosmos is eternal. Movement can only be eternal and infinite in such a scheme, thus an unmoved/prime mover cannot be literally a part of that system. I do agree with the author that Aristotle's unmoved mover can hardly be equated to the Christian creator, but one must assume that Aristotle believed in the gods that all Greeks believed in. No one as far as I'm aware ever accused Aristotle of atheism in his own day. How his first mover related to the Greek pantheon is a mystery. Ironically, Aristotle may have had a temperament similar to the Scholastics where ideas were simply posited as experiments of reason rather than as statements of dogma. We cannot be certain that Aristotle wasn't simply theorizing. I certainly would be more willing to overlook the inconsistencies if that were the case.
I think this book can really be only an introduction into the topic of what role philosophy played in general, and Aristotelianism in particular, on the Medieval church. A rather annoying aspect of this book was the author's tendency to quote a historical anecdote, but cite a secondary source. This occurred repeatedly. For example, I am less interested in Chesterton's use of a source, than in the original source. There is no substitute for primary sources when one is composing a work that is investigating history. The more contemporary the source, the better as far as I'm concerned. I don't usually like taking secondary sources as authoritative in themselves. It's even more problematic when a secondary source cites other secondary sources. If one wants to check the citation, you can actually expose yourself to the Quixotian quest (yes, I've done it) of going through a whole line of secondary sources that end in nothing that is even remotely contemporary to the period in question. I am left unconvinced by anecdotes only found in such sources.
I give the book around 3-and-half stars. It was interesting and it can be read rather quickly. If this was one's only exposure to the subject, however, you would be left in a rather meagerly informed state. I recommend this as an introduction only.
March 18, 2010
This is a lively and interesting history of the conflict between reason and faith that began with Aristotle and continues to this day. It鈥檚 also the story of how Aristotle鈥檚 writings, after being lost to the West for almost a thousand years, were rediscovered in Muslim Spain and then made their way into the universities of Europe (especially Paris), setting off the reason/faith debate as well as many other debates in metaphysics, ethics, politics, science, law, logic, and more.
Full of suspenseful intrigues, plots, and counterplots, it sometimes reads like a fast-moving thriller. Along the way we meet a myriad of interesting characters 鈥� some more familiar than others 鈥� like Augustine, Boethius, Hypatia, Peter Abelard (see 鈥淪tealing Heaven鈥� 鈥� a great movie about Abelard and Heloise), Thomas Aquinas, William of Ockham (鈥淥ckham鈥檚 Razor鈥�), and many other great thinkers of the high Middle Ages.
The story begins with Aristotle attending lectures given by his famous teacher, Plato, but eventually rejecting Plato鈥檚 central idea about 鈥渦niversals鈥� and espousing his own reason-centered, reality-based ideas. On pages 110-112, there鈥檚 a very short summary of the principal difference between the two philosophers鈥� metaphysical ideas. How Aristotle鈥檚 writings made their way to us is a story of near misses. That anything at all remained of Aristotle鈥檚 work in the West, after the fall of Rome, was largely the result of one man鈥檚 effort 鈥� Boethius. He was one of the last Roman鈥檚 to be sent to Athens to be educated and when he returned, he decided to translate into Latin every work of Aristotle that came into his hands. It is these translations that were then copied and recopied by monks who hardly knew what they were preserving, or why. Without Boethius, it鈥檚 anyone鈥檚 guess what our modern world would be like 鈥� nightmarish chaos would be mine.
These writings eventually made there way to the Muslim world, by way of Byzantium, and resulted in a cultural awakening that became the glory of Islam. Nevertheless, beginning in the twelfth century, orthodox Muslim鈥檚, instinctively averse to Aristotle鈥檚 worldview, criticized and condemned the philosopher鈥檚 ideas. Those who admired Aristotle鈥檚 work found themselves in exile in Western Europe, a society of near barbarians by Muslim/Arab standards, but a society ready to soak up these new, strange, and in many cases, frighteningly controversial ideas from ancient Greece. Many of Aristotle鈥檚 ideas challenged traditional teachings of the Catholic Church and were condemned 鈥� at least for a while. Questions about the existence of God, the role of faith versus reason, the existence of an afterlife, or of an eternal universe, all became subjects of debate 鈥� mostly within the Catholic Church itself.
This debate continues today. The author, in his concluding chapter says that 鈥淎nswers that make sense require the sort of dialogue between a rationally influenced faith and an ethically interested reason that took place a few centuries ago in the medieval universities. I disagree and, for a counterpoint, highly recommend an article entitled 鈥淔aith and Force: Destroyers of the Modern World,鈥� by Ayn Rand.
Obviously, there is so much more to this winding story that can鈥檛 possibly be told here. But, it鈥檚 a great story and I recommend this well-written, entertaining book to anyone interested in our western intellectual heritage.
Full of suspenseful intrigues, plots, and counterplots, it sometimes reads like a fast-moving thriller. Along the way we meet a myriad of interesting characters 鈥� some more familiar than others 鈥� like Augustine, Boethius, Hypatia, Peter Abelard (see 鈥淪tealing Heaven鈥� 鈥� a great movie about Abelard and Heloise), Thomas Aquinas, William of Ockham (鈥淥ckham鈥檚 Razor鈥�), and many other great thinkers of the high Middle Ages.
The story begins with Aristotle attending lectures given by his famous teacher, Plato, but eventually rejecting Plato鈥檚 central idea about 鈥渦niversals鈥� and espousing his own reason-centered, reality-based ideas. On pages 110-112, there鈥檚 a very short summary of the principal difference between the two philosophers鈥� metaphysical ideas. How Aristotle鈥檚 writings made their way to us is a story of near misses. That anything at all remained of Aristotle鈥檚 work in the West, after the fall of Rome, was largely the result of one man鈥檚 effort 鈥� Boethius. He was one of the last Roman鈥檚 to be sent to Athens to be educated and when he returned, he decided to translate into Latin every work of Aristotle that came into his hands. It is these translations that were then copied and recopied by monks who hardly knew what they were preserving, or why. Without Boethius, it鈥檚 anyone鈥檚 guess what our modern world would be like 鈥� nightmarish chaos would be mine.
These writings eventually made there way to the Muslim world, by way of Byzantium, and resulted in a cultural awakening that became the glory of Islam. Nevertheless, beginning in the twelfth century, orthodox Muslim鈥檚, instinctively averse to Aristotle鈥檚 worldview, criticized and condemned the philosopher鈥檚 ideas. Those who admired Aristotle鈥檚 work found themselves in exile in Western Europe, a society of near barbarians by Muslim/Arab standards, but a society ready to soak up these new, strange, and in many cases, frighteningly controversial ideas from ancient Greece. Many of Aristotle鈥檚 ideas challenged traditional teachings of the Catholic Church and were condemned 鈥� at least for a while. Questions about the existence of God, the role of faith versus reason, the existence of an afterlife, or of an eternal universe, all became subjects of debate 鈥� mostly within the Catholic Church itself.
This debate continues today. The author, in his concluding chapter says that 鈥淎nswers that make sense require the sort of dialogue between a rationally influenced faith and an ethically interested reason that took place a few centuries ago in the medieval universities. I disagree and, for a counterpoint, highly recommend an article entitled 鈥淔aith and Force: Destroyers of the Modern World,鈥� by Ayn Rand.
Obviously, there is so much more to this winding story that can鈥檛 possibly be told here. But, it鈥檚 a great story and I recommend this well-written, entertaining book to anyone interested in our western intellectual heritage.
September 27, 2015
Rubinstein does a fine job presenting the introduction and inclusion of Aristotelian thinking into the catholic universities from 1200-1400 CE. He introduces the reader to a number of lesser known philosophers and theologians. Rubinstein is a great communicator and effortlessly explains the relative importance of the celebrity thinkers (Aquinas) and those whose names now escape us (Siger de Brabant). If the non-academic reader has an interest in history, education, the medieval period, or philosophy I strongly recommend Aristotle's Children. I genuinely enjoyed the act of reading Rubinstein's work.
A word of caution however (OK a few words) - I found the title to be misleading at best. Yes, there is a brief discussion of the earliest re-introduction of Aristotle in the opening chapters. The book does connect Aristotelian philosophy with various thinkers and historical periods. It does show how the introduction of the Philosopher into catholic universities was contentious. It fails, however, to present the "how" of rediscovery in any great detail. Other than a few passing mentions of Moses Maimonides and Averros, Jews and Muslims get little attention or credit throughout the book. This really is a history of how the catholic church responded to the reemergence of Aristotle after 1100 CE and not a story of how that reemergence occurred.
One feels, throughout the book, Rubinstein playing the apologist to institutions (church and monarchy) whose overwhelming predilection was to violently repress any thought that failed to conform. Rubinstein, himself, describes how the Franciscans were co-opted into the institution of the Roman church based on a shrewd Papal analysis that it was better to have them under the tent than outside it making trouble. It seems that Rubenstein wants us to believe that a sudden surge of open-mindedness and curiosity overtook the prelates of catholicism during a time in which they were also inventing in Inquisition. Finally, Rubinstein gives the impression of desiring a return to the conjunction of "faith and reason" an effort that started with Boethius and was refined and maximized by Aquinas (when he wasn't levitating or talking to statues).
Did I mention I really did like the book?
A word of caution however (OK a few words) - I found the title to be misleading at best. Yes, there is a brief discussion of the earliest re-introduction of Aristotle in the opening chapters. The book does connect Aristotelian philosophy with various thinkers and historical periods. It does show how the introduction of the Philosopher into catholic universities was contentious. It fails, however, to present the "how" of rediscovery in any great detail. Other than a few passing mentions of Moses Maimonides and Averros, Jews and Muslims get little attention or credit throughout the book. This really is a history of how the catholic church responded to the reemergence of Aristotle after 1100 CE and not a story of how that reemergence occurred.
One feels, throughout the book, Rubinstein playing the apologist to institutions (church and monarchy) whose overwhelming predilection was to violently repress any thought that failed to conform. Rubinstein, himself, describes how the Franciscans were co-opted into the institution of the Roman church based on a shrewd Papal analysis that it was better to have them under the tent than outside it making trouble. It seems that Rubenstein wants us to believe that a sudden surge of open-mindedness and curiosity overtook the prelates of catholicism during a time in which they were also inventing in Inquisition. Finally, Rubinstein gives the impression of desiring a return to the conjunction of "faith and reason" an effort that started with Boethius and was refined and maximized by Aquinas (when he wasn't levitating or talking to statues).
Did I mention I really did like the book?
December 20, 2017
When I saw the subtitle of the book was how Ancient wisdom illuminated the "Dark Ages". It lead me to expect it was written within that secular mythological ethos; that being that the West was once a glorious civilization until it embraced Christianity which submerge Europe into the dark ages, this darkness continued until finally a few brave souls embraced ancient Greek wisdom, and throwing off the shackles of Christian superstitions, embraced science in the face of the hostel, backward Christian opposition, this ultimately resulted in renaissance, enlightenment, prosperity, moral progress, and the iphone.
I was glad to find that instead, despite of the subtitle (which I see later editions changed), Rubenstein sought to share medieval history in its complexities, twist and turns and good and bad. He goes someway in refuting the secular myth, for indeed though there was darkness, persecutions, fear of the new, and occasional oppression of ancient wisdom, science and philosophy were often supported by the church and engaged in my devoted Catholics. Though the discovery and translation of Aristotle did lead to advances, sometimes, the love for Aristotle and fear of differing with his teachings, lead to stagnation, so ironically the more intolerant catholic leaders who forbade certain ideas from Aristotle lead to experimentation and the freedom to differ with the great Philosopher, when he was wrong.
