 Chapter 46 The Mystic School The revival of the principles of mysticism was a natural result of the decadent condition of philosophy during the 14th and 15th centuries. The heaping of subtlety and subtlety, and the interminable controversies of the advocates of Thomism and Scotism, bewildered and disgusted the serious seeker after spiritual light, and drove him eventually to abandon all intellectual philosophy in favor of a life of contemplation and prayer. Many believed with the author of the imitation of Christ that it is better to feel contrition than to know its definition, and that he is very learned indeed who does the will of God and renounces his own will. However, the condemnation of philosophy by the mystics reacted under mystics themselves. Being unwilling to enter into the disputes of the schools and obeying to the letter their resolve to abstain from philosophical speculation, they were unable to detect error when it was introduced into their own school. They judged all philosophy by the decadent systems which then flourished, and in their depreciation of purely rational speculation, they overlooked the fact that without the safeguard of systematic dogma, mysticism is unable to resist the inroads of pantheism and other errors. Thus it happened that the first mystics, who drew from the pure Christian sources, were soon followed by others, who drew from sources tainted with the pantheism of the Avaroists. We must distinguish, therefore, the orthodox mystics and the heterodox mystics. John Ruesbroek 1293-1381 may be regarded as the founder of the orthodox mysticism of this period. After having been chaplain of St. Gudely at Brussels, he retired to the convent of the Augustinians at Grenendale, where he gave himself to the study and practice of asceticism. Through Gerhard Groth, 1340-1384, the founder of the Brothers of the Common Life, the influence of Ruesbroek reached the members of the community at Deventer, among whom was Thomas Hammerken, or a campus, 1380-1471, the author of the imitation of Christ. Gerson Life The most influential of the orthodox mystics of the 14th and 15th centuries was John Gerson, Dr. Christianissimos. He was born at Gerson in the Diocese of Rheims, about the year 1364. After having studied under Peter Dailly in the faculty of Lawrence at Paris, he entered the department of theology and in 1395 became chancellor of the university. In 1397 he went to Bruges, where he made acquaintance of the Flemish exponents of mysticism. In 1401 he returned to Paris, but about the year 1419 was obliged to retire from the university for having advocated the cause of the opponents of papal authority. He entered the monastery of the Celestines at Lyon, and there devoted himself to prayer and study. He died in the year 1429. His works, which were published in 1483, include the Theologia Mystica Speculativa, the Theologia Mystica Practica, the Elucidazione Scolastica Mystica Teologia, and many other treatises on philosophy, theology, and canon law. Daterans Gerson was opposed equally to the formalism of the Scotists and to the terminism of the Archimists. Indeed he was opposed to all philosophy, except insofar as philosophy is seasoned with piety. In a sermon de Omnibus Sanctis, he condemns those self-dubbed philosophers who separate philosophy from the practice of religion. In the treatise de Mystica Teologia Speculativa, he describes contemplative ecstasy after the manner and almost in the words of his favorite author, Saint Benaventure. Est Dennis the Cartusian Life Dennis the Cartusian, Dr. Ecstaticus, was born at Rickel in the Belgian province of Limburg in 1402. After having obtained the degree of Master of Arts at Cologne, he entered the Cartusian monastery at Rouremonde. He died in 1471. A complete edition of the works of the Cartusian is being published by the monks of Notre-Dame-des-Prés. The 18th volume appeared in 1899. Doctrines Dennis carefully avoids entering into the subtleties of the controversies which were agitating the schools of his day. Impertenentes subtletades vitare propono. In the main, his system of philosophy and theology is Thalmystic. He considers, however, all speculative knowledge to be merely an introduction to the interior life of contemplation and ecstasy. In the mystic elements of his system, he draws largely from the pseudo Dionysius. The Averroism which prevailed during the 14th and 15th centuries, whether openly professed as it was by John of Gent, or John of Jean-Den, erroneously called John of Gent, or thought more covertly as it was in different forms by John de Mercourt and Guido of Medonta, took the form of an anti-scholastic movement tending towards a revival of the pantheism of the 12th century. A similar tendency towards pantheism led some of the mystics of this time to maintain the identity of the creature with the creator in the act of contemplative ecstasy, a doctrine which was repudiated by orthodox mystics. Some of the first heterodox mystics, such as Eckhart, show little or no trace of Averroistic influence. It was under societies or brotherhoods of mystics that the Averroists brought their pantheistic doctrines to bear, thus widening the gulf between true and false mysticism. Eckhart. Master Eckhart, or Eckhart, was born in the year 1260. He studied first at Cologne and afterwards at Paris. He belonged to the Order of Saint Dominic. In 1326 the Archbishop of Cologne instituted proceedings against Eckhart, who was then teaching in the convent of his Order at Cologne. Eckhart repelled the charge of heresy, and in 1327 appealed to the Holy See. He died in 1327. In 1329, 28 propositions taken from his writings were condemned by John 22. Doctrines. In his Latin work entitled Opus Tripartitum and in his sermons Written German, Eckhart advocated a system of mysticism in which he maintained the disappearance of all distinction between the creator and the creature in the act of contemplation. He taught that the supreme happiness of man consists in a deification by which man becomes one with God. Henry Souso died 1366 and John Tauler, 1290 to 1361, who were influenced by Eckhart's mystic doctrines, prepared the way for the Protestant mysticism of Sebastian Frank 1500 to 1545, Valentin Weigel, 1533 to 1588, and Jacob Böhme, 1575 to 1624, which together with the Kabbalistic mysticism of John Roslin, 1455 to 1522, flourished in the Renaissance period. 47 Nicholas of Autrecourt. Life. Nicholas of Autrecourt illustrates by his career as well as by his doctrines the deplorable condition into which achemism and avarroism had plunged philosophical speculation about the middle of the 14th century. In 1340, while Nicholas was still a mere bachelor of theology at the University of Paris, he was cited together with six other students of theology to appear before Benedict XII to answer to the charge of disseminating erroneous doctrines. Six years later, he was condemned, and in 1347 he renounced his errors. Doctrines. Aru and the editors of the Cartularium publish a document in which is preserved a sample of the Sophistic reasoning employed by Nicholas. The only principle which is immediately evident is the principle of contradiction. To this principle, therefore, every proposition must be reduced in order that its truth may be demonstrated. Now it is evident that an identical proposition, such as A equals A, is the only proposition to which the principle of contradiction can be applied. It follows that identical propositions are the only propositions that can be proved to be true. The law of casualty, the existence of the external world, the existence of the faculties of the soul cannot be demonstrated because they cannot be reduced to the principle of contradiction. Not content with these conclusions, which are virtually a profession of phenomenalism, Nicholas of Othekour goes so far as to call into question the principle of contradiction itself, thus ending in absolute skepticism. He