[My Philosophical Essay on Medieval Aristotelianism]

[Conrad_Jalowski]

[Continued]:

The Scholastic scholar Peter Abelard adhered to the Aristotelian notion of proportion, equipollence and the maintenance of a middle ground from the points of extremity that represented a depraved state composed of obsequious bondage to slavish and vulgar passions. This Aristotelian concept of sophrosyne or moderation as a state of existence between the polarities of expression attempted for the amelioration of the preexisting condition of enmity, animosity and belligerence. The two polarities of expression, thought and being are the dilapidated forms of self-expression and self-will that are inimical to each other although in the Aristotelian sense both states of being are equal in value; the depraved and degraded self is torn asunder by equal forces that transform a harmonious whole to a fissiparous form of existence. It is only through the dissolution of the dilapidated state through the establishment of equipollence or a balance of affairs that the ideal of proportion could be achieved. Peter Abelard took the framework of Aristotelian ethics and applied the amelioration of tense and opposing factors through the elimination of immoderation to a dialectical process. The general framework of the dialectical process consists of two equal forces that are incessantly in tension and opposition that are eventually amalgamated together in a symmetrical relationship that resolves the enmity and animosity between the two separate forces.

The first argument or viewpoint within a dialectical process is the thesis or an incomplete and fallacious viewpoint due to its limited scope of comprehension. The counterargument or the second viewpoint is the antithesis that is inimical to the state of being of the thesis and equally fallacious and incomplete as the first argument. The eventualamalgamation or combination of the two warring forces is the synthesis. The dialectical process of Scholastic logic as upheld by Peter Abelard was through philological reasoning in which deductive logic or a means of determination was expressed in a subjective manner. The tension and enmity arising out of differing viewpoints regarding authoritative texts, and the etymology and definition of key concepts resulted in an attempted synthesis of two viewpoints that were in tension as a means to achieve equipollence. However, the problems with the dialectical process within the context of philological reasoning within the Scholastic tradition were the encouragement of subjective thought and other individualistic components that stressed the ambiguity of Church doctrine and agenda to the expense and degradation of official Church doctrine that upheld an objective means of expression with a univocity of thought; and that the particular synthesis would be asymmetrical and therefore pessundate with the emergence of a new dichotomy of tense and opposing factors in a cyclical movement of enmity and tension that would incessantly continue within the framework of a dialectical process.

According to John of Salisbury the term liberal in the field of education and of scholarly pursuit indicates any academic, moral and/or intellectual process that allows for the individual to be endowed with a transcendence from the barbarous propensities that inflict humanity as a whole; that a liberal education rescues the individual from subservience to base and slavish desires, and imbues the self with a creative and divine grace that would provide even if ephemeral and transient, an intoxicating moment of autonomy safeguarded from external deprivation and denigration. In addition, John of Salisbury deemed it necessary for the mastering of grammar and sentence structure within a liberal education. For example, the flosculation or embellishment of speech or the written word through rhetorical elements and other standard conventions of language was necessary for a greater comprehension of contextual language and the different tones and manners of speech. The rhetorical elements of synathroesmus and antirrhesis needed to be effectively mastered so as to convey a sense of proportion of speech within a particular context; to either reiterate and convey the meaning of a particular passage in a forceful and concise manner as with the first example and as a means of expressing vehemence through vituperation as with the second example. In addition, in the context of an epideictic speech or a grand manner of tone and purpose the speaker could be hyperbolic and therefore convey great and exaggerated passions in a lofty tone.

John of Salisbury's treatise on the general framework of a liberal education or his Metalogicon expressed a tripartite classificatory system thatdetailed the tools of analysis and synthesis. The three main modes of rational expression consisted of the means of determination in the form of deductive logic, sophistry and the dialectical process. Through deductive logic as based on the empirical method, the observation of existing conditions and the determination of the properties and values of those existing conditions would allow for the emergence of a system of observations from the ashes of the inchoate and senseless. However, the fallacy in deductive reasoning is the supposed ambiguity or subjectivity of certain conditions that will not allow for the development of a univocity of expression or an objective manner of classification. Sophistry is the form and process of striving to achieve logos or a state of sagacity from the polarities of expression consisting of eros or bodily desires and of high-spiritedness or the passion of hubris. The sophist would enlighten audiences through elaborate discussions on such intellectual and academic fields as metaphysics, cosmology, epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, etc. However, an overvaulting reliance on sophistry has the potential for the dilapidation of morals and the degradation of virtuous conduct to either subservience to hubris and high-spiritedness or servility to lascivious passions and other vulgar bodily desires. Both examples represent a depraved and devolved state in which the individual is consumed by licentiousness. Finally, the dialectical process would attempt the harmonious amalgamation or synthesis of two inimical forces in order to achieve equipollence. However, if the process of amalgamation within a particular dialectic is asymmetrical, the particular synthesis is sown its dissolution and is replaced by an emerging dichotomy that continues the incessant cycle of tension and opposition.

In the comparison of medieval scholarship and contemporary intellectual endeavors, I generally adhere to the classificatory systems of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and Friedrich Schiller in which the perceptions of self and of the perceptions of external conditions were in greater harmony and integration as opposed to the modern and contemporary eras. The medieval scholar was determined to achieve amelioration between inimical and tense forces, recapture lost knowledge that had undergone processes of dilapidation, form a wholly unique world viewpoint that would resonate throughout the course of history, and to achieve self-actualization. I believe that the contemporary era is tinged with hubris and varying gradations of pusillanimity; contemporary thought is being torn asunder by the polarities of thought consisting of chimerical or fanciful expressions and of overwhelming melancholy. It appears that contemporary society is aware of the impossibility of achieving the Absolute Ideal or a harmonious and symmetrical synthesis with transcendence from human frailty and vulgar passions. Instead, contemporary agenda dictates the degradation to obsequious bondage and the pursuit of mere chimeras or inchoate specters.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Important Concepts:

a.) Empiricism versus Rationalism

b.) Immanence versus Transcendence

c.) Phenomena versus Noumena

d.) The [arche] is the first being/form of existence that arose from the realm of the indefinite and timeless abstraction of Chaos or "Anarch" as expounded by Anaximander and other Pre-Socratic philosophers.

e.) Aristotle deemed [arche] as that which immediately arose out of the amalgamation or fusion of swirling particles within the void and 'essence of being' of [apeiron] or the undetermined and indefinite void of chaos and of primordial forces.

f.) Anaxagoras deemed the corporeal realm of terrestrial or earthly man as having formed out of a swirling motion that spun out in infinite directions to form matter and basic life structures by the god-like figure [Nous] in which all particles, forms and structures originated from the empty void of [apeiron]. The figure of [Nous] allowed for the passage or transition from the primordial and inchoate realm of [apeiron] to the hierarchical structure of reality: a mixture of indefinite and definite forms, and a tension and strain between the incorporeal and corporeal. From [apeiron] through the sonorous expression of [Nous] originated the [arche] or the first forms of existence that ascended from the inchoate or the senseless, massless and formless.