So yeah, this was a good book, an interesting history, it is worth a re-read.
I was glad to find that instead, despite of the subtitle (which I see later editions changed), Rubenstein sought to share medieval history in its complexities, twist and turns and good and bad. He goes someway in refuting the secular myth, for indeed though there was darkness, persecutions, fear of the new, and occasional oppression of ancient wisdom, science and philosophy were often supported by the church and engaged in my devoted Catholics. Though the discovery and translation of Aristotle did lead to advances, sometimes, the love for Aristotle and fear of differing with his teachings, lead to stagnation, so ironically the more intolerant catholic leaders who forbade certain ideas from Aristotle lead to experimentation and the freedom to differ with the great Philosopher, when he was wrong.
So yeah, this was a good book, an interesting history, it is worth a re-read.
January 16, 2023
An accessible exploration of the rediscovery of Aristotle's ideas toward the end of the Middle Ages, just before the Renaissance. Rubenstein covers Aristotle's life and major ideas in contrast to Plato, then he skips forward and discusses major Western thinkers of the late 1100s through the early 1300s who engaged with Aristotle. Overall, his main theme is to show how the rediscovery of Aristotle contributed to the creation of a false dichotomy between faith and reason, which plagues us to this day.
Rubenstein sometimes falls into that trap so common for history writers: including too many irrelevant details. But not nearly as much as the average historian. Most of the time his prose is light, casual, and easy enough to understand. He keeps a basic narrative going. Still, the book felt long, and it's not something I'd ever reread.
Completely unrelated and irrelevant, but I have to mention it--the book I picked up to read after this was . In the acknowledgments of that book, published 1996, the author thanks her editor at Grosset/Putnam, Jane Isay. In the acknowledgments of this book about Aristotle, published 2003, the author thanks Jane Isay, the "editor in chief of Harcourt." Total coincidence.
Rubenstein sometimes falls into that trap so common for history writers: including too many irrelevant details. But not nearly as much as the average historian. Most of the time his prose is light, casual, and easy enough to understand. He keeps a basic narrative going. Still, the book felt long, and it's not something I'd ever reread.
Completely unrelated and irrelevant, but I have to mention it--the book I picked up to read after this was . In the acknowledgments of that book, published 1996, the author thanks her editor at Grosset/Putnam, Jane Isay. In the acknowledgments of this book about Aristotle, published 2003, the author thanks Jane Isay, the "editor in chief of Harcourt." Total coincidence.
May 30, 2011
Great intellectual history of the Middle Ages. The unifying theme of the book is Western Europe's incorporation of and reaction to the works of Aristotle, which were rediscovered in the West in the 11th century. It's so interesting to see that past generations wrestled with the same issues that we do. And it's always surprising to learn the little-known stories of the past.
I tended to think of the medieval period as largely and simply Catholic. But there was always, always, resistance and diversity. Sometimes it came from within the Church, from reformers who urged the Church to give up its manors and wealth to embrace apostolic poverty and eschew the power that inevitably corrupts. Other times it existed outside the Catholic power structure, as in the case of the "counter-church" of Cathars that existed in cultured, wealthy Languedoc in southern France. When the Catholic church's attempts to (re)convert the population through preaching failed, Innocent III announced a crusade against the Cathars and told soldiers they could keep whatever they took from Languedoc. A bloody land grab ensued, and the armies of northern France killed everything in their path, bragging of the 20,000 men, women, and children they chopped down in one day.
This makes it sound like the book is anti-Catholic, but it isn't. Rubenstein gives full credit to the good people within the Church who pushed for justice, social welfare, and intellectual freedom. The great heroes of this time period are precisely those churchmen and monks who pushed time and again to explore the ramifications of classical knowledge and thus started Europe down the path to modern science.
I tended to think of the medieval period as largely and simply Catholic. But there was always, always, resistance and diversity. Sometimes it came from within the Church, from reformers who urged the Church to give up its manors and wealth to embrace apostolic poverty and eschew the power that inevitably corrupts. Other times it existed outside the Catholic power structure, as in the case of the "counter-church" of Cathars that existed in cultured, wealthy Languedoc in southern France. When the Catholic church's attempts to (re)convert the population through preaching failed, Innocent III announced a crusade against the Cathars and told soldiers they could keep whatever they took from Languedoc. A bloody land grab ensued, and the armies of northern France killed everything in their path, bragging of the 20,000 men, women, and children they chopped down in one day.
This makes it sound like the book is anti-Catholic, but it isn't. Rubenstein gives full credit to the good people within the Church who pushed for justice, social welfare, and intellectual freedom. The great heroes of this time period are precisely those churchmen and monks who pushed time and again to explore the ramifications of classical knowledge and thus started Europe down the path to modern science.
December 23, 2022
Adoro Arist贸teles, aos poucos tenho vindo a aprender mais e mais sobre o seu legado mais do que sobre a sua vida, e n茫o deixo de me surpreender com o modo como pensou, liberto das limita莽玫es do seu tempo, as mesmas que viriam a fazer com que por v谩rias vezes o seu pensamento fosse banido ao longo dos s茅culos.
Pensei que este livro se focaria particularmente sobre a redescoberta de Arist贸teles em Toledo a partir do 谩rabe, mas isso 茅 apenas uma pequena parte, sendo o resto dedicado a discuss玫es infind谩veis sobre defensores e detractores. Algumas muito interessantes, mas na generalidade pouco relevantes e engajantes. Senti um certo vazio ao chegar ao final.
Recomendo em sua vez:
鈥淭he Cave and the Light: Plato Versus Aristotle, and the Struggle for the Soul of Western Civilization鈥�,
"Arist贸teles e Alexandre",
"Hist贸ria da Filosofia Ocidental",
Pensei que este livro se focaria particularmente sobre a redescoberta de Arist贸teles em Toledo a partir do 谩rabe, mas isso 茅 apenas uma pequena parte, sendo o resto dedicado a discuss玫es infind谩veis sobre defensores e detractores. Algumas muito interessantes, mas na generalidade pouco relevantes e engajantes. Senti um certo vazio ao chegar ao final.
Recomendo em sua vez:
鈥淭he Cave and the Light: Plato Versus Aristotle, and the Struggle for the Soul of Western Civilization鈥�,
"Arist贸teles e Alexandre",
"Hist贸ria da Filosofia Ocidental",
May 27, 2022
丕賱亘丿丕賷丞 賰丕賳鬲 賲賵賮賯丞 賵賱賰賳 賲賳 丕賱賲賳鬲氐賮 鬲乇賶 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賷鬲賰賱賲 毓賳 胤賵丕卅賮 丕賱賲爻賷丨賷丞 賵鬲卮毓亘賴丕 賵丕賳睾賱丕賯賴丕 賵丨乇賵亘賴丕 賵賲丕 廿賱賶 匕賱賰
賷賲賰賳 賴匕丕 賲丕 丌賱 丕賱賷賴 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賱賲 賷毓噩亘賳賷貙 兀爻丕爻賸丕 兀賳丕 賱丕 兀胤賷賯 賮賱爻賮丞 丕賱丿賷丕賳丞 丕賱賲爻賷丨賷丞..
亘賳馗乇賷 丕賳鬲賴賶 亘賴 丕賱賲胤丕賮 賱鬲丨賷夭 賲賳馗賵乇 丕賱丿賷賳 丕賱賲爻賷丨賷 賮賯胤 賮賷 丕賱丌賵賳丞 賲丕 亘毓丿 毓丕賲 佟伽贍贍賲
賱賲 賷賳馗乇 丕賱賶 賮賱爻賮丕鬲 丕賱賲爻賱賲賷賳 丕賵 丕賱賷賴賵丿 毓賱賶 丕賱丕賯賱 ..
Aristotle's Children: How Christians, Muslims, and Jews Rediscovered Ancient Wisdom and Illuminated the Middle Ages
丕爻賲 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 亘丕賱丕賳噩賱賷夭賷 賰丕賳 賷噩賲毓 丕賱兀丿賷丕賳 丕賱爻賲丕賵賷丞 丕賱孬賱丕孬丞
賮賱丕 兀毓乇賮 丨賯賷賯丞 賱賲丕 丕禺鬲丕乇 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺 丕賱賲爻賷丨賷 賮賯胤 賰賲乇噩毓 賱丿乇丕爻丞 丕乇爻胤賵
賲賳 賱丿賷賴 丕賴鬲賲丕賲 亘鬲丕乇賷禺 丕賱胤賵丕卅賮 丕賱賲爻賷丨賷丞 賮兀賳氐丨賴 亘賯乇丕亍丞 丕賱賰鬲丕亘.
賷賲賰賳 賴匕丕 賲丕 丌賱 丕賱賷賴 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賱賲 賷毓噩亘賳賷貙 兀爻丕爻賸丕 兀賳丕 賱丕 兀胤賷賯 賮賱爻賮丞 丕賱丿賷丕賳丞 丕賱賲爻賷丨賷丞..
亘賳馗乇賷 丕賳鬲賴賶 亘賴 丕賱賲胤丕賮 賱鬲丨賷夭 賲賳馗賵乇 丕賱丿賷賳 丕賱賲爻賷丨賷 賮賯胤 賮賷 丕賱丌賵賳丞 賲丕 亘毓丿 毓丕賲 佟伽贍贍賲
賱賲 賷賳馗乇 丕賱賶 賮賱爻賮丕鬲 丕賱賲爻賱賲賷賳 丕賵 丕賱賷賴賵丿 毓賱賶 丕賱丕賯賱 ..
Aristotle's Children: How Christians, Muslims, and Jews Rediscovered Ancient Wisdom and Illuminated the Middle Ages
丕爻賲 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 亘丕賱丕賳噩賱賷夭賷 賰丕賳 賷噩賲毓 丕賱兀丿賷丕賳 丕賱爻賲丕賵賷丞 丕賱孬賱丕孬丞
賮賱丕 兀毓乇賮 丨賯賷賯丞 賱賲丕 丕禺鬲丕乇 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺 丕賱賲爻賷丨賷 賮賯胤 賰賲乇噩毓 賱丿乇丕爻丞 丕乇爻胤賵
賲賳 賱丿賷賴 丕賴鬲賲丕賲 亘鬲丕乇賷禺 丕賱胤賵丕卅賮 丕賱賲爻賷丨賷丞 賮兀賳氐丨賴 亘賯乇丕亍丞 丕賱賰鬲丕亘.
November 20, 2022
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賷丨丕賵賱 丕賱廿噩丕亘丞 毓賱賶 爻丐丕賱: 賰賷賮 賵氐賱鬲 賮賱爻賮丞 兀乇爻胤賵 賱賮賱丕爻賮丞 丕賱毓氐乇 丕賱賵爻賷胤 (丕賱爻賰賵賱丕卅賷賷賳)責
賮賷 馗賳賷 賮賰乇鬲賴 賱丕 鬲爻鬲丨賯 兀賰孬乇 賲賳 伲贍贍 氐賮丨丞 賱丿乇丕爻鬲賴丕貙 賱賰賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賯丕乇亘 佴贍贍 氐賮丨丞貙 亘爻亘亘 丕爻鬲毓乇丕囟賴 賱鬲賮丕氐賷賱 丕賱禺賱丕賮丕鬲 亘賷賳 丕賱賲丿丕乇爻 丕賱賮賱爻賮賷丞 賵丕賱賱丕賴賵鬲賷丞 丕賱賲爻賷丨賷丞.
