Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page
Why should logical positivism, naturalism, or these other systems have any more "say so," so to speak in non-philosophical fields than Scholasticism?
For the same reasons that literary movements like romanticism have fallen out of style in the wake of modernism and post modernism. The conditions of man change.
I would not argue that Scholasticism is irrelevant: knowing the history of a subject is vital to the future progress of the subject, so we should know Scholasticism. However, to seriously practice Scholasticism today would be pointlessly anachronistic.
Modern bands cover Robert Johnson tunes in their own modern style. That's fine. But should a group spend their time writing and recording original tunes in the style of Robert Johnson, the group's music will wind up corny and irrelevant. A professional philosopher working in the style of Aquinas would also be irrelevant.
And this is precisely why philosophy (insofar as it has a content) as an academic subject should not pervade other subjects, but rather should remain firmly fixed in the philosophy department.
I disagree. I think logical positivism and certain other philosophical movements are -wrong.-
I think that human nature is a constant.
I don't think that Scholasticism is outdated. I think that, insofar as Scholasticism has a philosophical content, that content continues to be as true now as it ever was.