denies the existence of substantial changes, explaining that such changes take place by means of combinations of atoms. In his theological doctrines, Nicholas advocates the theological determinism, denial of free will on the part of God, which was formulated by Thomas Bradwardin in his celebrated treatise De Causa Dei contra Pellagium, 1344. Historical position The doctrine of theological determinism shows the influence of the ultra-realism of the Avaroists, while the Sophistic method employed by Nicholas of Othekour betrays the influence of the method, if not of the doctrines, of Akam. These two factors, Avaroism and Akamism, brought about the degeneration of scholasticism even before the dawn of the modern era, and the appearance of the forces which caused the complete disintegration of the scholastic system. Retrospect It is not necessary to point out the signs of decay and dissolution which mark the fourth period in the history of scholasticism. The effort to simplify scholastic philosophy was no doubt intended as a reform. It aimed at correcting an evil which really existed. The process, however, of pruning the superabundant growth of philosophy was carried to the extent of cutting out the very core of scholasticism. Durandus, Aureolus, and Akam, by setting aside as useless the most essential elements of scholastic philosophy, did more harm to scholasticism than even the Avaroists had done. For it was Akam and his followers, who, by neglecting the serious study of the great masters of the school, contributed to bring about that profound ignorance of the real doctrines of scholasticism which at the opening of the new era rendered impossible the alliance of the schoolmen with the advocates of the new science. The Avaroists wrought irreparable injury to scholasticism both directly and indirectly, directly by their doctrines of determinism and of the unity of the active intellect, as well as by their principle that what is true in theology may be false in philosophy, indirectly by their peculiar method which was known as ipsidixitism. The Avaroists outdid the Thomists and Scotists in their reverence for the word of the master. They gloried in the title of Aristotle's monkey, or Avaroist's monkey, and when the Renaissance came, and the antagonism between science and philosophy arose out of the misunderstandings of the philosophers and the scientists, the greatest source of misunderstanding was the failure of the scientists to distinguish between the method of the earlier schoolmen and that of the degenerate scholastics who had fallen into the ways of the Avaroists and had begun to test all truth by an appeal to the authority of the master. Before we turn to the study of the modern era, it is necessary to give here a general idea of the character of scholastic philosophy. Character of Scholastic Philosophy Scholastic philosophy had its origin, as we have seen, in the foundation of the Carolingian schools, an event which was the beginning of an intellectual renaissance of Europe in no way inferior in importance to the humanistic renaissance of the 15th century. The philosophy of the schools resulted from an attempt to dispel the intellectual darkness of the age of barbarian rule, and throughout the course of its development it bore the mark of its origin. The schoolmen were the defenders of the rites of reason, and if mysticism retarded, and rationalism compromised the scholastic movements, the success of mysticism and rationalism was merely temporary. Abelard and Gilbert de la Poré were succeeded by Alexander of Hales, Albert the Great, and Saint Thomas of Aquinn, who, while they avoided the errors into which their predecessors had fallen, adopted the idea of method for which their predecessors had contended, and succeeded in winning over even the most unyielding of the orthodox to a recognition of the just claims of human reason. The attitude of the great schoolmen towards the rites of reason appears most strikingly in the scholastic use of dialectic as a means of arriving at a knowledge of natural truth and of obtaining a scientific, albeit an imperfect, grasp of the meaning of the mysteries of faith. The use of dialectic by the schoolmen was determined by the conditions in which scholasticism developed. Until the end of the 12th century, the schoolmen's knowledge of Greek philosophy was virtually limited to an acquaintance with Aristotle's logical treatises. When, however, Aristotle's metaphysical and psychological works were introduced into Christian Europe, the schoolmen began to construct a system of speculation based on Aristotelian metaphysics and psychology. The problem of universals, which the preceding centuries had discussed from the dialectician's point of view, was now successfully solved by the application of the principles of Aristotle's psychology. The notions of substance, person, nature, accident, mode, potency, and act were developed with the aid of Aristotle's metaphysical doctrines, and a theory of knowledge was formulated from his principles of epistemology. Still, the adoption of Aristotelianism as the basis of a system of speculative thought and the application of Aristotelianism to a rational exposition of Christian dogma must not be taken as the essential trait of scholasticism. For scholastic philosophy was eclectic in the truest sense of the word. While preserving a correct idea of systematic cohesiveness, it admitted elements of truth from whatever source they were derived, whether from Aristotle or from Plato, from the Stoics or from the Epicureans, from the writers of the patristic age, or from the Greek and Arabian commentators. The trait which even more than the use of dialectic or the adoption of Aristotelianism characterized the philosophy of the schools is the effort on the part of the schoolmen to unify philosophy and theology, to discover and demonstrate the harmony of natural truth with truth of the supernatural order. This is the thought which inspired the first speculative attempts of the schoolmen, and which, after having manifested itself in so widely different forms in the philosophy of original, of Abelard and of Saint Anselm, was finally crystallized in the principles in which Saint Thomas enunciated his definition of the relations between reason and faith. The day has long gone by when a historian could, without fear of contradiction and protest, represents scholastic philosophy as the subjugation of reason to authority. It is now universally conceded that the phrase Ancila Theologiae implied no servility on the part of philosophy, but rather the honorable service of carrying the torch by which the path of theology is lighted. Aho declares that one has but to look at the vast number of volumes which the schoolmen wrote to realize how much value they attached to philosophy, and how inexorably they felt the need of exercising their reason. Indeed, it is only the most superficial student of history who fails to recognize in the middle ages a period of immense intellectual activity, and the more the philosophy of that period is studied, the deeper becomes the conviction that the schoolmen were far from failing to recognize the rights of human reason. If then scholastic philosophy affected the most perfect conciliation of reason with faith, we must not take it for granted that the conciliation was brought about at the cost of the independence of philosophy. The schoolmen were as far removed from thideism as they were from rationalism. They attached independent value to philosophy as well as to theology, while they contended that philosophy and theology can never contradict each other. In this way, and herein lies the philosophical significance of scholastic philosophy, the schoolmen established between the natural and the supernatural the relation which the Greeks had established between matter and spirit, the relation of distinction without opposition. This doctrine of the continuity and