Anselm really got me wondering what the church of this era thought of philosophers and the role of philosophy in the church.
When reading Augustine and his talks with some of his mentors, I personally got the impression that some of the church was definitively against some philosophies even being introduced to the church, while others were readily built upon because they pointed to Christ.
As Brannen, and perhaps others, mentioned, this particular work seemed quite Platonic. The whole use of dialectic as the method of discovering truth is almost directly taken from Plato and perhaps Socrates. And in this work it is quite effective, although at times I even wanted them to be more nitpick-y.
Another note on the style: like Augustine, it so so very clear and concise. In other philosophical and poetic works that we have been reading, the style seemed quite a bit confusing. That may just be me adapting to the style of the time(s), but if not, when and why did this style begin to exist in such contrast? What caused this change? Motive? Evolution of language?
Notes on Brannen's post.
I thought this was really interesting. I really liked that he emphasized that philosophy without prior intent to pursue obedience to scripture is useless.
ReplyDelete