1. Scholastics were the religious thinkers during the turn of the dark ages. They emerged with the purpose to unify christian doctines unto its ownselves and towards the reemerging Aristotelian greek philosophy. At the time everything categorized under "christian doctrine" seemed to conflict with each other, and definetly at first glance Aristotealian philosophy seemed to be incompatible with christianity until the Scholastics started to meet and discuss all the points of contention amongst themselves. They developed the scholastic method, which were discussions where the scholastics would gather and find where all the points of contention lie. These points were identified and written down in works called "sententiae". Once this was done, they would use "logical analysis" by probing and manipulating meanings of words in order to "logically" agree that there were no points of conflict under the religious views of christianity. Once their works were finished, their product was a religion that did not conflict with its ownself, for God does not contradict his ownself. Afterwards a few scholastics looked to cohesively apply Aristotealian philosophy to Christian doctrine to show that they are also in agreement with each other and support each other. The most notable scholastic that achieved this feat was Aquinas who saved Aristotealian philosophy from the flames that would have burned it as heresy. The scholastic method is different from modern thinking in that it is utterly biased. It first makes the assumption that what they are trying to prove is already true, the assumption that God does not contradict itself. Then they go off and try to prove this at all costs using "logical analysis". It is ironic that they try to use the best of their logic analytically based on an unproven assumption they hold up as law, which is totally illogical to begin with. A thorough logical analyisis of modern times would not start off an assumption, but logically analyze from the ground up. No assumptions would be made, and each step would be tested. If the most basic components were not established as law or even a theory, then whatever comes after would be recognized only to be a hypothesis at best, or just make believe. The scholastic method of old would gravitate to the latter then the former.
Ockhamic Section
4. Ockham’s Razor mainly is a method to simplify philosophical views in hopes of coming closer to the truth, or the righter answer. If it were to be used in a metaphor imagine a baby boy is given a gift at Christmas time. The gift is wrapped in a huge box with pretty decorations adorning the covering and wrapping paper strewn all across its sides. All the little boy wants to know is what is inside of the box. He does not care for the adornments, the fancy wrapping, the box, or even the letter on top of the box with his name on it. He just wants to know what is on the inside. The little boy takes out his favorite razor branded O C K H A M and starts tearing away, and in no time he beholds his gift, a small puppy, happy to be out his box and cuddling with his new young master. Naturally since the boy is a proud user of an Ockham’s razor, he is a nominalist as well and he only loves and cares for the puppy that he sees in front of him. If he were not a nominalist, or not had use the razor, he may have concerned himself with all the decorations of the present, admiring the wrappings, and pointless pieces of paper, and unintelligible lettering and slowly come to open the present and see the poor puppy that is held inside. Then once seeing the puppy the little boy would have set the puppy down and would have pondered about such things as if puppiness existed on the nonmaterial plane, or if he could find the being of cuddliness in an alternate dimension, far beyond the cosmos of his living room. But luckily he wasn’t, and he saved his puppy with his O-razor before the puppy ran out of air and suffocated into a ball of poopoo fur. Hurrah! For the problem of universals the answer that adds extra explanations apart from what is actually there would be cut away. In this case, realist notions of separate beings of existence (universals) apart from the actual being beholden would be cut off, for it is unneeded, and why should someone concern themselves with extra mumbo jumbo inside of their head when they don’t have to. The only thing that would remain to a razored subject material is the material itself in reality, in the eye of the beholder. -Just this, this only, nothing else about it, no where else. period.
Galliean Section
7. Galileo was a firm believer that to know something for sure, one most go out himself, make his own observations, run his own tests of his own hypothesis, make his own conclusions, and then critically and analytically compare, contrast, and contest, your findings to that of the conclusions that have already been made in the modern age. He rejected the time old method that in order to know something, you must first go to the expert of the subject material, learn from them, and then go to the subject material and see it all from their eyes. He also rejected Aristotles method of just casually observing nature in order to make your own conclusions about it. Rather he would run tests, use/manipulate variables to come to his conclusions about the outcomes. Galileo annoyed the Aristotelians by showing how Aristotle the great was wrong about some widely accepted “facts” such as the theory of falling bodies. Their angry reaction illustrate how premodern thinkers were arrogant, self defensive, and insecure. They created a society that was held together, and ruled by faulty logic, whenever new ideas and findings challenged the established rule of order, the premoderns were infuritated. Now in the modern age, where rule isn’t established by faulty logic, not so much, new ideas and findings are met with gratitude, wonderment, and surprise. Although alarming at times to the conservatives.
Baconian Section
11. Bacon uses four “Idols” to describe faulty thinking humans may fall into whenever trying to find out the truth about a subject material. He uses the word idol appropriately for the term Idol is something that is manmade, and have historically led men astray from the right path. In this case Bacon identifies four “Idols” in which humans must be aware of and avoid in order to stay on the right track. The first being idols of the tribe, which he meant by the human flaw to always presuppose things, relate things, and identify things to what they think they already know right away. In this case I suppose Bacon is cautioning people to avoid being caught in the human error to make quick judgments’ on subject material based on instinct, feeling, or the senses. He identifies this idol, and cautions against it so that we may be careful and aware that our senses and first thoughts can easily betray us. The second Idol bacon cautions us against are the Idols of the Cave. With this idol he identifies another human flaw that can stumble us in finding the right answers, and that is already having a prejudice of the mind of favoring an answer above others before a true verdict can be reached. He describes this idol as idols of the cave for in the cave, we only see what we want to see, or we only see with what little “light” or knowledge that we have and are unable to see the fullness of truth in its entirety. Bacon warns against this idol so that people will abandon prejudice wants of a certain answer, but try to find answers outside of the cave, where there is full light, and full knowledge where everything is clearly seen in its entirety. The third idol Bacon warns against are the Idols of the marketplace. He describes this idol at the marketplace for the marketplace is where all different types of people with different ways of expressing themselves come together and communicate with each other. Often times people from different groups misunderstand each other because of language barriers. Bacon warns against this idol so that when trying to find the right answers, one does not get caught up or confused by the certain language or words that other people may use that may throw that individual in search off of the right track. I guess Bacon warns against this idol for he felt that people need to know, people will often use different language that will have a different effect on different people, but he is forewarning them so that language does not get in the way in the pursuit of the heart of the matter. His lesson would be to find a way to get past the language barrier and not be subject towards different idioms. The last idol which bacon warns against and very appropriate coming from his time is the idol of the theater. Bacon describes this idol as the idol leads people off the right track in order to follow the crowd, and to be popular. Bacon knew that often times new findings and discoveries were going to go against the crowd rather then with the crowd, and once the new thinker comes to new conclusions, he warns the new come modern to not buckle under the possible scrutiny and uproar he may receive from a premodern world, for this would only take an individual away from the true path. Bacon's promotion of the four idols helped bring on the transition to modern thinking for he helped thinkers to realize the bias's that naturally occur within the human psyche. Once these bias's are identified and dealt with, a thinker can think more clearly, more critically, more objectively, and ultimately more advanced then the crowds of his or her time.