賵賴匕丕 丕賱丕爻賴丕亘 亘卮賰賱 毓丕賲 毓賷亘 賮賷 丕賱賰鬲丕亘貨 賱賰賳賳賷 丕爻鬲賲鬲毓鬲 賵丕賳鬲賮毓鬲 亘賴貙 賰賵賳賷 賲賴鬲賲 亘鬲丕乇賷禺 丕賱兀賮賰丕乇 丕賱賮賱爻賮賷丞.
賮賷 馗賳賷 賮賰乇鬲賴 賱丕 鬲爻鬲丨賯 兀賰孬乇 賲賳 伲贍贍 氐賮丨丞 賱丿乇丕爻鬲賴丕貙 賱賰賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賯丕乇亘 佴贍贍 氐賮丨丞貙 亘爻亘亘 丕爻鬲毓乇丕囟賴 賱鬲賮丕氐賷賱 丕賱禺賱丕賮丕鬲 亘賷賳 丕賱賲丿丕乇爻 丕賱賮賱爻賮賷丞 賵丕賱賱丕賴賵鬲賷丞 丕賱賲爻賷丨賷丞.
賵賴匕丕 丕賱丕爻賴丕亘 亘卮賰賱 毓丕賲 毓賷亘 賮賷 丕賱賰鬲丕亘貨 賱賰賳賳賷 丕爻鬲賲鬲毓鬲 賵丕賳鬲賮毓鬲 亘賴貙 賰賵賳賷 賲賴鬲賲 亘鬲丕乇賷禺 丕賱兀賮賰丕乇 丕賱賮賱爻賮賷丞.
October 14, 2013
Aristotle's Children - How Christians, Muslims, and Jews Rediscovered Ancient Wisdom and Illuminated the Dark Ages; by Richard E. Rubenstein (Harcourt 2003)
3 or 4 people have asked me about this in the past couple months, so I finally got around to it yesterday (I think the audiobook came out recently - otherwise, no idea why a 10-year old book would come up from several people). First off, recommendations - it's a very readable popular history, though one with some serious limitations - not many flat-out errors, but little nuance, no discussions of why he thinks as he does, or alternative readings, or anything more than sketches of his topics. I'd say it was worth reading - if you know next to nothing about mediaeval intellectual history, it's a pretty good and accessible introduction; if you know a fair amount, it's an entertaining if "breezy" (as one reviewer described his style) narrative. It reminds me of lectures by popular professors in undergraduate classes - simplified or exaggerated for effect, but fairly solid within that context. Or fodder for fairly intelligent cocktail party discussions. I think those can be important, as long as you remember what they are. So a qualified approval if approaching it on a high level of generality, but not as a substitute for actually learning what (we think) happened or what people wrote and why.
On the other hand, I don't think there was a page where I didn't go "Yeah, but..." or "what about...x,y,z," - I wrote questions down for one chapter and had 14 pages before I said the hell with it. He seems incapable of qualifying to his statements, or noting details. It's largely a synthesis of secondary materials, though usually very good ones; or perhaps 'selection' rather than 'synthesis,' as he avoids scholarly disagreement and picks what fits his narrative. There is no sustained direct discussion of any primary text, and only one extensive quotation from a figure being discussed and then only because the point concerns some stylistic ssues). The narrative is a version of familiar twentieth-century versions of nineteenth-century histories of precursors to sixtennth and seventeenth-century scientific thought, though he does moderate that a bit in the final chapter. And he is looking to the not-quite-pseudo question of why the impact of Aristotle has largely been ignored in popular history of science (with a wink/nod to conspiracies for effect).
Actually, it hasn't really been ignored - the topics are pretty standard for a Mediaeval Philosophy or Medieval Intellectual History class, and there aren't many surprises about what or who he writes about. But I suspect most people haven't taken those classes, and the issues aren't likely to come up elsewhere (and you do need a basic background in ancient philosophy to make sense of them - which is why most places require that as a prereq). The discussion of the reception of Aristotle is usually day 2 when I do them (Day 1 is devoted to pronouncing my name).
Despite the subtitle, Jewish and Muslim thinkers as such are not given a lot of consideration; he's more interested in their role as transmitters to the European scene, largely through Spain. He gets that story right, and fairly entertainly, without dwelling on details or some of the alternative tracks. Even at this period, he doesn't seem to have much sympathy for or knowledge of the Neoplatonic tradition, and it tends to play a kind of bogeyman/sloppy mysticism role throughout, which tends to downgrade an awful lot of what's going on in the 12-14th centuries (I shudder to think what he would do with the Renaissance, where this strain of thought is crucial). Just sticking with history of science, this is the strand of thought that gives us the enphasis on mathematical understanding of the physical world, never a huge concern for the Aristotelian tradition; and his treatment of Augustine, obviously the most important intellectual figure in Christian thought until the High Middle Ages (and arguably for a long time after), shows this blindspot.
For all of that, he does a very good job with the ways that the rediscovery of Arisotle was a shocking & radical turn in European history generally - and his point that this was accomplished through and by the organized Church in a period of reflective self-transformation is important to his presentation and, I think, quite correct. Also, he does a nice job setting that sort of thing in historical & political context - one of the really valuable aspects of the book (though subject to the same limitations as the intellectual history). The overall theme is the harmonization of reason and revelation (pretty standard), but also looking at how it was possible, and to what extent, in a complex & often violent intellectual and political setting - obviously with eye to our situation now. There were a number of idea in those areas that I found valuable (perhaps because I know the philosophical literature considerably better than the political).
Rubenstein's background is a conflect-resolution scholar - so there is a curious absence right at the center of the book. Thomas Aquinas is all over, but his thought is given a remarkably cursory treatment (most of his appearances are either in relation to someone else, or in political context). Thomas's basic ideas are, at best, given very uncritical descriptions; at worst, ignored entirely. For my point here, the two Summae are mentioned briefly and in passing without noting their avowed purpose - which happens to be crucial to Rubenstein's overall thesis. The Summa contra gentiles was a sort of missionary handbook designed for disputaion with non-Christian intellectuals (among other things, a by-product of his Dominican order's creation as a debate task force against the Cathars); the Summa theologica is designed explicitly to deal with what can be done with natural reason, and specifically starting from the places that Jews, Christians, and Muslims (or at least their intellectuals) were in substantial agreement. Thomas knew there would be differences because of revealed truth, but his strategy is to reduce tensions by showing that all shared identical intellectual commitments on the vast majority of issues. None of this is really mentioned.
Not mentioned at all were other attempts to do similar things by other means -e.g., Ramon Llull, who -among other things - attempted a more-or-less mechanical way (or formal logic concept-mapping - Leibniz and others would look to him 400 years later, with odd results) to translate and analyses concepts into their most basic forms with the express intention of reducing conflect through shared understanding (he falls more on the Platonic side than the Aristotelian, though Aristotle is plenty important to him). In fact, none of the actual plans to harmonize reason and revelation across religious cultures are mentioned at all, though the way that works in the European case in the central idea of the book. Very strange omission ( especially Thomas's project).
All that being said, the various tensions and disputes in thireeth-century Paris ARE the center of the book - they are the standard ones, explained in general terms with little nuance or detail, but a good understanding of why they were important and what role they played in creating a serious scientific tradition - monopsychism and the nature of the soul, the eternity of the Universe, double-truth, etc. (that is, mostly the stuff associated with Averroes). These chapters would make decent orientation-reading for actually investigating some rather murky issues, and are the best part of the book.
The discussion of the various post-Thomistic traditions is sketchy - Duns Scotus, Ockham, Eikhardt, a bit of Buridan & Oresme, little or nothing of the the mainstream Thomistic line, which gets fobbed off as sterile in just the ways it was treated in the seventeenth century (which he thinks a mistake then). While on the margins of the scope of the book, it is worth noting that people like John of Saint Thomas had managed to work out Aristotelian science well enough to deal with the new & powerful mathematical techniques almost exactly at the point that Aristotle was being dismissed as irrelevant (and worth remembering that Newton still published the Principia with geometrical proofs, even though his calculus was available to him by then, or that Copernican calculations were less accurate and nearly as complex as Ptolemaic ones)
The last chapter looks at a little of late mediaeval and Reformation thought on the way to his reflective bits. I think the best passgae there (which I substantially agree with) is:
"The reality obscured by the idea of scientific triumph is the persistence of faith in modern society - faith not just as a marginal activity but as an essential feature of Western social life, and not as reason's docile junior partner but as a mode of thought hostile in many ways to rationalist claims. The narrative of science triumphant sees the "privatization" of religion as a weakness, exposing the realm of Faith to the increasinf encroachment of Reason. This seems to me a serius error. Privatizing faith conserved it rather than extinguished it. As society modernized, science did infringe with some regularity on religion's traditional "turf." Darwin's account of the origin of speciesm for example, forced many theists to revise their interpretation of the story of creation in Genesis. But faith entrenched in private life, and presenting itself as a satisfier of basic psychic and spiritual needs, has been in a position to infringe just as strongly - perhaps even more so - on the territory claimed by reason."
That is, the collapse of the "Aristotelian consensus" pushed scientific and religious thought into a persistent conflict, where a few things come down on one side or the other, but a great many crucial things (ethics, politics, aesthetics, social relationships, personal development, etc) end up in ill-defined areas claimed by both sides without any overwhelming justification. Whatever else was going on (and lots was), Rubenstein is right in seeing the thirteenth-century synthesis as the last serious attempt to harmonize the various claims on a large scale without diminishing any.
Oh, and he manages to get one important thing precisely backwards in the last chapter: "...Hobbes' great philosophical enemies were Thomas Aquinas, who held that a law of the state contrary to natural or moral law has no binding force, and Aristotle, whose treatise 'Politics' is a defense of the principle that politics is a branch of ethics, and that the purpose of the state is not just security but justice." (p.286). The point is clear, and largely correct, but in a book about the history of Aristotelian reception (and with a correct footnote to boot), you'd think he could get a 101 question right: see, oh, the 2nd paragraph of the Nicomachean Ethics: "For even if the end is the same for a single man and for a state, that of the state seems at all events something greater and more complete whether to attain or to preserve; though it is worth while to attain the end merely for one man, it is finer and more godlike to attain it for a nation or for city-states. These, then, are the ends at which our inquiry aims, since it is political science, in one sense of that term." Generally, Ethics is considered subordinated to Politics, though the relationship is complex. Aristotle never suggests what Rubenstein does here, though, but the distortion fits his overall modern narrative.
Not his responsibility, but I used a library copy, with indiscriminate underlining and happy faces - the one place the previous reader was impelled to write objection (!!! and no happy faces) was in the discussion of Ockham's trollish talking points on the nature of necessity, or what an infinite God could really do (anything at all, including impossibilities and contradictions).
3 or 4 people have asked me about this in the past couple months, so I finally got around to it yesterday (I think the audiobook came out recently - otherwise, no idea why a 10-year old book would come up from several people). First off, recommendations - it's a very readable popular history, though one with some serious limitations - not many flat-out errors, but little nuance, no discussions of why he thinks as he does, or alternative readings, or anything more than sketches of his topics. I'd say it was worth reading - if you know next to nothing about mediaeval intellectual history, it's a pretty good and accessible introduction; if you know a fair amount, it's an entertaining if "breezy" (as one reviewer described his style) narrative. It reminds me of lectures by popular professors in undergraduate classes - simplified or exaggerated for effect, but fairly solid within that context. Or fodder for fairly intelligent cocktail party discussions. I think those can be important, as long as you remember what they are. So a qualified approval if approaching it on a high level of generality, but not as a substitute for actually learning what (we think) happened or what people wrote and why.
