In late medieval philosophy ethics became a more important subject and questions like ‘What is the good way to live’ were widely discussed. In the very godly orientated world back then we can distinguish two types of ethical philosophers: the ones fiercely critical of Aristotle and the ones praising his theories. Central in Aristotle’s theory was ‘Eudaimonia’, the striving to the highest good, in other words the striving to become your best self. This could be achieved through the theory of the mean. In any given situation you should choose the intermediate position between to extreme emotions: don’t be arrogant or weak, but act confident. It’s important to emphasize that Aristotle thought you could arrive at this intermediate position through reasoning.  

Christians in the late middle ages, such as Saint Augustine, argued that through happiness could not be achieved through reasoning, but good only be granted by god in the afterlife. Happiness becomes a reward gifted through God’s charity and thus could only be acquired by Christians. Obviously, this theory goes against Aristotle’s theory mentioned above. However, Augustine’s theory lead to many questions, the most important one being: ‘How is it possible that pagans act virtuously, while virtue can only be gifted by God?’

To answer this question we will look at Dun Scotus’ theory on ethics, which was partly inspired on the Aristotelian view. He argued that there are two kinds of inclination that are natural to every human being: the desire for happiness and the desire for justice. The first one is seen as self-centred happiness and the second one as the desire for other people’s happiness. Many Christians believed that pagans were only able to acquire the self-centred happiness, because this could be achieved through reasoning. However, Scotus pointed out that the desire for justice can also be acquired through reasoning. As an example, he wrote about a pagan who went to war to protect their child. This example shows that without believing and through reasoning, one could act virtuously. In other words, without the gift of God one could desire justice.

In this blog I will discuss a seemingly contradiction in the Christian religion. The bible is made up out of the old and the new testament. The old testament is the same as the Jewish Tenach and thus an authoritative scripture in multiple religions. However, the old- and new testament seem to completely contradict on the subject of warfare. This brought about the question whether it is the same or a different God speaking in the different testaments.  In the old testament one seems permitted to kill civilians, enforce enslavement and even to perform executions. A verse from Deuteronomy 20 tells us to ‘put the sword to all men’, when in war with your enemies. This obviously is a permission or even an encouragement to go to war and use violence. On the other hand, the new testament supports a pacifistic lifestyle for Christians. The writings of Matthew even tell us to ‘love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you’. These verses advise us to stay away from any form of violence or enforcement in our material world.

During the Middle Ages many theologians and philosophers tried to solve this contradiction, ensuring us that it was indeed the same God speaking to us in both testaments. One of these philosophers is Saint Augustine, who is seen as one of the fathers of the church in the Christian religion. He explained that the God we read in the first testament is not condoning violence, but rather outlining the worst instinct of human beings. He is outlining how humans primarily, from their heart, act in war. This should be however, be seen as an invitation for our patience and benevolence. This means that even in first testament God is supporting a life of pacifism instead of a life filled with violence.

At first you might think that faith is the opposite of rational thought, or with other words religion is the opposite of philosophy. Today I will introduce Thomas Aquinas to demonstrate that this contrast is not as obvious as it seems. Aquinas was the most famous thinker of the late Middle Ages, born in 1224. He is an important authority in the catholic church, but his ideas are also highly appreciated amongst modern philosophers. He was broadly educated in subjects ranging from physics to ethics. He also wrote a lot of theological works, including his most famous book summa theologiae. In this blog I will take a closer look at this literal work and how we can apply it to todays society.

Aquinas tried to make a clear distinction between theology and philosophy, but concluded that both are not as different as we might think. He writes that philosophy is based on truths that everyone can gain by reflection upon the world. From these truths we can logically distract new thoughts. Theology, however, is based upon truths from scriptures, thus truths gained from revelations and teachings from Christ. Aquinas tried to demonstrate that this does not mean that philosophy is more rational than theology. He is pointing out that not only theology requires some kind of faith, but philosophy also requires faith. For Theology this faith means believing in God, while for philosophy this means believing in important philosophers that came before us.

To make Aquinas his theory clearer we can, for example, apply it on the Corona crisis we are facing today. Many people claim that the scientists that are basically ruling our country are telling the truths. However, we rarely ask for their extensive research papers containing empirical prove. Applying Aquinas’ theory, we just take the scientists truths and decisions for granted, because we have faith in them. In stead of having faith in God and his truths, we have faith in scientists and their truths. In both cases we don’t have empirical evidence ourselves, but simply believe that others are truthful.

Today I will introduce one of the greatest thinkers in the Jewish philosophical tradition: Moses Maimonides. He was also a rabbi, what made him a high authority in the Jewish community. He lived in the 12^th century AD and spent his whole life in societies with Islamic dominance. However, he contributed to the flourishing of Jewish thought and played big part in the development of a communal identity amongst Jews. For me, todays academics can learn a lot from Maimonides, especially in two particular ways.

