[OT] Plato's Pub and Philosophical Society

[Chronon]

This thread is an offshoot of the Rating Fyron thread. I thought we should start a new thread, since it is off topic for the other one. For those interested in the discussion who haven't followed the arguments over in the other thread, here's a summation.

Imperator Fyron's argument: The Church prevented advancement of science during the Dark Ages, resulting in a couple of centuries delay in the march of progress. (Fyron, please let me know if I've not stated your case correctly)

Chronon's argument: Because of the interconnected nature of Christianity and science in the Middle Ages and Early Modern period (our previous discussion centered on Galileo), the "bad" church versus "good" science argument is simplistic and anachronistic.

So, on with the discussion.

[ March 24, 2003, 01:34: Message edited by: Chronon ]

[Chronon]

The Church does not have a philosophical domain. It does not provide logical arguments for why it is right, it just says that what it says is right, period. So, there is no philosophy about it.

Saint Augustine, wherever he is, is shaking his head right about now...

My argument was that the Church held back advancement during the European Dark Ages, not during this period. I just could not think of any specific examples of people during the European Dark Ages that were persecuted for thinking for themselves.

When you think of one, let me know, and we'll discuss it.

Even if you should find one, though, you will still have to show that the Church had no positive impact on knowledge production in the Middle Ages. This may be more difficult than you think. For one, the monasteries were repositories for many of the great classical texts of mathematics (Euclid, Pythagorus), medicine (Aristotle, Galen), philosophy (Plato, Aristotle again), and astronomy (Hipparchus, Ptolemy). And the thinkers of the Middle Ages were church trained, because that was the only real source of education.

So, how would eliminating the Church have sped up progress?

[Captain Kwok]

I suppose I can weigh in on a few points:

The 'dark ages' in Europe were more the result of the collapse of the Roman Empire and with much war and food shortages, people were more concerned with the basics of survival than 'science' or technology. However, the Chinese and Arabs were doing just fine in these regards and developed lots of new stuff.

Like Chronon already mentioned:

The Church during this time was actually helpful as they copied/translated many important manuscripts which allowed later scholars to develop into new ideas, of course, this was not all good because when something went against the doctrine of the church - things could get it a little rough.

But it did not really hold back 'science'...it was more of people's convictions to the old school of though (i.e. Aristotle, etc).

You may notice I say 'science'. Real science did not begin until the late 1600s and wasn't really seperated from philosophy until the late 1700s.

[ March 10, 2003, 04:38: Message edited by: Captain Kwok ]

[Fyron]

Starting an OT thread is redundant. The original thread is already OT, and has veered into several different topics already.

Even if you should find one, though, you will still have to show that the Church had no positive impact on knowledge production in the Middle Ages. This may be more difficult than you think. For one, the monasteries were repositories for many of the great classical texts of mathematics (Euclid, Pythagorus), medicine (Aristotle, Galen), philosophy (Plato, Aristotle again), and astronomy (Hipparchus, Ptolemy). And the thinkers of the Middle Ages were church trained, because that was the only real source of education.

The Church refused to acknowledge new ideas that conflicted with its views, which is how it slowed down advancement, not education. And again, I was talking about the European Dark Ages, not really about the time of Galileo. The EDA were over before he was ever born.

The 'dark ages' in Europe were more the result of the collapse of the Roman Empire and with much war and food shortages, people were more concerned with the basics of survival than 'science' or technology. However, the Chinese and Arabs were doing just fine in these regards and developed lots of new stuff.

Yes, and I explicitly stated that several times during the discussion. Although, the Chinese did not make that many advancements during the period of time that the European Dark Ages Lasted, they just did not lose a lot of the basics like Europe did when Rome collapsed.

But it did not really hold back 'science'...it was more of people's convictions to the old school of though (i.e. Aristotle, etc).

Yes, and the Church made very effort to preserve those old schools of thought.

[ March 10, 2003, 04:47: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[Captain Kwok]

Sir Fyron:

If you misunderstood, the church did not get involved in such things until the time around Gallieo and Co., it didn't hold back anything in the dark ages.

[Fyron]

Originally posted by Captain Kwok:
Sir Fyron:

If you misunderstood, the church did not get involved in such things until the time around Gallieo and Co., it didn't hold back anything in the dark ages.

And on what do you base this claim?