Settling in cosily to read this book so I can write a review of it. It's gonna be good fun, I can tell -- one paragraph into the preface and I've already shouted at the page three times. 😀
All right, dear reader, I laughed:
"contemporary philosophy of religion is basically just like studying medieval philosophy, except not as interesting and you don't have to learn Latin" (p. 6).
"contemporary philosophy of religion is basically just like studying medieval philosophy, except not as interesting and you don't have to learn Latin" (p. 6).
I've reached page 7, and my first giraffe.🦒
I think I need to keep a tally.
I think I need to keep a tally.
Hah! Had to pause in my reading to meet with a student, who at the end was asking a bit about medieval philosophy (not realising what book I had in my lap), including "but isn't it all theology?" So I was well prepared to summarise chapter 1 for him. :)
TIL that Philo of Alexandria was a Jew! How on earth had no one ever mentioned this fact to me before?!
Oooh, Evagrius gets name checked on p. 13. I'm currently writing a short story that features him.
Settling back in for more reading. Opened the book up to a page of my scribbled notes shouting at me WHO TAUGHT BEDE??
It's a good question. Who did teach him, do we know?
It's a good question. Who did teach him, do we know?
"If [Adoptionism] strikes you as a pretty good suggestion, then you haven't been studying your liberal arts" (p. 15). *zing!*
What I love about reading/writing on medieval philosophy: The distinction between what is philosophy and what is gossip is one you are constantly confronted with.
"the philosopher's ultimate insult...Gottschalk's position doesn't even manage to be false" (p. 20). Oooh, what a harsh burn!
The thing I don't get about predestination conversations: Why must God offer grace only to some? Why can't he offer it to all, but leave it to our free well whether we accept it or not? [Things you think reading about Eriugena and Gottschalk.]
I never would've thought the Marx brothers would be so useful in illustrating medieval philosophy! (Ch. 4).
Has anyone ever written on Platonic procession/return, Eriugenian human fall/human recovery (and ultimate absorption back into the nature of God) and successive cycles of big bang/big crunch?
Every time I am reminded of the fact that Fredegisus wrote a treatise "On Nothing and Darkness", I can't help but think what a cheerful sort of fellow he must have been.
On to chapter 5 (out of 78)! One thing's for sure, I'm not going to use my standard book-review method of summarising each chapter...
"It's sometimes jokingly remarked by experts in medieval philosophy---who are of course famous for their sense of humor---" (p. 31).
🦒🦒Giraffe klaxon!!🦒🦒 p. 33
Wait, WUT?! Martianus Capella thought Mars and Venus revolved around the sun?!
Was this a common thing in his time, or was he just weird? I thought heliocentrism wasn't a thing until much, much later.
Was this a common thing in his time, or was he just weird? I thought heliocentrism wasn't a thing until much, much later.
Indeed, no, I did NOT know that Peter Damian's treatise discussing whether God could restore virginity to a woman who's had sex was written the same year as Conquering Will invaded!
I also did not know that Damian is responsible for the rather reprehensible medieval views towards homosexuality. NOT COOL, Damian, NOT COOL.
"Right now you are reading this book...assuming you have read the whole book up to this page, does it remain possible that you haven't read it?...you could have refrained from reading it beforehand, but now it is too late" (p. 42).
I'm feeling called out.
I'm feeling called out.
The thing is, reading what Damian, a celibate monk who preferred the eremitic life, has to say about female virginity makes it quite clear that he has NO BUSINESS talking about these subjects due to blatant ignorance.
Hey, philosotweeps! Next time someone contradicts your thesis during a Q&A, take a leaf out of Peter Damian's book, and recommend that deniers be put to a branding iron!
Giraffe no. 3, on p. 44!
Happy to move on from the awfulness that was a chapter on Peter Damian to the palate cleanser that is a chapter on Anselm, who still remains one of my faves. #IHeartAnselm #TeamAnselm
Giraffe alert, giraffe alert! p. 48.
Not one, but TWO chapters on Anselm! Lucky me!
And I only squawked in outrage once while reading them. :
And I only squawked in outrage once while reading them. :
Starting with chapter 9. I'll reiterate: I've never learned so much about the Marx brothers!
And I'm rewarded right away with another 🦒🦒🦒! That's 5 in the first 60 pages.