independence of the natural with respect to the supernatural order of truth is the core of scholasticism. It is by this that scholasticism is distinguished from Greek philosophy, of which the cheap defect as well as the paramount merit was its complete naturalness. It is by this too that scholasticism is distinguished from the philosophy of the new era. Modern philosophy, post-reformation philosophy as it may be called, was born of the revolt of philosophy against theology, of reason against faith. It adopted at the very outset the averouistic principle that what is true in theology may be false in philosophy, a principle diametrically opposed to the thought which inspired scholasticism. Indeed, in the first-grade system which appeared in the modern era not only is philosophy divorced from theology but the mind is placed in complete antithesis to matter. For in Descartes philosophy, the spirit of disintegration which characterizes the modern era is subversive not only of the work of the schoolmen but also of the best achievements of Greek speculation. Scholasticism distinguishes without separating. Modern philosophy either fails altogether to distinguish fideism, monism or distinguishes and separates rationalism, Cartesian spiritualism. It remains to point out the difference in character between scholastic philosophy and the philosophy of the patristic era. The fathers as well as the schoolmen taught as indeed all Christian philosophers must teach that revelation cannot contradict reason, nor reason revelation. But although the fathers employed reason in order to elucidate revelation, they did not carry the use of dialectic to the extent to which the schoolmen subsequently carried it. In Ultimate Resort, they insisted on the ascetical religious rather than on the logical quality of mind as a condition requisite for the attainment of higher knowledge. Moreover, the fathers were, with few exceptions, Platonists, while the schoolmen were practically all Aristotelians. Finally, while the fathers, in conditions more or less unfavorable to constructive effort, affected a partial synthesis of the speculative elements of Christian thought, the schoolmen in a rejuvenated and completely Christianized Europe, in an age in which every circumstance was favorable to synthetic speculation, completed the synthesis begun in the patristic age and developed a philosophy which is as different from the philosophy of the patristic era as the neo-Latin Europe of the 13th century is from the decadent Latin Europe of the 5th and of chapters 46 and 47. Chapters 48 and 49. Part 2, Section C of History of Philosophy. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. History of Philosophy by William Tyler Part 2, Section C, Modern Philosophy Division. The period extending from the middle of the 15th century to the beginning of the 17th was one of intellectual ferment in which the philosophy of the schools gradually disappeared and modern philosophy came to be more and more definitely distinguishable. During the first half of the 17th century, Descartes expounded and defended the first great system of the new philosophy, a system which dominated the whole course of thought during that century and served as a starting point for the principal systems of the following century. Towards the end of the 18th century however, an age of criticism was inaugurated in opposition to the dogmatism and empiricism of the Cartesian philosophy and its derivatives, so that at the opening of the 19th century we find a new error in which the predominating influence is that of Kant. We have therefore the following division of modern philosophy. First period, transition from scholastic to modern philosophy, 1450 to 1600. Second period, from Descartes to Kant, 1600 to 1800. Third period, from Kant to our own time, 1800 to 1900. First period, transition from scholastic to modern philosophy. The change from scholastic to modern philosophy was gradual and while its course is not easy to follow, the causes which led to the change are not far to seek. First among these must be mentioned the decay of scholasticism itself, the representatives of scholastic philosophy in the 15th and 16th centuries seem for the most part to have completely forgotten the principles of the classic scholasticism of the 13th century. Visiting themselves with subtleties too refined to be grasped even by the learned, they utterly neglected the study of the scientific movement of their own day, and, in defiance of the method sanctioned by usage in the schools of the golden age of scholasticism, raised the argument from authority to a position of undue importance. There were, however, as we shall see, some notable exceptions to this. The decay of philosophical speculation in the schools and universities of the 15th and 16th centuries, the humanistic movement, the rapid progress of the natural sciences and the influence of the first reformers contributed to bring about the transition from scholastic to modern philosophy. Mention must also be made of the political condition of the times, the disintegration of the idea of a united christian empire, the growth of the idea of the political individuality of nations, the discovery of America, the invention of the art of printing, all of which necessitated a development and adaptation of speculative thought to the changed conditions of the time. That scholastic philosophy was capable of such development and adaptation must be admitted by all who recognise that thought is continuous in its historical evolution. And if such development and adaptation did not take place, the fault lay with those who failed to put scholasticism in its true light at this, the most critical period in its history. Chapter 48. Scholastics of the Transition Period The exigencies of religious controversy arising out of the doctrines of the reformers brought about a revival of theological activity in the catholic schools and universities of this period. The development of theological speculation naturally inspired the effort to restore and supplement the philosophy of the scholastics of the 13th century. When, therefore, the charge of frivolity and master worship is made against the scholastics of the 15th and 16th centuries, exception must be made in favour of those schoolmen who went back to the sources of genuine scholasticism and commented on the works of St Thomas and Scotus. Chief among the commentators of St Thomas are Paulus Barbas Sonsinus, died 1494, who followed in the footsteps of Capriolis, Thomas de Vio Cajetanus, Cajetan, 1469-1534, who wrote what is still considered the classic commentary on the summer theologica of St Thomas and Francis Asilvestris of Ferrara, Ferrariensis, 1474-1528, who composed a masterly commentary on the summer contra gentile. Mention must likewise be made of the theologians Melchior Cano, 1509-1560, Dominicus de Soto, 1494-1560, Dominicus Banyas, 1528-1604, who commented on the summer theologica and of John of St Thomas, 1589-1644, who wrote a cursus filosoficus ad exactam Veram, a genuina meristotilis, a doctoris angelicae menta. Under the influence of these Dominicans and that of the great Carmelite teachers, New Zest was given to the study of St Thomas at Salamanca and Alcala, while at the same time a new form of Thomism was developed by the Jesuit teachers at Quimbra and at other centres of learning in the Iberian Peninsula. With this neo-Thomism is associated the establishment of the School of Jesuit Theology at the Roman College. It was there that Vasquez, 1551-1604 and Toletus, 1532-1596, taught, who influenced to a great extent the subsequent development of Catholic theology. Among the Jesuits who taught at Quimbra, the best known is Fonseca, 1528-1599. Suarez, 1548-1617, the ableist and most distinguished of the Jesuit theologians and philosophers of this time, is associated with the intellectual prestige of Salamanca, Quimbra, Alcala and Rome. His works, which