First, Maimonides did not classify himself. You could say he was a defender of tradition or a student of Aristotle, but none of this classification can completely define him. You could see Maimonides as both Jewish and Muslim. He was raised Jewish in an Islamic society and used both Jewish and Islamic traditions in his philosophy. For example, he copied the Islamic tradition of describing God with negatives: not ‘God is strong’, but rather ‘God is not weak’. For Maimonides classifying yourself or anybody for that matter, means limiting yourself. As soon as you classify someone, you limit their definition or essence, and so predetermine how to evaluate them. In today’s society is very common to classify someone within a specific religion or as an expert in a certain subject. However, in this way we both limit ourselves in the way we think as well as the way others view our writings or opinions.  

Secondly, Maimonides had a very pleasant way of writing. He wrote about a range of subjects for different kinds of audiences. The important thing to take away from his writings is the way that he changed his tone for different audiences. When writing for the public, he adjusted his tone to a very comprehensive and clear style of writing, without using pretentious rhetoric and technical jargon. In contrast to many modern writers, his goal was not to impress his audience, but to have them understand his ideas and argument. The goal was not to convince people of your intelligence by using technical and difficult words, but the focus was on simplicity and making sure your audience understands the messages and ideas. Like Einstein once said: ‘if you can’t explain it simply, you  don’t understand it well enough’.

By many Al-Ghazali is seen as the bad guy who ended the beautiful tradition of Arabic philosophy. He is considered to be an irrational thinker, who blindly followed the truth of Islamic religion and brutally refuted great thinkers such as Aristotle and Avicenna. Al-Ghazali indeed was recognized as an authoritative figure in the Seljuk empire. The Seljuks people tried to reverse the widely accepted Arabic philosophy back to the dominance of Islamic theology. Al-Ghazali wrote many books defending the Islam religion and taught Islamic theology in one of the most important educational institutes. However, I would like to argue that Al-Ghazali was the opposite of irrational and could be considered a philosopher himself.

Al-Ghazali was a well-educated and travelled man. He was an itinerant polymath, who followed education in a wide range of subjects, including traditional philosophy such as the theories of Aristotle. He travelled through most parts of the Seljuk empire, ranging from modern day Iran to modern day Jerusalem. He even wrote a book, called the ‘Doctrine of the philosophers’, explaining traditional Arabic philosophy in an objective and comprehensive manner. It did not contain any critique on philosophy and was soon translated to Hebrew and Latin, enabling many readers to properly understand philosophical theories.

Later he wrote his most famous book; ‘the incoherence of the philosophers’. The goal of this book was demonstrating that philosophy is not error-free and so he tried to burst the bubble of those who believed in the absolute truth of philosophy. However, this refutation of philosophy was not irrational or brutal. He used philosophy itself to refute philosophy, by showing that many philosophical theories were not based on proper logic. He wrote that especially in metaphysics there was too much disagreement to be logically valid, caused by the lack of empirical prove. He showed incoherency within the philosophical tradition by using logic, in stead of by simply stating that theology was better than philosophy. Al-Ghazali clear use of logic and proper argument, proves that he was in some sense a philosopher himself.

In last weeks lecture we discussed the famous philosopher Al-Farabi. He was the founder of Islamic Neoplatonism and one of the first man during his time to call himself a philosopher. He was very aware of his cultural background while doing and writing about philosophy. By many he is seen as the second master, Aristotle being the first master. Al-Farabi was what we call a polymath. He was an educated man, who mastered multiple science at once. During the middle ages it was quite normal to study multiple sciences and to have a very broad education. For example, if you wanted to become a philosopher, you had study many different subjects ranging from physics to ethics.  

Polymaths are not very common in todays society. The syllabi of Universities have changed a lot and become much more specialized. To become a philosopher, you no longer have to master maths or psychics. In fact, it has become pretty much impossible to master all those sciences at the same time. Universiteit no longer offer undergraduate programs covering all those different sciences. The only way to study a range of subjects if by following multiple courses at once. However, this would not only take ages, but it would also cost you an insane amount of money.

This complete change in education is probably caused by the changing goal of going to university. Back in the middle ages, man would go to university and study all these subjects, purely to become a better human-being. Nowadays, man attends a university to study a certain subject and so higher their chances of getting a job in the future. The goal of becoming a better human being through education has not vanished completely, but it is no longer the main goal. In my opinion this is partly caused by the fact that in stead of receiving money for attending university, we now have to pay to follow education.

Journalism is in my opinion one of the most important professions today, because it makes information and so knowledge available to the public. It broadens our view and for me equality also means an equal possibility to access knowledge between people. However, many might argue that some of this information is not meant for the mass and can harm society. A certain complex scientific discovery could be taken out of context and cause unnecessary worries amongst citizens. Take for example the recent corona virus outbreak, that has been widely discussed in all sorts of media and journalism. It is seen as extremely dangerous by many and causes them to take precautionary measures. While many experts claim that many of our worries and taken measures are not necessary, useful or even scientifically grounded.