On the other hand, I don't think there was a page where I didn't go "Yeah, but..." or "what about...x,y,z," - I wrote questions down for one chapter and had 14 pages before I said the hell with it. He seems incapable of qualifying to his statements, or noting details. It's largely a synthesis of secondary materials, though usually very good ones; or perhaps 'selection' rather than 'synthesis,' as he avoids scholarly disagreement and picks what fits his narrative. There is no sustained direct discussion of any primary text, and only one extensive quotation from a figure being discussed and then only because the point concerns some stylistic ssues). The narrative is a version of familiar twentieth-century versions of nineteenth-century histories of precursors to sixtennth and seventeenth-century scientific thought, though he does moderate that a bit in the final chapter. And he is looking to the not-quite-pseudo question of why the impact of Aristotle has largely been ignored in popular history of science (with a wink/nod to conspiracies for effect).
Actually, it hasn't really been ignored - the topics are pretty standard for a Mediaeval Philosophy or Medieval Intellectual History class, and there aren't many surprises about what or who he writes about. But I suspect most people haven't taken those classes, and the issues aren't likely to come up elsewhere (and you do need a basic background in ancient philosophy to make sense of them - which is why most places require that as a prereq). The discussion of the reception of Aristotle is usually day 2 when I do them (Day 1 is devoted to pronouncing my name).
Despite the subtitle, Jewish and Muslim thinkers as such are not given a lot of consideration; he's more interested in their role as transmitters to the European scene, largely through Spain. He gets that story right, and fairly entertainly, without dwelling on details or some of the alternative tracks. Even at this period, he doesn't seem to have much sympathy for or knowledge of the Neoplatonic tradition, and it tends to play a kind of bogeyman/sloppy mysticism role throughout, which tends to downgrade an awful lot of what's going on in the 12-14th centuries (I shudder to think what he would do with the Renaissance, where this strain of thought is crucial). Just sticking with history of science, this is the strand of thought that gives us the enphasis on mathematical understanding of the physical world, never a huge concern for the Aristotelian tradition; and his treatment of Augustine, obviously the most important intellectual figure in Christian thought until the High Middle Ages (and arguably for a long time after), shows this blindspot.
For all of that, he does a very good job with the ways that the rediscovery of Arisotle was a shocking & radical turn in European history generally - and his point that this was accomplished through and by the organized Church in a period of reflective self-transformation is important to his presentation and, I think, quite correct. Also, he does a nice job setting that sort of thing in historical & political context - one of the really valuable aspects of the book (though subject to the same limitations as the intellectual history). The overall theme is the harmonization of reason and revelation (pretty standard), but also looking at how it was possible, and to what extent, in a complex & often violent intellectual and political setting - obviously with eye to our situation now. There were a number of idea in those areas that I found valuable (perhaps because I know the philosophical literature considerably better than the political).
Rubenstein's background is a conflect-resolution scholar - so there is a curious absence right at the center of the book. Thomas Aquinas is all over, but his thought is given a remarkably cursory treatment (most of his appearances are either in relation to someone else, or in political context). Thomas's basic ideas are, at best, given very uncritical descriptions; at worst, ignored entirely. For my point here, the two Summae are mentioned briefly and in passing without noting their avowed purpose - which happens to be crucial to Rubenstein's overall thesis. The Summa contra gentiles was a sort of missionary handbook designed for disputaion with non-Christian intellectuals (among other things, a by-product of his Dominican order's creation as a debate task force against the Cathars); the Summa theologica is designed explicitly to deal with what can be done with natural reason, and specifically starting from the places that Jews, Christians, and Muslims (or at least their intellectuals) were in substantial agreement. Thomas knew there would be differences because of revealed truth, but his strategy is to reduce tensions by showing that all shared identical intellectual commitments on the vast majority of issues. None of this is really mentioned.
Not mentioned at all were other attempts to do similar things by other means -e.g., Ramon Llull, who -among other things - attempted a more-or-less mechanical way (or formal logic concept-mapping - Leibniz and others would look to him 400 years later, with odd results) to translate and analyses concepts into their most basic forms with the express intention of reducing conflect through shared understanding (he falls more on the Platonic side than the Aristotelian, though Aristotle is plenty important to him). In fact, none of the actual plans to harmonize reason and revelation across religious cultures are mentioned at all, though the way that works in the European case in the central idea of the book. Very strange omission ( especially Thomas's project).
All that being said, the various tensions and disputes in thireeth-century Paris ARE the center of the book - they are the standard ones, explained in general terms with little nuance or detail, but a good understanding of why they were important and what role they played in creating a serious scientific tradition - monopsychism and the nature of the soul, the eternity of the Universe, double-truth, etc. (that is, mostly the stuff associated with Averroes). These chapters would make decent orientation-reading for actually investigating some rather murky issues, and are the best part of the book.
The discussion of the various post-Thomistic traditions is sketchy - Duns Scotus, Ockham, Eikhardt, a bit of Buridan & Oresme, little or nothing of the the mainstream Thomistic line, which gets fobbed off as sterile in just the ways it was treated in the seventeenth century (which he thinks a mistake then). While on the margins of the scope of the book, it is worth noting that people like John of Saint Thomas had managed to work out Aristotelian science well enough to deal with the new & powerful mathematical techniques almost exactly at the point that Aristotle was being dismissed as irrelevant (and worth remembering that Newton still published the Principia with geometrical proofs, even though his calculus was available to him by then, or that Copernican calculations were less accurate and nearly as complex as Ptolemaic ones)
The last chapter looks at a little of late mediaeval and Reformation thought on the way to his reflective bits. I think the best passgae there (which I substantially agree with) is:
"The reality obscured by the idea of scientific triumph is the persistence of faith in modern society - faith not just as a marginal activity but as an essential feature of Western social life, and not as reason's docile junior partner but as a mode of thought hostile in many ways to rationalist claims. The narrative of science triumphant sees the "privatization" of religion as a weakness, exposing the realm of Faith to the increasinf encroachment of Reason. This seems to me a serius error. Privatizing faith conserved it rather than extinguished it. As society modernized, science did infringe with some regularity on religion's traditional "turf." Darwin's account of the origin of speciesm for example, forced many theists to revise their interpretation of the story of creation in Genesis. But faith entrenched in private life, and presenting itself as a satisfier of basic psychic and spiritual needs, has been in a position to infringe just as strongly - perhaps even more so - on the territory claimed by reason."
That is, the collapse of the "Aristotelian consensus" pushed scientific and religious thought into a persistent conflict, where a few things come down on one side or the other, but a great many crucial things (ethics, politics, aesthetics, social relationships, personal development, etc) end up in ill-defined areas claimed by both sides without any overwhelming justification. Whatever else was going on (and lots was), Rubenstein is right in seeing the thirteenth-century synthesis as the last serious attempt to harmonize the various claims on a large scale without diminishing any.
Oh, and he manages to get one important thing precisely backwards in the last chapter: "...Hobbes' great philosophical enemies were Thomas Aquinas, who held that a law of the state contrary to natural or moral law has no binding force, and Aristotle, whose treatise 'Politics' is a defense of the principle that politics is a branch of ethics, and that the purpose of the state is not just security but justice." (p.286). The point is clear, and largely correct, but in a book about the history of Aristotelian reception (and with a correct footnote to boot), you'd think he could get a 101 question right: see, oh, the 2nd paragraph of the Nicomachean Ethics: "For even if the end is the same for a single man and for a state, that of the state seems at all events something greater and more complete whether to attain or to preserve; though it is worth while to attain the end merely for one man, it is finer and more godlike to attain it for a nation or for city-states. These, then, are the ends at which our inquiry aims, since it is political science, in one sense of that term." Generally, Ethics is considered subordinated to Politics, though the relationship is complex. Aristotle never suggests what Rubenstein does here, though, but the distortion fits his overall modern narrative.
Not his responsibility, but I used a library copy, with indiscriminate underlining and happy faces - the one place the previous reader was impelled to write objection (!!! and no happy faces) was in the discussion of Ockham's trollish talking points on the nature of necessity, or what an infinite God could really do (anything at all, including impossibilities and contradictions).
June 9, 2012
In the 12th century, Latin translators from Arabic rediscovered the writings of the Greek philosopher, Aristotle, which had hitherto been lost to Christendom for 600 years. Aristotle's re-emergence fired the intellectual imagination of medieval scholars, who then embarked on a project to reconcile faith with reason. This book is that story of "Aristotle鈥檚 children."
Aristotle鈥檚 grounding in the specifics of the material world (in contrast to Plato鈥檚 preference for the other-worldly Forms), his confidence in the human powers of reason, and his methods of free and open disputation, inspired the dramatic expansion of the frontiers of human thought and inquiry. Catholic theoreticians such as St. Thomas Aquinas began to employ reason to be able to understand matters that used to fall solely under the purview of revealed truths contained in sacred texts interpreted by Church authorities. This book tells the story of how this flowering of discourse unfolded over two centuries, and of how a threathened Church hierarchy, protecting its authority, reacted against this scientific spirit within its ranks, leading ultimately to the separation of faith from reason, which continues to this day.
Aristotle鈥檚 grounding in the specifics of the material world (in contrast to Plato鈥檚 preference for the other-worldly Forms), his confidence in the human powers of reason, and his methods of free and open disputation, inspired the dramatic expansion of the frontiers of human thought and inquiry. Catholic theoreticians such as St. Thomas Aquinas began to employ reason to be able to understand matters that used to fall solely under the purview of revealed truths contained in sacred texts interpreted by Church authorities. This book tells the story of how this flowering of discourse unfolded over two centuries, and of how a threathened Church hierarchy, protecting its authority, reacted against this scientific spirit within its ranks, leading ultimately to the separation of faith from reason, which continues to this day.
January 5, 2022
This was both a fun and helpful book, exactly the kind of history that I like to read. Rubenstein writes with an engaging style, but not at the sacrifice of solid scholarship. His basic aim is to trace the ways that Aristotle's writings went into obscurity in the ancient world and were later rediscovered (at least in the West) in the middle ages. If you're at all interested in the thought-world of medieval Europe, this book is a great introduction. It gets into the various philosophical debates in the various universities, particularly as they relate to Aristotle. The sections on Aquinas at Paris were great. My main criticism of the book is its treatment of Protestantism's relationship to Aristotle -- Rubenstein only leans into Luther's hyperbole and Calvin's lack of engagement with scholasticism. It would have been enlightening to get Rubenstein's take on the use of Aristotle in Reformers like Vermigli or Zanchi. His concluding apologetic for Aristotle today was good, if a little survey-ish. Rubenstein's conservative politics (I take it influenced by Catholicism) were in full view. I highly recommend this book!
July 5, 2024
This readable history of the Christian reception of Aristotle is sometimes interesting, occasionally misguided. Muslims and Jews get little attention.