include 23 folio volumes, contain, besides commentaries on the works of St Thomas, treatises which, like the Disputacionas Metaphysicae, are important as independent contributions to the literature of scholastic philosophy. The principal representatives of the philosophy of Scotus are John the Englishman, died 1483, Johann Magistri, died 1482, Antonius Trombetta, died 1518 and Maurice the Irishman, 1463-1513. The philosophical significance of these teachers consists in the serious effort which they made to understand and expound the works of their predecessors, the great masters of scholastic philosophy. Chapter 49, The Humanists The movement known as the Renaissance is commonly said to date from the reign of Nicholas V, 1447. The principles, however, as well as the spirit of the movement, had appeared during the first years of the 15th century and were propagated and fostered by the Greek scholars who flocked to Italy after the fall of Constantinople, 1453. The Renaissance reached its golden age during the reign of Leo X, 1513. It consisted in a revival of the study of Greek and Roman classics, attention being paid to the form rather than to the contents of classical literature. The representatives of the movement were called humanists, in allusion to their opposition to the scholastics who were alleged to have insisted on the divine or supernatural to the exclusion of the human or natural elements in their philosophical and theological and above all in their literary labours. The Renaissance is of interest primarily and essentially to the historian of literature. Secondarily, however, and as it were accidentally, it vitally affected the fate of scholastic philosophy and contributed to the transition from medieval to modern modes of thought. The humanists claimed the privilege of ridiculing and attacking the schoolmen and such was the deplorably degenerate condition of scholasticism at that time that the ridicule was often deserved and almost always successful. But, not content with censuring what was deserving of censure, the humanists went so far as to condemn the entire system of scholastic philosophy and to include in their condemnation the work of the 13th century masters whose doctrines they never seriously attempted to understand. While lauding the literary excellence of the pagan classics, they lost no opportunity of defaming the great representatives of Christian thought. They were detractores, as well as lorda torres, temporis acti. In addition to this general opposition of the humanists to the learning of the schools, they appeared among the representatives of the Renaissance a more direct form of anti-scholasticism in the shape of a revival of the doctrines of the Platonic Academy. Gemgemistus Pletho, a Greek scholar who had attended the Council of Florence as ambassador of the Emperor John the Ape, inspired Cosmo de Medici with the idea of founding the Platonic Academy at Florence. He was aided in the work of expounding Platonism by Cardinal Bessarion 1403-1472 who was also a Greek among the Italian humanists Lorenzo Valla, 1400-1457, Marcio Ficino, 1433-1499, Giovanni Piccoli della Mirandola, died 1494, and his nephew Giovanni Francesco Piccoli della Mirandola, died 1533, distinguished themselves by the violence and acrimony with which they attacked the Aristotelians. At the same time, Theodore of Gaza died 1478 and George of Treveson, 1396-1484, rose into prominence as defenders of the philosophy of Aristotelianism. Not only Platonism and Aristotelianism, but also Stoicism and Epicureanism had their representatives among the humanists. Justice Lipsius, Joseph Lips, 1547-1606 and Casper Schoep, born 1562, revived the doctrines of the Stoa, while Cassendi, 1592-1655, reproduced the essential doctrines of Epicureanism. Paracelsus, 1493-1541, undertook the reform of medical science and developed a system of speculative thought in which chemistry and theosophy are mingled in the most fantastic manner. His influence is noticeable in the writings of Robert Flood, died 1637, and in those of the two, Van Helmonds, died 1644 and 1699. Skepticism, a natural outcome of the intellectual confusion of the times, was represented in France by Montagne, 1533-1592 and Pierre Caron, 1541-1603 and in Portugal by Francisco Sanchez, died 1632. Far more important than these attempts of some of the humanists to restore the Platonism, Stoicism, Epicureanism and Pyreneism of ancient times, was the controversy waged by the various interpreters of Aristotel on the question of the immortality of the soul. Pietro Pomponazzi, or Pomponatius, 1462-1530, maintained that the Alexandrian interpreters understood Aristotel to teach that the human soul is mortal, and contended that this was the genuine mind of the Stadioact. Akeline, Nifo, Nifus and others followed the avaristic interpretation and contended that the separate or impersonal soul alone is immortal, the individual soul being immortal according to theology, but mortal according to philosophy. Of great importance, too, was the anti-Aristotelian movement inaugurated by Petrus Rammus, Pierre de la Rame, slain in the massacre of St Bartholomew's day, 1572, who opposed the accepted Aristotelian system of logic and, in his treatises, Aristotelica and Imad Verciones and Institucione's dialecticae attempted to formulate a new system of logical doctrine. From the ferment thought occasioned by the mingling of all these elements, there emerged a more or less definite system of naturalism known as the Italian philosophy of nature. CHAPTER 50 This school is characterized by naturalism and a tendency towards pantheism. Cardano, 1501 to 1576, a Milanese physician, was the first to formulate the principles of modern naturalism. These principles were reduced to a system of speculative thought by the Calabrian Bernardino Telesio, 1508 to 1588, who is, therefore, regarded as the founder of the school. In his work Dererum Natura Juxtapropria Principia, he advocates the use of the empirical method of investigating nature and formulates a system according to which the universe results from the combination of three principles, matter, heat and cold. Patrizzi, 1529 to 1597, in his Nova de Universis filosofia, combined the doctrines of neoplatonism with the naturalism of Telesio and thus imparted to the school its pantheistic tendency. These pantheistic principles reached their logical development in the full-blown systems of pantheism of Bruno and Campanella. Giordano Bruno, Life Giordano Bruno was born at Nola in Campania in the year 1548. At an early age he entered the order of Saint Dominic, but his distaste for scholasticism and his enthusiasm for the writings of Telesio developed before long a spirit of dissatisfaction with his order and with the teachings of the church. Discarding the garb of religion he wandered through Italy, France, England and Germany and is said finally to have joined the reformed church. Apparently, however, he found protestantism as distasteful as the religion he had abandoned. Returning to Italy, 1592, he was arrested by the inquisition at Venice and was burned at a stake in Rome in the year 1600. His principal works are Della Causa, Principio et Uno and Del Infinito Universo e dei Mondi. Doctrines Bruno's philosophy is a system of naturalistic pantheism. Its pivotal thoughts are the doctrine of the identity of God with the world and the Copernican idea of the physical universe. God, he teaches, is identical with the universe for the universe is infinite and there cannot be two infinities. God is, therefore, the sum of all being and the phenomena or accidental forms of being which exist are merely the unfolding explicato of the immensity of God. He is the original matter of the universe and on this point Bruno cites the authority of David of Dinant as well as the primitive form the world soul which vivifies the original matter. Indeed, these two, matter and form, not only interpenetrate