Medievalist philosophers were already aware of the sometimes-negative effects of making new discoveries available to the mass. There solution was to ‘hide’ their new and often ground-breaking ideas in commentaries of bigger broadly known texts. They were afraid that their ideas would fall into the wrong hands if they wrote and published new books from their own hand. The information they provided was simply only meant for the academics, people who were trained in philosophy and able to correctly understand the new information. Today many people still think medieval philosophers did not come up with original theories or ideas, only because they were hiding them in commentaries.

Although it was the standard in the standard during the middle ages to do philosophy this way, I do not believe we should hide science in today’s society. However, I would like to emphasize that it is very important how certain information is communicated to the public. Unfortunately, information is often overgeneralized or simplified and so completely loses its original meaning. It is the responsibility of the researcher as well as the journalist that only correct information is spread and that it is done carefully. In this way, I think it is possible to have knowledge equally available for everyone, without it being taken out of context and causing unnecessary fear.

In last week’s lecture we talked about Boethius, who was born in 475 A.D. in Rome and died only 49 years later. He was a famous philosopher, although he would have called himself just a religious man and he was eventually even executed for his thoughts. Although Boethius is still read today and literally offered himself for the sake of his philosophy, many argue that he was not the most original writer and his ideas were not ground-breaking. The relevance and originality of Boethius as an author is an ongoing debate and I would like to share my own thought on this topic.

First of all, Boethius can be seen as a literal bridge between the Greek philosophy (eastern Europa) and the philosophical works written in latin (western Europa). Since Boethius was born in Italy, he was fluent in Latin and wrote most of his works in this language. However, he had a great interest in the Greek philosophy, so was he intrigued by the philosophy of Aristotle.  Some people claim, he even went to the Alexandrian school of philosophy, known for its structured way of teaching philosophy. Boethius combined the Latin language, the inspiration from Aristotle and the structure of the Alexandrian school of philosophy and so combined the two different approaches to philosophy. This made him not only the link between Latin and Greek philosophy, but in some sense also the link between ancient and medieval philosophy.

Furthermore, Boethius added some famous arguments to ongoing debates within logic, these additions are still pretty relevant today. His most famous work is his addition to the discussion on ‘universals’ within logic. His conclusion was that ‘universals’ aren’t real, but only exist within human thought.

In conclusion, I think Boethius is definitely a relevant author that should be studied. Although he didn’t come up with the most ground-breaking ideas, he did add a lot to important discussion. For me it is maybe even more important that he combined different approaches to philosophy and so added some things to how we see philosophy today.

Does serving one year in prison make you a criminal for the rest of your life? Does one racist tweet you posted about ten years ago, still make you a racist today? With other words, does your past have a big influence on whether you are a good or bad person, or is it okay to forgive people for bad actions of their past. This is a subject that keeps coming back and people never seem to agree on. Especially for politicians, or celebrities in general, little details from their past can keep on hunting them for the rest of their life.

While we usually put the actions of today’s celebrities under the loop, we often ignore the ‘bad’ decisions of some famous historical figures. There are even people that are known as saints today but used to act horribly before they got famous and so remembered. One of these saints I would like to discuss is Saint Augustine, a philosopher that lived over a 1500 years ago. We remember him as the author of the famous ‘confessions’, where he used philosophy as an exercise for everyday life. However, in his early adult years he lived a somewhat questionable life that, simply said, contained a lot of alcohol and women. After about thirty years converted, became and academic and developed into a good man who cared about the people around him and moreover left us some great philosophical works.

If we can forgive Saint Augustine for the action of his early years and celebrate him about who became, does this not mean that we should cut today’s celebrities, politicians and writers some slack as well? I believe that people can change, and we should keep supporting people to better themselves, in stead of only focusing on the bad of their past.  

The first thing that comes to mind when thinking about medieval philosophy is often God. Although this is not the only thing that man used to write about, Dod does play a huge part in medieval philosophy. The early middle ages ended over five centuries ago and back then the whole society was still breathing God. God and religion were the guides in everything, even in everyday life. This means that also philosophy was completely intertwined with religion. In fact, philosophy served religion in some kind of way. Since religion was primary and the most powerful, philosophy was just a tool to make sure that religion would be smooth.

Furthermore, the conjunction of philosophy with religion meant that back in the middle ages there was no such thing as a philosopher as we seen them today. There were no men that would study philosophy, just for the sake of philosophy. Rather, the wise man would see themselves as religious man. That once again just studied knowledge, truth and other things regarding philosophy, to assure religion ran smoothly.

Man might at first sight say that what was true for the middle ages, is no longer true in today’s society. People tend to believe that religion and other sciences, such as philosophy, are complete separated since the separation the separation of state and church. In the 21^st century there are for sure academics calling themselves philosophers and many of them might claim that they study philosophy for the sake of philosophy. However, I would like to argue that religion still plays a huge part in everyday life, in some states more than in others. In believe that as long as religion and everyday life are still in some way intertwined, we cannot see philosophy completely separate from religion either. Therefore, in my opinion, a good philosopher should study religion and other cultural aspects of a society to be capable of researching, discussing or solving philosophical issues.