This is the eighth in a series of posts on my own philosophical journey; the first post is here.
When we last saw them, Thomas and Aristotle had formed a seemingly unbeatable team, so much so that Thomism became known as “the perennial philosophy.” And yet somehow, after Descartes interest in Thomism faded, except within the Church. Philosophers didn’t have time for Thomas and Aristotle anymore. What happened?
You’ll often hear some variant of, “Newton proved Aristotle wrong about physics.” In other words, Aristotle was abandoned the same way science had abandoned belief in the four elements or the bodily humors. He was passé, old hat, been disproved, found wanting.
The truth is somewhat otherwise. So what really happened?
First, Thomism was associated with the Catholic Church. For some, that was sufficient reason to abandon our friends. But second, and more importantly, Thomism suffered from its own success. It had been the philosophy of Christendom for centuries. It had been worked on, and embroidered, and elaborated, and extended, and systematized, and rehashed until it was virtually impossible to come to grips with.
Thomism, I have said, is based on what we know of the world around us. And as such, for it to remain alive it must be possible to take new information into account, to see how it fits in, to adjust the whole. This is hard, and the larger the system is, the harder it is to do. As I understand it, the defenders of Thomism in Descartes’ day were not up to the challenge. They treated Thomism as settled doctrine, as near-holy writ, to be learned, and understood if possible, but not to be meddled with. They were ill-suited to the times.
And then, thirdly, the goals of philosophy had changed. In olden times, philosophers, natural historians, and the like gather information about the natural world for its own sake. Man, as a rational animal, desires to know; and it is fitting for us to learn as much as we can about the world God created, for he created it to be known. But with Descartes the emphasis changed. The goal was not simply mere understanding—the goal was mastery. The question was no longer, “What is the world like?”, but rather, “What can I make the world do for me?”
In short, the perennial philosophy was too Catholic, too hard, and too high-minded.
The View from the Foothills 
Ah, fashions in thought.
They don’t change as rapidly as other fashions, but they do change.
The comment about what can I make the world do for me also strikes me as part of the tenor of the times. There was a big cultural shift in the opening of the Age of Exploration.
Descartes was also involved in the opening of something that is often called the Age of Reason…
It actually feels a little facile to just say that one of these fashions is right and the other is wrong.
But it easy to note that one of these philosophical fashions spent a lot of time dealing with the everyday life of common men, and the other pursued logical consistency above all else.
LikeLike
I don’t say that the desire to learn how the world works with an eye toward learning to use the information in practical ways is wrong. It certainly isn’t. I’ve no quarrel with science as it is currently done; and that’s a tradition that began in Descartes’ day. But physics is not philosophy, and it’s error to think that only the things that physics can address are real.
I’m curious to know which of these philosophical fashions (in your view) spent a lot of time dealing with the everyday life of common men, and which pursued logical consistency above all else.
LikeLike
…and here I thought my inference was obvious.
I could tell that Descartes was pursuing a goal of expressing philosophy as a statement of pure logic. Almost, if you will, a logic that could be expressed symbolically and reproduced by a mechanical system.
And I know that Aristotle (and Aquinas) did spend some time asking questions that were related to the way that people lived their lives.
For example, I don’t remember Descartes even asking questions about the difference between cowardice, bravery, and recklessness. Yet Aristotle did. And that question was one that every helot in every city of Greece was familiar with.
LikeLike
Except that Descartes doesn’t seem to pursue the goal of expressing philosophy as a statement of pure logic. His method was to begin with the bare minimum, the ideas he could not possibly deny, then work from there by way of “clear and distinct” ideas that also could not be denied. His philosophy wasn’t particularly “mathematical” in nature, so far as I can tell, and he didn’t emphasize logic in the way that Aristotle or Aquinas would have.
LikeLike
…and I suppose I am improved from my original ignorance.
LikeLike