each other but are absolutely identical. God is also the final cause of all things, for to him, the God universe, all things are constantly returning. The universe is, therefore, essentially one. The Aristotelian distinction between Celestial and Terrestrial matter can no longer be maintained. The stars are part of our solar system or are themselves suns surrounded by planets and forming part of the one great system which is the universe. It is in this portion of his philosophy that Bruno makes use of the discoveries of Copernicus. The universe is ruled by law. There is no place for human freedom in this system of determinism. The soul is an emanation from the divine universe and all organisms are composed of living monads, each of which reflects all reality. Tomasso Campanella Life Tomasso Campanella was born in Calabria in the year 1568. In 1583 he entered the Order of Saint Dominic. Arrested on suspicion of conspiring against the Spanish rule, he was cast into a dungeon at Naples. After spending 27 years in prison, he escaped to Paris, where he died in 1639. His most important work is Universalis filosofia. Doctrines Campanella's philosophy is the resultant of various influences, chief among which are the naturalism of Télesion, the Greek Pyrrhonism restored by the humanists, and the enthusiasm for the study of nature which resulted from the discoveries made by Copernicus and Galileo. Campanella starts by inquiring into the conditions of knowledge. The veracity of the external senses rests on the testimony of the inner sense. On this inner sense rests also the belief in my own existence and in the existence of God. The inner sense testifies, moreover, to the existence of three functions in my own soul, power, knowledge and volition. By thinking away the limitations of the power, knowledge and volition of which I am conscious, I arrive at an idea of an infinite being possessed of omnipotence, infinite wisdom and infinite love. These three are then the pro-principles of infinite being. They are also the pro-principles of created being. For all creatures are endowed with life, feeling and desire. They all proceed from God and they desire to return to Him as is evident from the universality of the creature's dread of annihilation. This desire of the creature to return to the Creator is a kind of religion, and so far is atheism from being true that the most universal of all phenomena is the religious tendency by which every created being proclaims the existence of God. This thought is developed by Campanella in a treatise entitled Atheismus Triumphatus. In the Zivita solis Campanella outlines his ideal scheme of political government. The scheme is based on the idea of the divine government of the worlds communicated through the papacy to a world monarchy and through this to the individual kingdoms, provinces and cities. Historical Position The Italian School of Natural Philosophy resulted from the repudiation of scholasticism by the humanists and the inauguration, by scientific discoveries, of a new era of nature study. The extraordinary enthusiasm with which the contemporaries of Copernicus and Galileo addressed themselves to the study of natural phenomena is seen in the naturalistic pantheism of the Italian School no less clearly than in the extravagance of the Paracelsists and others who devoted themselves to the occult sciences and the practice of magic. But whatever may be said of the occultists and magicians, it is certain that the scientific discoveries would never have led to naturalism and pantheism if the principles of scholastic philosophy had not fallen into discredit. Let us pass, therefore, to the study of the scientific movement and its influence on scholastic philosophy. Chapter 51 The Scientific Movement The forerunner of the great scientific movement of the 16th century was Nicolaus of Cusa, 1401 to 1464. Nicolaus was born at Cues or Cusa near Treves in 1401. At an early age he joined the community of the brothers of the common life at Deventer. Later he studied law, mathematics and philosophy at Padua, but finally decided to abandon the legal profession and took holy orders. In 1448 he was made cardinal and two years later was appointed to the sea of Bricson. He died at Taudi in Umbria in 1464. His most important works are the treaties The Docta Ignorancia and the dialogue entitled Idiote de Sapienza Libre III. These were published at Paris in 1514 and at Basel in 1565. In his speculative philosophy, Nicolaus occupies a position intermediate between Aristotelian and modern thought. He insists with special emphasis on the doctrine of the unity of opposites, coincidencia oppositorum, and on the principle that the beginning of true wisdom is the knowledge of one's own ignorance, Docta Ignorancia. Among his astronomical teachings is that of the rotation of the earth on its axis, a doctrine to which Copernicus subsequently gave scientific form. Nicolaus Copernicus 1473 to 1543 was born at Thorn in Poland in 1473. After studying at Cracow, Bologna and Padua he became canon of Frauenburg. In a treaties the Orbion Celestium Revoluzionibus, which appeared in 1543 and was dedicated to Pope Paul III, he defended the heliocentric system of astronomy and definitely placed the earth among the solar planets. Thichobrahe 1546 to 1601 furnished by his accurate observations materials for the work of Kepler. Johannes Kepler 1571 to 1638 gave further development to the heliocentric hypothesis by discovering the form of planetary orbits and the laws of planetary motions. Galileo Galilei 1564 to 1642 taught the twofold motion of the earth and discovered the satellites of Jupiter and the laws of their motions. The discoveries of Boyle 1627 to 1691 and of Newton 1642 to 1727 were as important in the department of physics as were those of Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo in the department of astronomy. All these, however, are of interest to the student of philosophy principally because of their effect on the course of speculative thought. Influence of scientific discoveries on the development of philosophy. The attitude which Catholic and Protestant theologians of the 16th century assumed towards the discoveries of Galileo and Kepler is well known. The antagonism, however, between the old and the new modes of thought resulted from a misunderstanding. There is no inherent contradiction between the broad principles of Aristotelian and scholastic philosophy on the one hand and the new physics and astronomy on the other. Aristotle had advocated the investigation of nature and the greatest of the schoolmen had insisted on the importance of building a science of nature on the basis of empirical knowledge. Saint Thomas in a remarkable passage had acknowledged the possible advent of a theory which would subvert the entire structure of Aristotelian astronomy. In reference to the hypothesis, suppositiones, by which the ancient astronomer is attempted to explain the irregularities of the motions of the planets, he had written Minibus Comprehensum Apparentia Circas de las Salvatore. The scholastics, therefore, who attacked the representatives of the new science, were false to the principles of their school. Had they known and fully felt the spirit of Aristotelian and scholastic philosophy, they should have put an end to their fruitless discussions, shaken off the yoke of a false method, and gone forth with the representatives of the new science to investigate nature. They should have adopted as their motto and taken the lead in the advance guard of discovery. Instead of doing this, they antagonized science, so that when the new age dominated by the scientific spirit sought to found a system of metaphysics, it never for a moment considered that in the Aristotelian and scholastic system of philosophy it already possessed the metaphysics which best accorded with the results of scientific discovery. When, therefore, we study the causes