I love the way how Adamson makes Porphyry's cursory discussion of the problem of universals seem like a boon to the rest of philosophy: By raising the questions and not answering them, future philosophers could make a name for themselves, stake out a claim, get involved!
It's always interesting getting a reminder that I really am a realist at heart. "Otherwise...Harpo and Groucho will wind up being identical insofar as they are humans" (p. 64) actually seems to me to be the correct conclusion to draw, not an objection.
Having recent read/live-tweeted the letters of Eloise and Abelard, I'm now SUPER INTERESTED to see what Adamson makes of their relationship, in ch. 10. 
"Of course, even today it remains true that skill in philosophy is a sure path to romantic success" (p. 67).
#Truth #WorkedForMe
#Truth #WorkedForMe
Giraffe alert! p. 68.
Awww, yes, Adamson made the Monty Python connection in the chapter on Abelard's ethics, so I don't need to in my review!
Hmm. Rather disappointed that Eloise's ethics get only two paragraphs at the end of the chapter on Abelard's ethics, and no substantive treatment of her on her own. :(
Chapter 12 is bound to be better, though, because it takes its title from my academic motto, which I took from Hugh of St Victor: Omnia disce, videbis postea nihil esse superfluum.
Learn everything, and afterwards you will find that nothing was superfluous.
Learn everything, and afterwards you will find that nothing was superfluous.
Here's an interesting claim: History only becomes important after prophecy becomes important. (p. 79).
But how is this squared with classical Greek prophets, and the intimation that particular historical events were not important for Greek philosophers?
But how is this squared with classical Greek prophets, and the intimation that particular historical events were not important for Greek philosophers?
All right, that chapter on the Victorines was awesome. Despite having co-opted Hugh's slogan as my own, I actually knew very little about him or his context. Now I know more!
Isn't reading great.
Isn't reading great.
Onto chapter 13: Wait, who *isn't* familiar with Reese's peanut butter cups? I think this needs a poll. Are you:
....now I want a peanut butter cup.
"...there are many ways of being the same or different" (p. 87).
SEE?! That's why it's PERFECTLY LEGITIMATE to describe one thing as "more unique" than another thing. Because it is unique on MORE DIMENSIONS. Because there is more than one way two things can be different!
SEE?! That's why it's PERFECTLY LEGITIMATE to describe one thing as "more unique" than another thing. Because it is unique on MORE DIMENSIONS. Because there is more than one way two things can be different!
Oooh, p. 89 brings us to another good opportunity for a poll. Would you rather be (a) castrated or (b) forced to burn your own writings?
Reading, at the bottom of p. 90, Adamson's take on Abelard on the numeric identity of peanut butter cups, and I can't help but be reminded of Frege's discussion in the Foundations of Arithmetic on the number of a deck of cards.
And now I want to write Frege/Abelard fanfic.
And now I want to write Frege/Abelard fanfic.
"Unfortunately, God can't be exactly like a peanut butter cup" (p. 91).
Actually, I'd call that rather fortunate...
Actually, I'd call that rather fortunate...
Academic advising this morning, so I have lots of people dropping in for 10 minute meetings over the next three hours...but in between nothing is preventing me from reading! We're heading into ch. 14, on philosophy at Chartres.
Still on this chapter (but have had lot of good meetings with students!), and I'm reflecting on the fact that it was nearly twice as long from the 12th C back to the ancient Greeks than it is from now back to the 12th C.
I have to say, though, Adamson's description of the Chartrian method of reading things "in integumento" makes me deeply suspicious of it as a method. It sounds a bit too much like you can read anything to be anything.
Yesterday, we had the trinity compared to a peanut butter cup. Today, the trinity is being compared to 1 x 1 x 1 = 1.
Last night G told me that whatever she might compare me to, I'd come out better. I asked her if I was better than anything she could conceive of. She said yes.
Last night G told me that whatever she might compare me to, I'd come out better. I asked her if I was better than anything she could conceive of. She said yes.
"...the rather surprising title _Dragmaticon_. To the modern ear, the title calls to mind nothing so much as a cross-dressing Transformer..." (p. 98).
Sorry. I couldn't help myself:
Sorry. I couldn't help myself:
Aww, there was a perfect opportunity for a giraffe sighting at the bottom of p. 105, and yet, no giraffe. :(
I DID learn, however, that "donkeys are overly influenced by phlegm, which makes them stupid" (p. 105). Medieval philosophers do love their asses.