June 14, 2023
鬲禺賷賱 賳賮爻賰 毓丕賱賽賲賸丕 賲爻賷丨賷賸丕 賷毓賲賱 賲毓 廿丨丿賶 賮乇賯 丕賱鬲乇噩賲丞 賮賷 丕賱賯乇賳 丕賱毓丕卮乇 丕賱賲賷賱丕丿賷 鬲賯乇賷亘賸丕.爻鬲賰賵賳 賯乇兀鬲 賰鬲丕亘賰 丕賱賲賯丿爻 賵賯丿丕爻賰貙 亘丕賱胤亘毓貙 賵兀毓賲丕賱 丕賱賯丿賷爻 兀賵睾爻胤賷賳貙 賵賯賱賷賱丕賸 賲賳 賰鬲亘 賰鬲丕亘 丌禺乇賷賳 賲孬賱 亘賵孬賷賵爻貙 賵賰丕爻賷賵丿賵乇賵爻貙 賵噩賷乇賵賲. 賵賰鬲亘 兀乇爻胤賵 丕賱賵丨賷丿丞 丕賱鬲賷 爻鬲氐丕丿賮賴丕 賴賷 丕賱亘丨賵孬 丕賱爻鬲丞 賮賷 丕賱賲賳胤賯 丕賱鬲賷 鬲乇噩賲賴丕 亘賵孬賷賵爻 廿賱賶 丕賱賱丕鬲賷賳賷丞貙 賵丕賱丨賵丕乇 丕賱賵丨賷丿 賱兀賮賱丕胤賵賳 賴賵 胤賷賲丕賵爻.
.
賯丿 賷賰賵賳 賱丿賷賰 賲毓乇賮丞 亘兀毓賲丕賱 毓丕賱賲 丕賱賱丕賴賵鬲 噩賵賳 爻賰賵鬲賵爻 賮賷 丕賱賯乇賳 丕賱鬲丕爻毓貙 賵丕賱賲賯丕賱丕鬲 丕賱丨丿賷孬丞 賱賱賯丿賷爻 兀賳爻賱賲 丕賱賰丕賳鬲乇亘乇賷貙 賵丕賱鬲賷 鬲卮賰賱 亘毓囟賴丕 賰鬲亘賸丕 賲孬賷乇丞 賱賱丕賴鬲賲丕賲 賵賲賲賷夭丞貙 賵賱賰賳 賯賱賷賱 賲賳賴丕 賷鬲丨丿賶 丕賱廿胤丕乇 丕賱兀爻丕爻賷 賱賱賮賰乇 丕賱匕賷 丕毓鬲賳賯賴 兀賳鬲 賵兀爻賱丕賮賰 毓賱賶 賲丿賶 丕賱賯乇賵賳 丕賱爻亘毓丞 丕賱賲丕囟賷丞. 賵廿匕丕 賯乇兀鬲 亘毓賳丕賷丞貙 賷賲賰賳 兀賳 鬲賮賴賲 兀賳 丕賱毓丕賱賲 丕賱賲丕丿賷 賴賵 賲賰丕賳 睾賷乇 賲爻鬲賯乇 賵賲賱賷亍 亘丕賱賲禺丕胤乇 賵丕賱廿睾乇丕亍丕鬲貙 賵兀賳賴 亘賷卅丞 睾賷乇 賯丕亘賱丞 賱賱鬲賳亘丐 亘賴丕 賵鬲毓鬲賲丿 毓賱賶 廿乇丕丿丞 廿賱賴 睾丕賲囟 賱賵噩賵丿賴丕 賵毓賲賱賷丕鬲賴丕.
.
兀賳鬲 鬲毓賱賲 -賰賲丕 賷毓賱賲 丕賱噩賲賷毓- 兀賳 丨賷丕鬲賳丕 丕賱賯氐賷乇丞 賴賳丕 毓賱賶 丕賱兀乇囟 賴賷 賲噩乇丿 賲賯丿賲丞 賱賱丨賷丕丞 丕賱丌禺乇丞貨 賵兀賳賳丕 禺胤丕丞 賲鬲兀氐賱賵賳 賱丕 賷賲賰賳 兀賳 賳購禺賱賻賾氐貙 廿賳 禺購賱賽賾氐賳丕貙 廿賱丕 亘賳毓賲丞 丕賱賱賴 丕賱賲賲賳賵丨丞 亘丨乇賷丞貨 賵兀賳 賯丿乇鬲賳丕 毓賱賶 賮賴賲 賴匕丕 丕賱賰賵賳 丕賱爻丕賯胤 賲丨丿賵丿丞 亘爻亘亘 囟毓賮 毓賯賵賱賳丕貙 賵丕賱禺丿丕毓 丕賱賲鬲兀氐賱 賮賷 丕賳胤亘丕毓丕鬲 丕賱丨爻.
.
賰賷賮 賷賲賰賳賳丕 兀賳 賳賰賵賳 爻毓丿丕亍 丨賯丕賸 賴賳丕責 亘睾囟 丕賱賳馗乇 毓賳 賱丨馗丕鬲 丕賱亘賴噩丞 丕賱毓丕亘乇丞貙 賱丕 賷賲賰賳賳丕 匕賱賰貙 賱兀賳 毓丕賱賲 丕賱兀賱賲 賵丕賱賵賴賲 賴匕丕 賱賷爻 亘賷鬲賳丕 丕賱丨賯賷賯賷.
.
鬲禺賷賾賱 丕賱丌賳 卮毓賵乇賰 亘丕賱丕乇鬲亘丕賰 賵丕賱賮夭毓 毓賳丿賲丕 鬲賯乇兀 毓賳 丕賱賮賷夭賷丕亍 賵丕賱賲賷鬲丕賮賷夭賷賯丕 賵賳馗乇賷丞 丕賱賳賮爻 毓賳丿 兀乇爻胤賵貙 賮鬲賱賰 丕賱兀賮賰丕乇 鬲毓賰爻 丕賮鬲乇丕囟丕鬲 賵賲賵丕賯賮賸丕 睾乇賷亘丞 鬲賲丕賲賸丕 毓賳 毓丕賱賲賰貙 丨賷孬 賷毓鬲賯丿 兀乇爻胤賵 兀賳 丕賱毓丕賱賲 賵丕丨丿 賵賱賷爻 賴賳丕賰 毓丕賱賲賹 丌禺乇 賷購毓丿購賾 兀賮囟賱 賵兀賰孬乇 賵丕賯毓賷丞貙 賵兀賳 丕賱胤亘賷毓丞 鬲鬲丨賰賲 亘賳賮爻賴丕 丿賵賳 鬲丿禺賱 廿賱賴賷. 賱丕 鬲鬲丨丿孬 賰鬲丕亘丕鬲賴 毓賳 丕賱賱賴 丕賱禺丕賱賯 兀賵 丕賱賲購禺賱賽賾氐貙 賵賱丕 鬲賴鬲賲 亘禺胤賷卅鬲賳丕 賵毓賵丕賯亘賴丕 賮賷 丕賱丌禺乇丞. 賵毓賱賶 丕賱乇睾賲 賲賳 兀賳 兀乇爻胤賵 賷鬲丨丿孬 毓賳 廿賱賴賺 賲賳 賳賵毓 丕賱賲丨乇賰 睾賷乇 丕賱賲鬲丨乇賰貙 廿賱丕 兀賳 賴匕丕 丕賱賰丕卅賳 丕賱賲噩乇丿 賵丕賱爻賱亘賷 賱丕 毓賱丕賯丞 賱賴 亘丕賱廿賱賴 丕賱匕賷 禺賱賯 丕賱賰賵賳 賵兀賳噩亘 賱賳丕 賲購禺賱賽賾氐賸丕. 賮賲賳 賵噩賴丞 賳馗乇 丕賱賲爻賷丨賷貙 賴匕賴 丕賱乇丐賷丞 賱賱毓丕賱賲 鬲卮亘賴 丕賱賵孬賳賷丞貙 賵賱賷爻鬲 廿賱賴賷丞賸貙 賵鬲賲孬賱 鬲賯丿賲賸丕 賲鬲賳丕賯囟賸丕 賲毓 丕賱廿賷賲丕賳 亘丕賱賱賴 丕賱禺丕賱賯 賵丕賱賲購禺賱賽賾氐.
.
賷鬲亘丕丿乇 廿賱賶 匕賴賳賷 賳賮爻 丕賱卮毓賵乇 毓賳丿賲丕 兀賯乇兀 賰鬲丕亘賸丕 賮賱爻賮賷賸丕 噩丿賷丿賸丕貙 賵賲賳 禺賱丕賱賴 賷賲賰賳賳賷 丕賰鬲卮丕賮 乇丐賷丞 噩丿賷丿丞 賱賱毓丕賱賲貙 賵禺丕氐丞賸 丕賱賰鬲亘 丕賱鬲賷 鬲亘賳賷 噩爻乇賸丕 亘賷賳 乇丐賷丞 兀乇爻胤賵 賱賱毓丕賱賲 丕賱賲鬲賲乇賰夭 丨賵賱 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 賵乇丐賷丞 丕賱賰賵賳 丕賱賲鬲賲乇賰夭 丨賵賱 丕賱賱賴 丕賱鬲賷 鬲毓鬲賳賯賴丕 丕賱兀丿賷丕賳 丕賱爻賲丕賵賷丞.
.
賯丿 賷賰賵賳 賱丿賷賰 賲毓乇賮丞 亘兀毓賲丕賱 毓丕賱賲 丕賱賱丕賴賵鬲 噩賵賳 爻賰賵鬲賵爻 賮賷 丕賱賯乇賳 丕賱鬲丕爻毓貙 賵丕賱賲賯丕賱丕鬲 丕賱丨丿賷孬丞 賱賱賯丿賷爻 兀賳爻賱賲 丕賱賰丕賳鬲乇亘乇賷貙 賵丕賱鬲賷 鬲卮賰賱 亘毓囟賴丕 賰鬲亘賸丕 賲孬賷乇丞 賱賱丕賴鬲賲丕賲 賵賲賲賷夭丞貙 賵賱賰賳 賯賱賷賱 賲賳賴丕 賷鬲丨丿賶 丕賱廿胤丕乇 丕賱兀爻丕爻賷 賱賱賮賰乇 丕賱匕賷 丕毓鬲賳賯賴 兀賳鬲 賵兀爻賱丕賮賰 毓賱賶 賲丿賶 丕賱賯乇賵賳 丕賱爻亘毓丞 丕賱賲丕囟賷丞. 賵廿匕丕 賯乇兀鬲 亘毓賳丕賷丞貙 賷賲賰賳 兀賳 鬲賮賴賲 兀賳 丕賱毓丕賱賲 丕賱賲丕丿賷 賴賵 賲賰丕賳 睾賷乇 賲爻鬲賯乇 賵賲賱賷亍 亘丕賱賲禺丕胤乇 賵丕賱廿睾乇丕亍丕鬲貙 賵兀賳賴 亘賷卅丞 睾賷乇 賯丕亘賱丞 賱賱鬲賳亘丐 亘賴丕 賵鬲毓鬲賲丿 毓賱賶 廿乇丕丿丞 廿賱賴 睾丕賲囟 賱賵噩賵丿賴丕 賵毓賲賱賷丕鬲賴丕.
.
