Duns Scotus

[Godlovesmetwo]

Not a fan of this narrator's voice but a useful clip for those of us short on theology.

 

[Godlovesmetwo]

I think I prefer this guy over Aquinas. (not that I've read summa theoligica)
Criticism of Aquinas overreliance on logic and rational thinking? Too much Aristotlean influence?
I'm not about to rubbish Aquinas, such an iconic Catholic theologian. But I just find writers like Scotus more accessible. I think Davidnic mentioned something about the monastic tradition being a different perspective?

 

[Godlovesmetwo]

The will is superior to the intellect?

 

[FireDragon76]

The will is superior to the intellect?

This is the beginning of the sort of stuff that shaped the theological world around Luther.

Ryan Reeves presentations are pretty good. He's a conservative Reformed type but overall he doesn't let that bias him too much.

 

[FireDragon76]

You should also watch the one on William of Occam. He's the one that influenced Protestants the most, the one that set the stage intellectually. He also was probably the first expositor of something like "the modern mind" we all take for granted today in western societies. Occam's thinking was very influential at the time of Luther in Germany. Post-Tridentine Catholicism did a turn back to Aquinas and made him practically the last word in theology after the reformation.

Aquinas only influenced Luther and Calvin to a small degree, but Occam was the edgy voice poking at the western medieval consenus for centuries after he lived. I'm not saying he was bad, just something Catholics often overlook (because he died excommunicated, on the outs, perhaps?).

 

[Godlovesmetwo]

You should also watch the one on William of Occam. He's the one that influenced Protestants the most, the one that set the stage intellectually. He also was probably the first expositor of something like "the modern mind" we all take for granted today in western societies. Occam's thinking was very influential at the time of Luther in Germany. Post-Tridentine Catholicism did a turn back to Aquinas and made him practically the last word in theology after the reformation.

Aquinas only influenced Luther and Calvin to a small degree, but Occam was the edgy voice poking at the western medieval consenus for centuries after he lived. I'm not saying he was bad, just something Catholics often overlook (because he died excommunicated, on the outs, perhaps?).

I don't know enough on these guys, not to have an open mind.
As you posted on Kierkegaard as well FireD, where do you stand with the intellectual/rational rational approach versus other perspectives such Subjectivism? Are you a fan of the monastic/mystical perspective? Or am I confusing all these ideas?

 

[FireDragon76]

I don't know enough on these guys, not to have an open mind.
As you posted on Kierkegaard as well FireD, where do you stand with the intellectual/rational rational approach versus other perspectives such Subjectivism? Are you a fan of the monastic/mystical perspective? Or am I confusing all these ideas?

That's a big question. I've been all over the place, though generally I'd say I prefer the mystical and subjective. Esp. because many of the scholastics made a lot of assumptions at times, leaps of logic, that seem difficult to justify. My pastor loaned me a book by Martin Chemnitz (Lutheran scholastic) and it actually made me feel like I was having to do homework all over again (Luther is way more fun, interesting, and authentic).

I think what Catholics have done with phenomenology is good stuff, it's pointing in the right direction.

The Protestant approach is really odd for me, in comparison, and clunky. But in some ways its more liberating, because well, there is no hierarchy or magisterium. Protestant theology is more like studying law or being a literary critic, making your case based on study of precedent concepts and texts. Not really philosophical. And of course postmodernism really scares conservative Protestants because postmodernism is doing to textual studies what the Franciscans like Scotus and Occam did to medieval theology.

Protestantism is sort of the inevitable result of the Franciscan approach that became so trendy in the late middle ages, the bad boys poking at Aquinas. Franciscans were the original Biblicists and literalists, starting with Francis himself, and it stayed part of their theology. (though a good part of Luther is down to Rhineland mystics like Ekchart and his disciples, not to mention just medieval folk religion- Luthers disciples did not necessarily share his mystical proclivities).

From a philosophical standpoint, I prefer phenomenology and existentialism. So I guess that's the study of subjectivity. I'd lump mysticism in there too, as its more focused on subjectivity though it has more of a religiously defined landscape.

 

[Godlovesmetwo]

I think what Catholics like John Paul II and Francis have done with phenomenology is good stuff, it's pointing in the right direction.

I am familiar with phenomonolgy, having studied some Counselling units on people such as Fritz Pearls and Gestalt. value of the here and now in the counselling session...

 

[Godlovesmetwo]

From a philosophical standpoint, I prefer phenomenology and existentialism. So I guess that's the study of subjectivity. I'd lump mysticism in there too, as its more focused on subjectivity though it has more of a religiously defined landscape.

I do too. Only because I'm not good at debating.
I admire logical rationalists but it just gives me a headache to read arguments and I feel like I'm only using the cold clinical part of my brain anyway.

 

[Godlovesmetwo]

I think one of the points Scotus makes is that we shouldn't put God in a nice neat box. Which is what our left hemisphere tends to do?
If I can make a crude analogy: under the influence of certain drugs we can think more fluidly, more creatively. Our ego doesn't need the right, correct answer. It tolerates ambiguity, less linear, more open to evolving naturally.

 

[Godlovesmetwo]

The Protestant approach is really odd for me, in comparison, and clunky. But in some ways its more liberating, because well, there is no hierarchy or magisterium.

I think I struggle with that too. Like the army. Chain of command. Don't think too much, just follow what we say, and you'll be OK.

 

[FireDragon76]

I think one of the points Scotus makes is that we shouldn't put God in a nice neat box. Which is what our left hemisphere tends to do?
If I can make a crude analogy: under the influence of certain drugs we can think more fluidly, more creatively. Our ego doesn't need the right, correct answer. It tolerates ambiguity, less linear, more open to evolving naturally.

Orthodox theology works that way, not as precise as Catholicism. Part of asceticism is learning to appreciate the mystery.

And I guess, if you get more tolerant of ambiguity, you start to see the distinctions as too fine. Honestly I find a lot of old time Roman Catholic theology this way, making too fine a distinction. It actually can cause more anxiety, if you are used to dealing with vagueness. On the positive side, Roman Catholics are sharper than the Orthodox at moral theology at times. I found this offputting in Orthodoxy in some ways. You have a theological energy that is often driven by people without alot of intellecual curiosity about the word. Good hearts, good wills... sure- as they understand it. But sometimes not the intellectual curiosity (one exception I would say is someone like Bishop Lazar Puhalo in Canada, he has both. Somebody like him could potentially be a bridge between the two).

I think part of what Pope Francis is dealing with is he's operating at a higher meta-ethical level above what the typical Catholic is trained to do. He's penetrating farther into reality with the phenomenological approach, the importance of certain things shift once you see a bigger picture. And it's confusing some people, and of course some of the religious leaders don't like that. But he has to balance the fear and confusion with the faithfulness to his vision.

Hmm... maybe I do appreciate the intellect after all?