Classical Theism, Philosophy, and Religion Forum / Later Medieval Metaphysics

**Posted by John West** 12/04/2016 3:17 pm

In Later Medieval Metaphysics: Ontology, Language, and Logic, Bolyard and Keele write:

Medieval metaphysics and modern-day metaphysics share much common ground; many issues of concern to medieval metaphysicians would be quite familiar to those who find themselves in a modern day metaphysics seminar. These earlier philosophers worried about the nature of change, the fundamental structure of reality (and of the entities within that reality), identity, time, and so on. It is easy to look past this fact, however, because of the fundamental ontology they adhered to: for them, God, angels, and miracles were entities and phenomena that had to fit into their metaphysical systems. Just as contemporary metaphysicians work with the ontology of modern science, so too the medievals worked within their theological ontologies.

Do you guys think the shift from medievals' attitude to some theists now's near-obsession with rigorous proofs is a good thing?

**Posted by iwpoe** 12/04/2016 5:04 pm

It makes existential sense: there's a certain anxiety about authority and the desire to secure indefatigable a priori authority flows naturally thence. Does it have an absolute appropriateness? No. Even Aristotle only spends so much time on it. Skepticism is the inevitable shadow of the kind of philosopher and mediocre scope is his usual companion since he dares so little. He often has a deficiency with respect to courage and magnanimity, I'd say.

**Posted by Greg** 12/06/2016 8:23 pm

It's really fascinating how haphazardly formulated Aquinas's arguments for God's existence are. Their most literal readings are seldom valid. You can patch them up by grabbing theses from all over his corpus, but he doesn't much try to put all of those theses in one place. Compare that to, say, Aquinas's treatise on happiness.

I understand why theists in the twenty-first century would want rigorous proofs more than Aquinas and the medievals would. I do think it's somewhat unfortunate. Aquinas is a much more entertaining read when you take his whole system on board. Arguing with skeptics over God's existence, the reality of teleology, etc., not so much.

**Posted by John West** 12/08/2016 9:35 pm

I agree with both of you that it's understandable, and with Greg that it's unfortunate. Thanks for your comments.

**Posted by Proclus** 12/22/2016 11:59 pm

Greg wrote:
Arguing with skeptics over God's existence, the reality of teleology, etc., not so much.

I'm afraid of just becoming a reactionary, defining my thought by the hostile intellectual climate rather than what I really wanted to study in the first place, which is God himself. Answering every objection and shoring up the old proofs turns one's mind more and more toward the endless varieties of error and I'm afraid I'll loose my way in that void.

**Posted by iwpoe** 12/23/2016 12:53 am

Sometimes when there's a bully in the bar, you just need to pack up and go to another bar. Thus is the usual skeptic.