兀賳鬲 鬲毓賱賲 -賰賲丕 賷毓賱賲 丕賱噩賲賷毓- 兀賳 丨賷丕鬲賳丕 丕賱賯氐賷乇丞 賴賳丕 毓賱賶 丕賱兀乇囟 賴賷 賲噩乇丿 賲賯丿賲丞 賱賱丨賷丕丞 丕賱丌禺乇丞貨 賵兀賳賳丕 禺胤丕丞 賲鬲兀氐賱賵賳 賱丕 賷賲賰賳 兀賳 賳購禺賱賻賾氐貙 廿賳 禺購賱賽賾氐賳丕貙 廿賱丕 亘賳毓賲丞 丕賱賱賴 丕賱賲賲賳賵丨丞 亘丨乇賷丞貨 賵兀賳 賯丿乇鬲賳丕 毓賱賶 賮賴賲 賴匕丕 丕賱賰賵賳 丕賱爻丕賯胤 賲丨丿賵丿丞 亘爻亘亘 囟毓賮 毓賯賵賱賳丕貙 賵丕賱禺丿丕毓 丕賱賲鬲兀氐賱 賮賷 丕賳胤亘丕毓丕鬲 丕賱丨爻.
.
賰賷賮 賷賲賰賳賳丕 兀賳 賳賰賵賳 爻毓丿丕亍 丨賯丕賸 賴賳丕責 亘睾囟 丕賱賳馗乇 毓賳 賱丨馗丕鬲 丕賱亘賴噩丞 丕賱毓丕亘乇丞貙 賱丕 賷賲賰賳賳丕 匕賱賰貙 賱兀賳 毓丕賱賲 丕賱兀賱賲 賵丕賱賵賴賲 賴匕丕 賱賷爻 亘賷鬲賳丕 丕賱丨賯賷賯賷.
.
鬲禺賷賾賱 丕賱丌賳 卮毓賵乇賰 亘丕賱丕乇鬲亘丕賰 賵丕賱賮夭毓 毓賳丿賲丕 鬲賯乇兀 毓賳 丕賱賮賷夭賷丕亍 賵丕賱賲賷鬲丕賮賷夭賷賯丕 賵賳馗乇賷丞 丕賱賳賮爻 毓賳丿 兀乇爻胤賵貙 賮鬲賱賰 丕賱兀賮賰丕乇 鬲毓賰爻 丕賮鬲乇丕囟丕鬲 賵賲賵丕賯賮賸丕 睾乇賷亘丞 鬲賲丕賲賸丕 毓賳 毓丕賱賲賰貙 丨賷孬 賷毓鬲賯丿 兀乇爻胤賵 兀賳 丕賱毓丕賱賲 賵丕丨丿 賵賱賷爻 賴賳丕賰 毓丕賱賲賹 丌禺乇 賷購毓丿購賾 兀賮囟賱 賵兀賰孬乇 賵丕賯毓賷丞貙 賵兀賳 丕賱胤亘賷毓丞 鬲鬲丨賰賲 亘賳賮爻賴丕 丿賵賳 鬲丿禺賱 廿賱賴賷. 賱丕 鬲鬲丨丿孬 賰鬲丕亘丕鬲賴 毓賳 丕賱賱賴 丕賱禺丕賱賯 兀賵 丕賱賲購禺賱賽賾氐貙 賵賱丕 鬲賴鬲賲 亘禺胤賷卅鬲賳丕 賵毓賵丕賯亘賴丕 賮賷 丕賱丌禺乇丞. 賵毓賱賶 丕賱乇睾賲 賲賳 兀賳 兀乇爻胤賵 賷鬲丨丿孬 毓賳 廿賱賴賺 賲賳 賳賵毓 丕賱賲丨乇賰 睾賷乇 丕賱賲鬲丨乇賰貙 廿賱丕 兀賳 賴匕丕 丕賱賰丕卅賳 丕賱賲噩乇丿 賵丕賱爻賱亘賷 賱丕 毓賱丕賯丞 賱賴 亘丕賱廿賱賴 丕賱匕賷 禺賱賯 丕賱賰賵賳 賵兀賳噩亘 賱賳丕 賲購禺賱賽賾氐賸丕. 賮賲賳 賵噩賴丞 賳馗乇 丕賱賲爻賷丨賷貙 賴匕賴 丕賱乇丐賷丞 賱賱毓丕賱賲 鬲卮亘賴 丕賱賵孬賳賷丞貙 賵賱賷爻鬲 廿賱賴賷丞賸貙 賵鬲賲孬賱 鬲賯丿賲賸丕 賲鬲賳丕賯囟賸丕 賲毓 丕賱廿賷賲丕賳 亘丕賱賱賴 丕賱禺丕賱賯 賵丕賱賲購禺賱賽賾氐.
.
賷鬲亘丕丿乇 廿賱賶 匕賴賳賷 賳賮爻 丕賱卮毓賵乇 毓賳丿賲丕 兀賯乇兀 賰鬲丕亘賸丕 賮賱爻賮賷賸丕 噩丿賷丿賸丕貙 賵賲賳 禺賱丕賱賴 賷賲賰賳賳賷 丕賰鬲卮丕賮 乇丐賷丞 噩丿賷丿丞 賱賱毓丕賱賲貙 賵禺丕氐丞賸 丕賱賰鬲亘 丕賱鬲賷 鬲亘賳賷 噩爻乇賸丕 亘賷賳 乇丐賷丞 兀乇爻胤賵 賱賱毓丕賱賲 丕賱賲鬲賲乇賰夭 丨賵賱 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 賵乇丐賷丞 丕賱賰賵賳 丕賱賲鬲賲乇賰夭 丨賵賱 丕賱賱賴 丕賱鬲賷 鬲毓鬲賳賯賴丕 丕賱兀丿賷丕賳 丕賱爻賲丕賵賷丞.
May 10, 2010
A great book - Rubenstein takes you through the middle ages, spendig most of his time in the very productive 1300s, explaining how the rediscovered teachings of Aristotle changed western culture (read: Catholic theology). I had no idea how much intellectual development occurred then - I thought our advance was stifled until the Rennisance. Key figures discussed were Aristotle (obviously), Augustine, Peter Abelard, Anselm, and Thomas Aquinas (and Dominicans in general), William of Ockam (amd Framciscans in general- although more on their conflict with Dominicans), along with all of the Popes, Kings, and Universities (mostly Paris) who played a role.
The book did get a bit drawn out at times - I would have taken just as much away from it if it were 100 pages shorter, but I suppose one can appreciate the extra historical details if one is versed in the history of this time (I'm not).
One thing I should note is that the philosophy really plays second fiddle to the history here. While we get a glimpse of the content of what people were thinking, it's really only used as context, not to make any philosophical argument.
The book did get a bit drawn out at times - I would have taken just as much away from it if it were 100 pages shorter, but I suppose one can appreciate the extra historical details if one is versed in the history of this time (I'm not).
One thing I should note is that the philosophy really plays second fiddle to the history here. While we get a glimpse of the content of what people were thinking, it's really only used as context, not to make any philosophical argument.
February 5, 2020
DNF. Too boring.
August 31, 2019
This is an unusually well researched book about the history and impact on Western culture of the rediscovery of Aristotle鈥檚 works. As most people know, the Moslems had preserved and translated his work, but during the Reconquista of al Andalusia in the early 13th century, Christian bishops like Raymund I, commissioned Moslems and Jews to aid them in translating the books into Latin. Rubenstein points out that we often think of the Church as a conservative force opposing science, that is natural philosophy to the classic Greeks. However, he shows that early on the Church fostered Aristotelian logic and natural investigation to enhance the religious world view. Needless to say there has always been a dichotomy between revealed 鈥渢ruth鈥� and experimental/observational truth. The honey moon was not long lived however, the book chronicles in great detail the struggles between various factions, all believing Catholics, to establish church doctrine. We see the writings and thinking of philosophers, mostly ordained priests, like Boethius (5th century) and then medieval thinkers like Abelard and his nemesis Bernard of Clairvaux, Robert Grosseteste, Francis of Assisi, Bonaventure, Siger de Brabant, and St. Thomas Aquinas (who drew much from the Moslem thinker Averroes). The ebb and flow of these religio/political battles is seen in Aquinas鈥檚 tale where he first a hero, then nearly excommunicated and finally sainted. There were battles between secular professors and Dominican and Franciscan friars, often centered in universities like Paris, Oxford and Padua. To modern readers these battles are hard to follow in their hair-splitting details, and in an era of science they seem rather silly but people were burned at the stake over these issues. By the 14th century, thinkers like Duns Scotus and William of Ockham, although believers to the core, set up the split between objective science and faith. Rubenstein ends with a thoughtful discussion of how we still live with the cultural ripples from Aristotle and does his best to try to foster tolerant understanding between rational science and the comfort of religion. We鈥檒l see how that goes.
May 5, 2019
This book tells the story of how Aristotle鈥檚 works were saved with much of the work done in Toledo, Spain. The author analyzes Aristotle鈥檚 philosophy and equates it with the religious teachers and their beliefs through the ages. The story covers a time of the later Middle Ages when Western thinking was dominated by the Catholic Church鈥檚 attempt to modernize by reconciling faith and reason. Even though Aristotle鈥檚 works were still hidden and unknown for the most part (not yet translated into Latin), several religious teachers/philosophers were using his methods of reasoning to try to understand their world. People like Peter Aberlard, Roger Bacon, and Thomas Acquinas among others are featured. The author suggests that most controversial issues today are so because faith and reason cannot be reconciled. He further suggests that the Aristotelian approach may bridge this gap. This book should be considered a book on religion or philosophy despite the fact that it is classified as a history book, nevertheless a good read.
April 11, 2023
I hadn't realized how different Aristotle and Plato were, or what a revelation Aristotle was to medieval thinkers. Helpful to understand how much of my thought is influenced by Aristotle, and how Christianity is a fusion of both Aristotle's love of nature, logic, and reason, and Plato's love of forms
February 11, 2024
This is a fascinating book about Aristotle鈥檚 influence on mainly the Catholic Church. The chapters about the Christian heretics like the Cathars was very interesting. I could鈥檝e read 500 more pages of this!
November 19, 2017
This book is among the very best that I have read in a very long time. It was also an enjoyable read. I highly recommend it to anyone interested in philosophy, religion, European history, and Islamic history. But it is the ideas of philosophy - their tension, reconciliation, fusion, and outright conflict with religion over the centuries, that make this book a 'must read.'
The author begins, quite appropriately: "Scientific thinking in the West... [began] in the intellectual explosion that followed the rediscovery of Aristotle's writings"
The people of Aristotle's home town, Stagira, believed him to be a genius. Plato considered him "the brains of Plato's Academy." [In modern history some consider Aristotle the greatest philosopher ever; a genius with few equals; and one of the greatest minds of all time].
This is a story about a treasure lost, found, revered, reviled, ignored... and resurrected. Lost to the western world for nearly 1,000 years, in part due to the fall of the Roman Empire, Aristotle's works were found in the 13th century in Southern Spain. The Muslims who had found them in the 9th century had translated them into Arabic. Muslims, Christians & Jews worked together to translate them to Latin. Rubenstein tells us "Aristotle's books were the medieval Christian's star-gate.. like a "bequest from a superior civilization. A telling comparison!
Aristotle believed the world to be orderly and knowable by man: "a place whose basic principles could be understood by reasoning from the data of sense impressions." "Perceptions provide us with evidence that permits us to reason with each other on the basis of common experience"鈥� "common sense" experience is what makes consensual understanding possible鈥� true knowledge鈥� connects us with the realities that exist objectively as well as in our minds."
Aristotle's' concept of God was that of] a 鈥渄etached, noninterventionist, essentially uncaring deity [whose purpose is] to inspire everything in the universe to actualize itself as far as its nature permits鈥�... [but he {God} does so passively].