of the misunderstanding between science and scholastic philosophy, we must lay the burden of the blame on the shoulders of the degenerate representatives of scholasticism, who, by betraying at the critical moment of its history the great system which they were supposed to defend, did that system a wrong which all the efforts of their successors have not succeeded in writing. The discredit of scholasticism was due not to a lack of ideas, but to a lack of men to set forth those ideas in the proper light. Moreover, if we are to vindicate scholasticism at the expense of scholastics, we must not overlook the dependence of the scientific movement itself on scholastic philosophy. Humanism grew out of scholastic soil and owed more to scholastic vigor and clearness of thinking than we are commonly aware of. The scientific revival also owes much to the learning of the schools. Columbus and Copernicus, who did more than any of their contemporaries to revolutionize modes of thought, appealed to their contemporaries on the strength of texts from Aristotle and Philolaus. It was by reasoning on the texts of Strabo and Ptolemy that Columbus convinced himself of the existence of a new country beyond the western ocean, and it was by meditating on the glory of God and on the spread of the Christian religion, which he deemed his special vocation in life that the Great Marina acquired the courage to brave the perils of unknown seas. We must keep these facts in mind and not be too quick to regard the discoveries of this age as out of all relation with the past. Scientific discoveries form no exception to the law that thought flows in a continuous stream from one generation to another. Francis Bacon Life Francis Bacon was the first to attempt the construction of a system of empirical philosophy on the basis of the principles of the new scientific method. He was born in London in 1568. After studying at Cambridge he spent two years in Paris as companion of the English ambassador. Returning to England he adopted the legal profession. In 1595 he entered parliament, became advisor of the Crown in 1604 and keeper of the Great Seal in 1617. In 1618 he was made Lord Chancellor with the title of Baron Véroulame, to which, three years later, that of Viscount St. Albans was added. He was charged, as is well known, with bribery and corruption, and, on pleading guilty to the accusations, was deprived of his office and fined £40,000. He died in 1626. Doctrines Bacon set himself the task of reorganising all the branches of scientific knowledge, and with this purpose in view he proposed to expound a new method of scientific study, and to treat of each of the sciences with special reference to the making of scientific and practical discoveries. The work in which this plan was to be realised is called the Instauratio Magna, of which the first part, entitled De Dignitate et Augmentis Scientiarum, treats of the reorganisation of the sciences, and the second part, entitled Novum Organum, contains the theory of induction and of scientific method. To the sciences themselves and to their application to discovery, Bacon contributed merely a portion of his projected work, descriptive of natural phenomena, and entitled Historia Naturalis, Sive Silva Silvarum. Philosophy has for its object a knowledge of God, nature and man. Our positive knowledge of God belongs to faith, for reason can give us merely a negative knowledge of God by refuting the objections urged against faith, and by showing the absurdity of atheism. It is true, Bacon says in a well-known passage in his essays, that a little philosophy inclineth men's minds to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion. Bacon distinguishes first philosophy, filosofia prima, or scientia universalis, which treats of the concepts and principles underlying all the parts of philosophy, and the philosophy of nature, which is subdivided into speculative and operative, the latter being defined as natural philosophy in its application to mechanics and other arts. The first step towards attaining a knowledge of nature consists in purifying the mind by the exclusion of the phantoms, or idols, which interfere with the acquisition of knowledge. The idols, or false appearances, are reduced to four classes. 1. Idols of the tribe. These are common to all men, and are in some way derived from the very nature and limitations of the human mind. Such, for example, is the tendency to anthropomorphize. For the mind, Bacon observes, is not a plain mirror, but a mirror of uneven surface, which combines its own figure with the figures of the objects it represents. 2. Idols of the den. These arise from the peculiar character of the individual. Some minds are naturally analytical, while others are naturally synthetical. To each belongs its own peculiar class of idols of the den. 3. Idols of the marketplace. These arise from the intercourse of men, and from the peculiarities of language. Four words, Bacon warns us, are symbols of conventional value, and are based on the carelessly constructed concepts of the crowd. 4. Idols of the theatre. These are false appearances arising from tradition and the authority of schools and teachers. Having freed his mind from the false appearances of truth, the searcher after knowledge must next proceed to a personal and active investigation of nature. He must not spin science from his own inner consciousness, as the spider spins its web from its own substance. He must, like the bee, collect material from the world around him and elaborate that material by the process of reflection and meditation. He must observe facts and proceed from the observation of facts to the establishment of laws and axioms. Bacon notes that the induction per enumeration simplicem, of which alone Aristotle and the school-men treat, is scanty and slovenly, because it is based on the observation of positive instances merely and neglects to take negative instances into account, whereas induction should consider negative instances and instances of difference of degree as well as positive instances. These hints were taken up by John Stuart Mill, to whom we owe the four experimental methods of induction. The chief difference between the Aristotleian and the Baconian induction consists in this, that the former proceeds by accumulation of instances, while the latter is based on the elimination of non-typical instances and the discovery of decisive or prerogative instances. In his effort to accentuate the importance of the inductive method of acquiring knowledge, Bacon committed the grave error of throwing discredit on the deductive or syllogistic process. Failing to recognise that each method has its use, he carried his hostility to the deductive method so far as to refuse to admit on deductive evidence the Copernican system of astronomy. Historical position. Little or nothing has been said of the contents of Bacon's philosophy. Indeed, it is by the method which he inaugurated rather than by the content of his system of thought that Bacon is to be judged. His attempts at personal investigation in accordance with the rules which he laid down were, for the most part, crude and were far less successful than the experiments made by many of his contemporaries. It was for a long time and axiom almost universally accepted that all the scientific progress made since the days of Bacon was due to the employment of the scientific method which he inaugurated. Recently, however, a more moderate view has begun to prevail. While it is conceded that Bacon deserves exceptional credit for having called attention to the necessity of an active investigation of nature, it is recognised also that he committed a serious mistake in discountenancing the use of deduction. It is historically demonstrable that a hypothetical anticipation of nature, by means of deduction, is as fruitful of scientific discovery as is the use of the inductive method, and Mill, with all his admiration