Ch. 16 opens with a brief discussion of twins. Growing up, my orthodontist was one of a set of identical twins -- and the other was ALSO an orthodontist, in the same practice. Even as a kid, I wondered what one's life must be like for that eventuality to come to pass.
I have now done myself a favor (cf. p. 107) and looked up the Mirror scene from Duck Soup. I have also done YOU a favor by providing you with the link I found:
Giraffe alert on p. 107! That's 7 so far.
Yesterday we had a chapter on the problem of universals. Now we've got one (c. 16) on the problem of individuation.
So, tweeps, what is it that makes you YOU, a singular and individual person? Philosophicl and non philosophical answers desired!
So, tweeps, what is it that makes you YOU, a singular and individual person? Philosophicl and non philosophical answers desired!
Surely the characteristic/property of being Groucho Marx is not Grouchocity (cf. p. 109) but Grouchiness!
Giraffe sighting, p. 110!
Oh, my goodness, Gilbert of Poitiers, in his account of what makes things "individuals", develops an account of "dividuals". I LOVE IT. Why hasn't anyone else ever done this?!
I'm reading the chapter on political philosophy now, and specifically the bit on Gregory VII's attempts to centralise church authority.
I can't help but wonder how his attempts compared to my university's centralisation of admin (finance, admissions, research support, etc.).
I can't help but wonder how his attempts compared to my university's centralisation of admin (finance, admissions, research support, etc.).
Since @HistPhilosophy likes the name "Manegold" so much, I feel obliged to link to this entry of @theDMNES: dmnes.org/name/Mangold
"I could spend the rest of this book talking about nothing but texts responding to the _Sentences_ and still do a pretty good job of covering medieval philosophy without any gaps" (p. 125).
And yet, how often is this text treated centrally _in philosophy courses_?
And yet, how often is this text treated centrally _in philosophy courses_?
I love how Peter Lombard is being lauded here for such innovations as _tables of contents_ and _quotation marks_.
If you're wondering how far you have to read before you get a chapter devoted to a woman, the answer is 128 pages.
I'm still miffed Eloise didn't get a chapter of her own.
I'm still miffed Eloise didn't get a chapter of her own.
The thing about reading medieval philosophy during the day and the pokemon handbook during the evening is that when I learn that Hildegard's treatise was called "Scivias", my first thought is "oh, that would make a good pokemon name".
Which reminds me of the FB quiz I did a week or two ago, "Pokemon character or medieval heretic?" I like to feel that I was rather uniquely qualified to ace that quiz.
Reading this chapter also reminds me how much I enjoyed reading @pk_adams's _The Greenest Branch_, a slightly fictionalised account of Hildegard's life, and that I need to purchase the sequel!
Even though I still have 500 pages to go, I've started drafting text of the actual review. It really is fun seeing how many complimentary things I can shove into 1000 words.
The office network is down so G's using my laptop instead of my desktop for her "how to draw pokemon" tutorials, so I'm taking the opportunity to return to this book.
When Adamson says "Surely God's light didn't descend all the way from heaven just to tell Hildegard that Gilbert and his scholastic colleagues were ... out of line" (p. 132), I can't help but think "no man would hesitate to cite God's authority to tell a woman she's out of line!"
Goodness, it's been only about 10 days since I last had disposable time! Shall we read some more? We're about to start ch. 21, on the rise of the universities.
Adamson reminds us scholars that hasn't been possible to be conversant in all the relevant literature in one's field since at least the 13th C. Helps make me feel a little less inadequate.
Every single time I read about the formation and development of the medieval universities in the 13th C, I can't help but think modern universities would be well served to return to their medieval governance structures...
"both sides might invoke a wide range of authorities: everyone from Aristotle to Augustine to Avicenna and Averroes, or even occasionally an author whose name didn't start with A" (p. 147).
It's a fact that in medieval Europe, A-names are disproportionately popular. 1/2
It's a fact that in medieval Europe, A-names are disproportionately popular. 1/2
It's an onomastic puzzle that I've always wanted to be able to solve -- it's not that more people were named with A-names than other names, but that there were more names beginning with A than with other letters (cf. dmnes.org/names for some evidence). But why?? 2/2
And with chapter 21 we come to the end of Part I. Next up, Part II: The Thirteenth Century. I hadn't realised I'd become a 13th C girl until someone described me as such, but it's not wrong: 1240-1260 is one of my favorite medieval eras, at least when it comes to logic.