Plato believed the world is, "at least in part, illusory. Platonic era's are filled with discomfort and longing.. People feel divided against themselves - not ruled by reason but driven by uncontrolled instincts and desires鈥� they believe that a better and truer self, society, and universe await them on the other side.
In Aristotelian epochs, 鈥渆conomic growth, political expansion, and cultural optimism color the intellectual atmosphere鈥� accelerating the pace and deepening the quality of scientific and philosophical inquiry.鈥� "The struggle between faith and reason did not begin鈥� with Copernicus... but with the controversy over Aristotle's ideas during the 13th and 14th centuries."
Augustine rejected Aristotle's worldview in favor of that of Plato and the Neoplatonist's. He "concluded the business of faithful Christians"鈥� "is to inhabit the world knowing that it is fallen: to prey for the grace needed to resist the devils snares, accept the discipline and solace offered by Mother church and hope for their initiation into the society of immortal saints.鈥� Because 鈥渉is Platonized Christianity made such good sense in the context of post-Roman society, Western Christians came to believe that it was the only possible version of the true faith,鈥� we are told.
These fundamental issues are the basis for the continued conflicts, to our own time, between Aristotle's Children (and grandchildren) - Avicenna, Averroes, Moses Maimonides, Abelard, Thomas Aquinas, John Duns Scotus, William of Ockham; and Plato & the Neoplatonists (Augustine, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandra, Ambrose, and others) favored by the Friars and Popes, and of by some of the Kings and Monarchs.
These issues are the perfect introduction to philosophy and why philosophy is important. This books focus on Aristotelianism also makes it the perfect introduction to philosophy since Aristotelianism alone has historical and factual claim to the name of true philosophy. I recommend that readers start here. Ignore Bacon, Descarte, Locke, Hume, Spinoza, Leibnitz, and especially Kant, until you understand Aristotle and appreciate the distinction between Aristotle and Plato.
The author begins, quite appropriately: "Scientific thinking in the West... [began] in the intellectual explosion that followed the rediscovery of Aristotle's writings"
The people of Aristotle's home town, Stagira, believed him to be a genius. Plato considered him "the brains of Plato's Academy." [In modern history some consider Aristotle the greatest philosopher ever; a genius with few equals; and one of the greatest minds of all time].
This is a story about a treasure lost, found, revered, reviled, ignored... and resurrected. Lost to the western world for nearly 1,000 years, in part due to the fall of the Roman Empire, Aristotle's works were found in the 13th century in Southern Spain. The Muslims who had found them in the 9th century had translated them into Arabic. Muslims, Christians & Jews worked together to translate them to Latin. Rubenstein tells us "Aristotle's books were the medieval Christian's star-gate.. like a "bequest from a superior civilization. A telling comparison!
Aristotle believed the world to be orderly and knowable by man: "a place whose basic principles could be understood by reasoning from the data of sense impressions." "Perceptions provide us with evidence that permits us to reason with each other on the basis of common experience"鈥� "common sense" experience is what makes consensual understanding possible鈥� true knowledge鈥� connects us with the realities that exist objectively as well as in our minds."
Aristotle's' concept of God was that of] a 鈥渄etached, noninterventionist, essentially uncaring deity [whose purpose is] to inspire everything in the universe to actualize itself as far as its nature permits鈥�... [but he {God} does so passively].
Plato believed the world is, "at least in part, illusory. Platonic era's are filled with discomfort and longing.. People feel divided against themselves - not ruled by reason but driven by uncontrolled instincts and desires鈥� they believe that a better and truer self, society, and universe await them on the other side.
In Aristotelian epochs, 鈥渆conomic growth, political expansion, and cultural optimism color the intellectual atmosphere鈥� accelerating the pace and deepening the quality of scientific and philosophical inquiry.鈥� "The struggle between faith and reason did not begin鈥� with Copernicus... but with the controversy over Aristotle's ideas during the 13th and 14th centuries."
Augustine rejected Aristotle's worldview in favor of that of Plato and the Neoplatonist's. He "concluded the business of faithful Christians"鈥� "is to inhabit the world knowing that it is fallen: to prey for the grace needed to resist the devils snares, accept the discipline and solace offered by Mother church and hope for their initiation into the society of immortal saints.鈥� Because 鈥渉is Platonized Christianity made such good sense in the context of post-Roman society, Western Christians came to believe that it was the only possible version of the true faith,鈥� we are told.
These fundamental issues are the basis for the continued conflicts, to our own time, between Aristotle's Children (and grandchildren) - Avicenna, Averroes, Moses Maimonides, Abelard, Thomas Aquinas, John Duns Scotus, William of Ockham; and Plato & the Neoplatonists (Augustine, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandra, Ambrose, and others) favored by the Friars and Popes, and of by some of the Kings and Monarchs.
These issues are the perfect introduction to philosophy and why philosophy is important. This books focus on Aristotelianism also makes it the perfect introduction to philosophy since Aristotelianism alone has historical and factual claim to the name of true philosophy. I recommend that readers start here. Ignore Bacon, Descarte, Locke, Hume, Spinoza, Leibnitz, and especially Kant, until you understand Aristotle and appreciate the distinction between Aristotle and Plato.
September 14, 2015
An interesting if ultimately unsatisfying book. The focus is primarily on how various Christian scholastics worked through Aristotle's ideas. Disappointingly little time is spent on the purported substance of Jewish and Muslim contributions. They are portrayed primarily as conduits though their comments on Aristotle are mentioned in passing. The book is largely a sweeping history composed of the author's summaries of source material. Very few actual quotes. This is surprising as many of the thinkers being discussed wrote sparkling prose. One is left with the suspicion that there are about 100 pages of missing source material that the publisher did not wish to pay to reproduce.
Also largely missing is a deeper perspective on what was happening in the world of politics & technology & economics in the world around these thinkers. Strange, as the applied science aspect of Aristotle must have had ongoing repercussions and positive incentives in the wider society. (Optics and the invention of eyeglasses/lenses etc.)
Medieval philosophy as ideological cage match. Franciscans and Dominicans and Heretics: GO! The book covers the bad behavior of the Christians (burning heretics at the stake, putting entire heretical provinces to the sword, etc.) but arguably downplays the horrors. It is surely not an exhaustive list of the crimes of the inquisition鈥檚 fanatics. Rubenstein is attempting to sell an updated medieval Aristotelian dialogue and analysis as a means to solve our modern conflicts driven by the continuing schism between faith and reason. A bit hard to swallow when being a creative thinker was likely to get you impaled or burned at the stake (or placed under house arrest if you were lucky) rather than a Nobel prize. Again and again you see reactionary factions within the church attempting to quash novel ways of thinking. Fortunately competing power centers (secular rulers pursuing their own power or sometimes tolerant provinces) provided safe havens for some of these thinkers and their novel ideas once they had lost their political supporters within the church.
Arguably the spread of literacy and reading materials made it impossible for the church to burn evidence of new ideas rapidly enough to expunge the accumulating heresies. Some of the chapters make you wish Google could sneak someone into the vatican and scan all the old records surrounding heresy trials so we could see whether there are any remnants of the missing thoughts that got books and writers eliminated.
The book鈥檚 argument comes together in an interesting way when you see alternative schools of religious thought all competing using Aristotelian logic and almost accidentally creating the necessary pre-conditions of modern 鈥渢his worldly鈥� science.
鈥淲ith the work of Duns Scotus and William of Ockham, the Aristotelian revolution took a radically new turn. The Franciscan innovators greatly admired Aristotle鈥檚 genius, but they rejected certain ideas of his that Aquinas had considered indispensable and focused attention on others that he had downplayed or ignored. Where there had been one Aristotle recognized by medieval Christian thinkers, now there were two. The result was a split in the Aristotelian movement which opened a great gap between faith and reason, religious experience and scientific evidence.鈥�
Rubenstein mentions in passing that rabbinical study of the Torah has avoided the oppressive anti-modern push back exhibited by the Christian church hierarchy (supporting his thesis that a more fruitful rapprochement between faith and reason is possible) but fails to analyze the intellectual mechanisms involved in that modernizing dialogue. Is it possible that reactionary forces within Judaism have simply not been politically powerful enough to be oppressive due to their minority status in most political systems? Hard to say when he doesn鈥檛 bother to expand.
An enjoyable and worthwhile book though not as in-depth as I鈥檇 been lead to hope by the subtitle.
Also largely missing is a deeper perspective on what was happening in the world of politics & technology & economics in the world around these thinkers. Strange, as the applied science aspect of Aristotle must have had ongoing repercussions and positive incentives in the wider society. (Optics and the invention of eyeglasses/lenses etc.)
Medieval philosophy as ideological cage match. Franciscans and Dominicans and Heretics: GO! The book covers the bad behavior of the Christians (burning heretics at the stake, putting entire heretical provinces to the sword, etc.) but arguably downplays the horrors. It is surely not an exhaustive list of the crimes of the inquisition鈥檚 fanatics. Rubenstein is attempting to sell an updated medieval Aristotelian dialogue and analysis as a means to solve our modern conflicts driven by the continuing schism between faith and reason. A bit hard to swallow when being a creative thinker was likely to get you impaled or burned at the stake (or placed under house arrest if you were lucky) rather than a Nobel prize. Again and again you see reactionary factions within the church attempting to quash novel ways of thinking. Fortunately competing power centers (secular rulers pursuing their own power or sometimes tolerant provinces) provided safe havens for some of these thinkers and their novel ideas once they had lost their political supporters within the church.
Arguably the spread of literacy and reading materials made it impossible for the church to burn evidence of new ideas rapidly enough to expunge the accumulating heresies. Some of the chapters make you wish Google could sneak someone into the vatican and scan all the old records surrounding heresy trials so we could see whether there are any remnants of the missing thoughts that got books and writers eliminated.
The book鈥檚 argument comes together in an interesting way when you see alternative schools of religious thought all competing using Aristotelian logic and almost accidentally creating the necessary pre-conditions of modern 鈥渢his worldly鈥� science.
鈥淲ith the work of Duns Scotus and William of Ockham, the Aristotelian revolution took a radically new turn. The Franciscan innovators greatly admired Aristotle鈥檚 genius, but they rejected certain ideas of his that Aquinas had considered indispensable and focused attention on others that he had downplayed or ignored. Where there had been one Aristotle recognized by medieval Christian thinkers, now there were two. The result was a split in the Aristotelian movement which opened a great gap between faith and reason, religious experience and scientific evidence.鈥�
Rubenstein mentions in passing that rabbinical study of the Torah has avoided the oppressive anti-modern push back exhibited by the Christian church hierarchy (supporting his thesis that a more fruitful rapprochement between faith and reason is possible) but fails to analyze the intellectual mechanisms involved in that modernizing dialogue. Is it possible that reactionary forces within Judaism have simply not been politically powerful enough to be oppressive due to their minority status in most political systems? Hard to say when he doesn鈥檛 bother to expand.
An enjoyable and worthwhile book though not as in-depth as I鈥檇 been lead to hope by the subtitle.
December 1, 2015
After the fall of the Roman Empire (western empire, separate from the Byzantine Empire), instability prompted many scholars to leave for safer territories, taking their manuscripts with them. As a result, Greek scholarship fell into disuse such that only works written in or translated into Latin were in use in western Europe. Prominent works available in Latin included the writings of Augustine, who was heavily influenced by Neoplatonic philosophy, and the books of Aristotelian logic, the Organon, translated by Boethius.