for Bacon's method, acknowledges that no great advance can be made in science except by the alternate employment of induction and deduction. Descartes, who, as we shall see, advocated and used the deductive method, made more important contributions to natural science than did Bacon, the author of what has been called the scientific method. Chapter 52 Protestant Mysticism Mention has already been made of the Protestant Reformation as one of the causes which led to the change from medieval to modern modes of thought. Perhaps it would be more correct to regard both the reform and the rise of modern philosophy as effects of a common cause, for modern philosophy is, as Erdman observes, Protestantism in the sphere of the thinking spirit. At all events, wherever the influence of the first reformers asserted itself, scholastic philosophy was discouraged, and an effort was made to replace it by a new order of ideas. Lutheranism, according to Erasmus, was opposed to all literary culture. Whether this be true or false, certain it is that not only Luther, but also Zwingili, Calvin and Melanchthon, did their utmost to eradicate the principles of scholasticism. Scholasticism stood for ecclesiasticism, orthodoxy, respect for authority, in a word for everything against which the first reformers protested. Among the reformers themselves there soon sprang up systems of philosophy. Luther, 1483-1546, by his distinction between reason, a function of the flesh, and faith, a function of the spirit, laid the foundation for psychological dualism. Zwingili, 1484-1531, imbued with the spirit of humanism, maintained a pantheistic doctrine of divine immanence, and taught that man is deified by divine regeneration. Melanchthon, 1497-1560, developed a system of Aristotelian philosophy which may be styled a Protestant scholasticism. Of greater importance than these philosophical tenets of the first reformers are the systems of mysticism which grew out of the religious doctrines of the Reformation. Frank, 1500-1545, of whom Mitchin has already been made, developed a system of mysticism characterized by pantheism and psychological dualism, and tithesis of flesh and spirit. He was succeeded by Weigel, 1533-1588, who taught that regeneration is to be attained by abandoning the Inus, Echite, of the individual nature. All these mystic tendencies find their fullest expression in the writings of Jacob Bohm, 1575-1624, the chief representative of Protestant mysticism. Jacob Bohm. Life. Jacob Bohm was born at Alta Seidenberg near Gorlitz in the year 1575. Until he was ten years old he received absolutely no education, and he never extended his knowledge of literature beyond an acquaintance with the Bible and with the writings of Weigel. He earned his living by mending shoes, and the Cobbler of Gorlitz is sometimes referred to as the German philosopher, in allusion to the fact that his works were composed in German, the only language in which he could write. He died in 1624. His principal work is entitled Aurora or the Rising Dawn. Doctrines. Bohm devoted special attention to the problem of evil. He taught that the ultimate cause of the evil which exists in the world is the eternal dualism of God himself. Perceiving one day the sunlight reflected from a tin vessel, he conceived the idea that as the dark vessel reveals the brightness of the sun, so the element of evil in God shows forth the goodness of the divine nature. For everything he taught is known by its opposite. Without evil there would be no revelation of God, no distinction of things, no life, no movement. Nay, more if there were not in God a principal antithetical to goodness, God could not even arrive at a knowledge of himself. Developing this idea of the dualism of the divine nature, Bohm describes in the language of mysticism the eternal nature of God as containing seven primordial qualities of which three represent the divine anger and three the divine love. Intermediate between these is the divine fire which is the principle of life. The divine nature is the first stage of development, namely in that of will without object is God the Father. The Father looking into his own nature forms in himself the image of himself and thus divides into Father and Son. The procession of this vision from the original groundless nature of God as will is God the Holy Ghost. Lucifer became enamored of the anger qualities of God and refusing to take part in the advance from darkness to light remained holy evil. As a result of the fall of Lucifer the material world was created. Heaven and hell are experienced here on earth. He who like Lucifer becomes enamored of evil and clings to it is in hell while he who renounces all the evil that is in self and joins in the development of light from darkness is in heaven. Historical Position In the writings of Bohem we see the mystic tendency run riot. Free from the restraint of orthodox dogma Bohem made the fullest use of the Protestant principle of private interpretation and expounded the doctrines of Scripture from the extreme individualistic point of view. No one however can question the intense earnestness, the two-hearted sensibility and the unusually deep and vigorous spirituality of the man. It is these qualities that have secured for Bohem a permanent place in the history of German literature. They also account for the influence which he exerted on such man as Schelling and Hegel. Chapter 53 Systems of Political Philosophy The growing sense of political individuality and the gradual dwindling of the ideal of a universal Christian empire were most important factors in the change from ancient to modern modes of thought. Dante's day Munarchia no longer embodied the political aspirations of European states. Humanism moreover had restored ancient ideals of political life and the result was an attempt on the part of some Renaissance writers to formulate systems of political philosophy which would meet the conditions of the times. The first independent political philosopher of this period was Niccolò Machiavelli, 1469-1527. In the celebrated work entitled El Principe and in his other writings Machiavelli expounds a system of state utilitarianism. He teaches that in the government of the state means are to be judged exclusively with reference to the end for which they are employed, without consideration, or at least without due consideration, of the relation which they bear to the principles of morality. Where it is a question of saving one's country, he writes, there must be no hesitation on the score of justice or injustice, cruelty or kindness, praise or blame, but setting all things else aside one must snatch whatever means present themselves for the preservation of life and liberty. Machiavelli waged war on the Christian religion, contending that Christianity is opposed to the true advancement of the state, and that it is inferior to the religion of ancient Rome in as much as it fails to inculcate the political virtues. His ideal of a ruler is that of one who should combine the qualities of the fox with those of the lion. The ruler should make himself liked if he can, if he cannot he must make himself feared. He should maintain the outward semblance of honesty and morality, even when for reasons of state he is obliged to set the principles of honesty and morality aside. Thomas More, 1478-1535, Anjan Baudin, 1530-1596, inspired by a spirit altogether different from that which animated Machiavelli developed from platonic principles, highly ideal schemes of state organization and government. Blessed Thomas More, as he is now entitled to be called, was educated at Oxford, and after some years of very successful practice at law entered into political life, becoming successively Speaker of the House of Commons, Treasurer to the Exchequer, and Lord Chancellor. Having incurred the displeasure of Henry VIII, he was committed to the tower, and after eighteen months' imprisonment was executed