The knowledge-base of Greek philosophy eventually came under the control of the Islamic world, and such Muslim philosophers as Avicenna and Averroes built on the foundation of Aristotelian thought. As Christendom began to reconquer Muslim-controlled Sicily and the Iberian peninsula in the 11th century, various centers of learning came under Christian control, and the church sponsored efforts to translate scholarly works from Greek and Arabic into Latin to make them available to their own scholars.
The introduction of Aristotelian thought into a western Europe dominated by Neoplatonic philosophy produced an intellectual earthquake and produced significant friction between those committed to the old ways of thinking and those investigating new ways of thinking, sometimes resulting in excommunications and worse, although the targets of such actions depended on which faction was dominant at the time. Efforts by scholars to suppress rivals are not new. Over time, Aristotelian thought was mainstreamed through the efforts of such scholars as Albert the Great and Thomas Aquinas.
This book explores the intellectual upheavals of this time period and their influence on the development of the modern world. Furthermore, it drives home the debt modern society and scientific thought owe to the Scholastic thought of the late Medieval period, a debt intentionally forgotten by Modernism.
The knowledge-base of Greek philosophy eventually came under the control of the Islamic world, and such Muslim philosophers as Avicenna and Averroes built on the foundation of Aristotelian thought. As Christendom began to reconquer Muslim-controlled Sicily and the Iberian peninsula in the 11th century, various centers of learning came under Christian control, and the church sponsored efforts to translate scholarly works from Greek and Arabic into Latin to make them available to their own scholars.
The introduction of Aristotelian thought into a western Europe dominated by Neoplatonic philosophy produced an intellectual earthquake and produced significant friction between those committed to the old ways of thinking and those investigating new ways of thinking, sometimes resulting in excommunications and worse, although the targets of such actions depended on which faction was dominant at the time. Efforts by scholars to suppress rivals are not new. Over time, Aristotelian thought was mainstreamed through the efforts of such scholars as Albert the Great and Thomas Aquinas.
This book explores the intellectual upheavals of this time period and their influence on the development of the modern world. Furthermore, it drives home the debt modern society and scientific thought owe to the Scholastic thought of the late Medieval period, a debt intentionally forgotten by Modernism.
Read
January 4, 2011Given the subtitle, I expected a bit more discussion of Muslims and Jews preserved and commented upon Aristotle's works, but the bulk of the book concentrates on Christian Europe's coming to terms with Aristotle's work. This, of course, would not have been possible with out the aforementioned preservation and commentary.
Overall, Rubenstein makes an excellent case for the Middle Ages as an intellectually fertile time. It was not, contrary to common contemporary belief, a backward, "dark" age wherein faith gained ascendancy over reason. This was a fiction created in the early modern period, when faith and reason were divorced, with reason aligned with objectivity and faith aligned with subjectivity. Although we have inherited this split, Rubenstein suggests that it is inimical to the forgotten Aristotelian worldview that we would do well to remember in order to navigate the challenges we now face. The early modern notion that subjectivity and objectivity are polar opposites has worn out its usefulness; it is time to put them back in dialectical relation - something the Middle Ages got right.
Overall, Rubenstein makes an excellent case for the Middle Ages as an intellectually fertile time. It was not, contrary to common contemporary belief, a backward, "dark" age wherein faith gained ascendancy over reason. This was a fiction created in the early modern period, when faith and reason were divorced, with reason aligned with objectivity and faith aligned with subjectivity. Although we have inherited this split, Rubenstein suggests that it is inimical to the forgotten Aristotelian worldview that we would do well to remember in order to navigate the challenges we now face. The early modern notion that subjectivity and objectivity are polar opposites has worn out its usefulness; it is time to put them back in dialectical relation - something the Middle Ages got right.
August 6, 2016
I read this before my 欧宝娱乐.com days so I didn't write my own review. I was reminded of it by the following review from the 2006 PageADay Book Lover's Calendar.
When I read it I thought it was ironic that 300 years before Spain turned into the most anti-Jewish and anti-Moslem country in the world, it served as an enlightened melting pot of scholarly exchanges between Jews, Christians and Moslems.
EYE OPENER
The fall of Rome caused Europe to tumble into the Dark Ages as the wisdom of ancient Greece was forgotten. What caused it to be rediscovered? Richard E. Rubenstein has the answer: a 12th-century summit in Toledo, Spain. There, Muslim, Jewish, and Christian scholars rediscovered and translated the works of Aristotle. Aristotle鈥檚 ideas swept across Europe, paving the way to the Renaissance. An exciting story told in a lively style.
ARISTOTLE鈥橲 CHILDREN: HOW CHRISTIANS, MUSLIMS AND JEWS REDISCOVERED ANCIENT WISDOM AND ILLUMINATED THE DARK AGES, by Richard E. Rubenstein (Harcourt Brace, 2003)
When I read it I thought it was ironic that 300 years before Spain turned into the most anti-Jewish and anti-Moslem country in the world, it served as an enlightened melting pot of scholarly exchanges between Jews, Christians and Moslems.
EYE OPENER
The fall of Rome caused Europe to tumble into the Dark Ages as the wisdom of ancient Greece was forgotten. What caused it to be rediscovered? Richard E. Rubenstein has the answer: a 12th-century summit in Toledo, Spain. There, Muslim, Jewish, and Christian scholars rediscovered and translated the works of Aristotle. Aristotle鈥檚 ideas swept across Europe, paving the way to the Renaissance. An exciting story told in a lively style.
ARISTOTLE鈥橲 CHILDREN: HOW CHRISTIANS, MUSLIMS AND JEWS REDISCOVERED ANCIENT WISDOM AND ILLUMINATED THE DARK AGES, by Richard E. Rubenstein (Harcourt Brace, 2003)
February 9, 2009
I picked this book up because it had a really interesting premise: The long dormant teachings of Aristotle--translated by the Ottoman's--had been re-discovered by the Crusaders, brought back to Europe and, contrary to what one would expect, embraced by the early Catholic Church. Throughout the book he highlights important theologians and how they interpreted The Philosopher's teachings along with what had been up to that time considered to be traditional Christian ideals.
Unfortunately, despite the detail, there was something lacking in the delivery. The book was well-written; however, at close to 300 pages may have been too long. Rubenstein had a great premise and undoubtedly I did learn some things previously unknown, but I can only recommend this book along with caveat against lofty expectations.
Unfortunately, despite the detail, there was something lacking in the delivery. The book was well-written; however, at close to 300 pages may have been too long. Rubenstein had a great premise and undoubtedly I did learn some things previously unknown, but I can only recommend this book along with caveat against lofty expectations.
June 25, 2023
兀馗賳 兀賳賴 賱賵 賰丕賳 毓賳賵丕賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 兀丨賮丕丿 兀乇爻胤賵 賱賰丕賳 兀賳爻亘貙賱兀賳賳賷 鬲賵賯毓鬲 賲賳 毓賳賵丕賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 兀賳賳賷 爻兀賯乇丕亍 賱鬲賱丕賲賷匕 兀乇爻胤賵 賵賱賰賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 鬲丨丿孬 毓賳 賮賱丕爻賮賴 亘賯乇賵賳 賲購禺鬲賱賮賴 貙毓賳 丨賷丕丞 兀賵賱卅賰 丕賱賮賱丕爻賮丞 丕賱爻賷丕爻賷賴 賵丕賱丕噩鬲賲丕毓賷丞 賵毓賳 賲賳丕囟乇丕鬲賴賲 賵賯囟丕賷丕賴賲 賵匕賰乇 亘毓囟 丕賱丨丕賱丞 丕賱毓丕胤賮賷賴 丕賱鬲賷 賲乇 亘賴丕 亘毓囟 丕賱賮賱丕爻賮丞.
兀賳亘賴乇鬲 賵鬲賱匕匕鬲 亘鬲賲賴賷丿丞 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賵賲購賯丿賲鬲賴 賵 丕囟丕賮丞 賱賷 亘毓囟 丕賱廿囟丕亍丕鬲 丕賱賮賰乇賷賴 賵丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺賴 丕賱鬲賷 賰丕賳鬲 亘丕賱賳爻亘丞 賱賷 丨丕賱丞 囟亘丕亘丞 賱賲 兀亘氐乇賴丕 亘賵囟賵丨.
賵賱賰賳 賲丨鬲賵賶 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲購賲賱 噩丿賸丕 賵賴匕丕 賲丕 丨胤賲 丌賲丕賱賷 亘毓丿 兀賳 賯乇丕亍鬲 賲賯丿賲鬲賴貙乇睾賲 丕賳 丕賱賲賯丿賲賴 鬲賯丕乇亘 佶贍 氐賮丨賴 賵賲丨鬲賵賶 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賷賯丕乇亘佶贍贍 氐賮丨賴 賵賱賰賳賴 賱賲 賷購囟賮 賱賷賾 卮賷亍.
丕賱賲賴鬲賲 亘丕賱丨丕賱丞 丕賱爻賷丕爻賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 賲乇 亘賴丕 丕賱賮賱丕爻賮賴 賵賵囟毓 丕賵乇亘丕 丕賱爻賷丕爻賷 亘卮賰賱 毓丕賲 乇亘賲丕 賷購賮賷丿賴 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘
賲丨鬲賵賶 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賷爻鬲丨賯 賳噩賲鬲丕賳 賵賱賰賳 賱兀噩賱 丕賱賲賯丿賲賴 賰丕賳 丕賱鬲賯賷賲 孬賱丕孬 賳噩賲丕鬲
兀賳亘賴乇鬲 賵鬲賱匕匕鬲 亘鬲賲賴賷丿丞 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賵賲購賯丿賲鬲賴 賵 丕囟丕賮丞 賱賷 亘毓囟 丕賱廿囟丕亍丕鬲 丕賱賮賰乇賷賴 賵丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺賴 丕賱鬲賷 賰丕賳鬲 亘丕賱賳爻亘丞 賱賷 丨丕賱丞 囟亘丕亘丞 賱賲 兀亘氐乇賴丕 亘賵囟賵丨.
賵賱賰賳 賲丨鬲賵賶 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲購賲賱 噩丿賸丕 賵賴匕丕 賲丕 丨胤賲 丌賲丕賱賷 亘毓丿 兀賳 賯乇丕亍鬲 賲賯丿賲鬲賴貙乇睾賲 丕賳 丕賱賲賯丿賲賴 鬲賯丕乇亘 佶贍 氐賮丨賴 賵賲丨鬲賵賶 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賷賯丕乇亘佶贍贍 氐賮丨賴 賵賱賰賳賴 賱賲 賷購囟賮 賱賷賾 卮賷亍.
丕賱賲賴鬲賲 亘丕賱丨丕賱丞 丕賱爻賷丕爻賷丞 丕賱鬲賷 賲乇 亘賴丕 丕賱賮賱丕爻賮賴 賵賵囟毓 丕賵乇亘丕 丕賱爻賷丕爻賷 亘卮賰賱 毓丕賲 乇亘賲丕 賷購賮賷丿賴 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘
賲丨鬲賵賶 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賷爻鬲丨賯 賳噩賲鬲丕賳 賵賱賰賳 賱兀噩賱 丕賱賲賯丿賲賴 賰丕賳 丕賱鬲賯賷賲 孬賱丕孬 賳噩賲丕鬲
Displaying 1 - 30 of 123 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.