on the charge of attempting to deprive the king of the title of supreme head of the church in England. In his Utopia, the Optimal Republice Statue d'Aché Nova Insula, Utopia, he describes an imaginary republic so governed as to secure universal happiness. Baudin is more scientific in his method than any of the other political philosophers of this period. He may be said to have inaugurated the historical method of studying political philosophy. Thomas Hobbes, Life Thomas Hobbes was born in Westport, now Malmesbury in Wiltshire, in 1588. He was educated at Oxford, and during his repeated sojourns at Paris, he became acquainted with Gassendi, Mersenne, and Descartes, who had a marked influence on his system of speculative philosophy. His political doctrines were influenced no doubt by the disorders of the English Revolution. He died in 1679. His principal works are Leviathan, Civite de Materia, Forme et Prostate, Civites ecclesiastica et civillus, and Elemente philosophy, including three parts, de corpore, de hominé, and de civet. Doctrines. Hobbes, like Bacon, concerned himself chiefly with the practical aspect of philosophy, but instead of applying philosophical principles to technical inventions, as his fellow countrymen had attempted to do, he addressed himself to the task of applying philosophy to the solution of political questions. We shall study therefore, first, the speculative, and secondly, the political doctrines of Hobbes. 1. Speculative Philosophy Hobbes is the first in a long line of English nominalists and censists. The only universality which he admits is that of the name. The name is a sign taken at pleasure to designate a plurality of objects. It is for us to decide what objects a name shall designate, and the announcement of such a decision is what we call a definition. In this connection he remarks that words are wise men's counters. They do but reckon by them, but they are the money of fools. Reality is not only individual, it is also corporeal. All that exists is body, all that occurs is motion. Spiritual substance can neither be nor be thought. Neither is there in human knowledge any element superior to sense. The original of them all, he says, speaking of men's thoughts, is that which we call sense, for there is no conception in a man's mind which hath not at first, totally or by parts, been begotten upon the organ of sense. From the foregoing principles Hobbes has led to affirm the doctrine of subjectivism. I shall endeavor, he writes, to make plain these points, that the object wherein the color and images are inherent is not the object or thing seen, that there is nothing without us, really, which we call image or color, that the said image or color is but the apparition unto us of the motion, agitation, or alteration which the object worketh in the brain, or spirits, or some internal substance of the head. 2. Political Philosophy Hobbes begins by denying the doctrine on which Aristotle's philosophy of the state is based. The doctrine namely that man is a political animal. The English philosopher assumes rather the Epicurean principle that originally there existed a condition of natural warfare among men, homo homini lupus or bellum omnium contra omnis. But he goes on to say when men discovered the disadvantages of continual strife, and realized that the safety of life and property is a condition essential to progress, they entered into a compact by which it was stipulated that the individual should vest all his rights in the supreme and absolute authority of the state. The authority of the state has its origin therefore in a social compact, and since the renunciation and transference of private rights was complete and unreserved, the authority of the state is absolute. Hobbes carries the doctrine of state absolutism to the extreme as subjecting even conscience and religion to the authority of the ruler. He teaches that the will of the ruler is the supreme arbiter of right and wrong in the moral order and of the true and false in the matter of religious belief. Historical position It would be difficult to overestimate the influence of Hobbes on the subsequent development of philosophic thought in England. Despite the wise maxim quoted above, philosophers have too often used words as money rather than as counters, and all the confusion arising from the use of vague and inaccurate terminology, confusion which is to the present day the bane of English philosophy may be traced in large measure to Hobbes. For him substance and body, imagination and intellect are synonymous, and that these terms are confounded by subsequent writers upon Hobbes must be laid the chief part of the blame. The cause which led to the study of political philosophy during the transition period led also to the study of the philosophy of law. The Italian Albertico Gentili, 1552-168, paid special attention to the study of the law of war. The German Althus, 1557-1638, devoted himself to the study of Roman law. To these succeeded the Netherlander Hugo Gossias, Hugo de Groot, 1583-1645, who in defending the rights of his country to free trade with the Indies, developed a system of philosophy of natural law. His most celebrated work is entitled De Giurebili et Passis, 1625. He maintains the doctrine of social contract, but while Hobbes regards the transference of the rights of the individual to the state as irrevocable, Gossias considers that rights, once transferred, may afterwards be recalled. He favors the separation of church and state and advocates religious toleration. By the phrase Jus Gentium, he does not mean natural law, but rather positive international law or the law regulating the relations of one state with another. Retrospect. The period of transition from medieval to modern philosophy was a period of tendencies rather than of systems. It was an age of new ideas and of changes in the world of letters, science, politics, and religion. It witnessed the disappearance of the old order and the advent of the new. During this period of change, the Aristotelian and Scholastic idea of a geocentric universe gave way to the modern scientific notion of a heliocentric system. The medieval idea of a universal Christian empire gave way to the modern ideals of individual national life, and in many European states the spirit of ecclesiastical unity disappeared to be replaced by the notion of a national church organization and the assertion of individualism in matters of religious belief. Thus did the Renaissance period usher in the modern era. It did not itself contribute any permanent system of philosophy. To systematize in a speculative scheme of thought the wealth of ideas, facts, and tendencies resulting from the great intellectual movements of the 15th and 16th centuries, was the task which the Renaissance set and which the 17th century undertook to accomplish. Second period from Descartes to Kant. The second period in the history of modern philosophy extends from Descartes to Kant, that is from the beginning of the 17th century to the end of the 18th. It comprises some of the greatest modern systems of thought, namely the philosophies of Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Locke, Barclay, and Hume. The last forming as it were the connecting link with the period of criticism inaugurated by Kant. The period which we are about to study is one of dogmatism and empiricism, although it includes as we shall see more than one system of skepticism, partial or complete. It is the period during which intellectual activity within the church is confined for the most part to the domain of theology, philosophy no longer stands to theology in the close relation in which it has stood during the Middle Ages, and battles in which the most vital principles of religion are involved are fought outside the church and in the domain of philosophy. This dissociation of philosophy from theology is one of the characteristics of the period. End of chapter 53