Möchten Sie über diese Zeitschrift informiert bleiben? Klicken Sie bitte auf die Buttons, um unsere Alerts zu abonnieren.
Möchten Sie über diese Zeitschrift informiert bleiben? Klicken Sie bitte auf die Buttons, um unsere Alerts zu abonnieren.
The Condemnation of 1277 is one of the most salient events in arguing about the nature and boundaries of philosophy. My aim is not to add another estimation of the Condemnation as a clash of faith and reason, but rather to consider the concept of philosophy at work. To sidestep deciding on a particular notion of philosophy in advance, I will focus on the kind of disagreement displayed in the document of the Condemnation. With a side-glance to contemporary argumentation theory, I shall argue that the disagreement we encounter fulfils crucial criteria of what is known today as deep disagreement. We will see that we are in fact dealing not with one concept of philosophy but two different kinds of philosophy. At the same time, it will turn out that the reception has mainly focused on one kind of philosophy only, namely the rationalist approach attacked in the Condemnation.
Kauf
Sofortzugang erwerben (PDF-Download und unbegrenzter Online-Zugang):
Institutszugang
Melden Sie sich mit Open Athens, Shibboleth oder Ihren institutionellen Anmeldedaten an.
Persönliche Anmeldung
Melden Sie sich mit Ihrem brill.com-Konto an
Anselm of Canterbury. 1968. Proslogion. Schmitt, F. S. (ed.), 1968. S. Anselmi Cantuariensis Archiepiscopi Opera Omnia I. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Friedrich Fromann Verlag, 97–123.
Tempier, E. La condemnation parisienne de 1277. Texte latin, traduction, introduction et commentaire. Piché (ed., tr.), 1999. Paris: Vrin. (= Condemnation)
Adamson, P. 2022. Don’t Think for Yourself. Authority and Belief in Medieval Philosophy. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
Akehurst, T. 2010. The Cultural Politics of Analytic Philosophy. London: Continuum.
Aertsen, J. A., Kent E. Jr. & Speer, A. (eds.), 2001. Nach der Verurteilung von 1277. Philosophie und Theologie an der Universität von Paris im letzten Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts. Studien und Texte. Berlin: New York.
Bianchi, L. 2003. New perspectives on the condemnation of 1277. Recherches de théologie et philosophie médiévales 70(1), 206–229.
Blumenberg, H. 1966. Die Legitimät der Neuzeit. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp.
Buchak, L. 2012. Can It Be Rational to Have Faith? In: Chandler, J. & Harrison, V. (eds.), Probability in the Philosophy of Religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 225–248.
De Libera, A. 1991. Penser au Moyen Âge, Paris.
De Libera, A. 1997. Faculté des arts ou faculté de philosophie? Sur l’idée de philosophie et l’idéal philosophique au xiiie siècle. In: Weijers, O. & Holtz, L. (eds.), L’enseignement des disciplines à la Faculté des arts (Paris et Oxford, xiiie et xive siècle). Turnhout: Brepols, 429–444.
Dormandy, K. 2018. Evidence-Seeking as an Expression of Faith. The American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 92(3), 409–428.
Flasch, K. 1989. Aufklärung im Mittelalter? Die Verurteilung von 1277. Mainz: Dieterich.
Fogelin, R. 1985. The Logic of Deep Disagreements. Informal Logic 25(1), 3–11. Reprint 2005.
Frances, B. & Matheson, J. 2018. Disagreement. In: Zalta, E. N. & Nodelman, U. (eds.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2024 Edition). url: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/disagreement/.
Glock, H.-J. 2008. What Is Analytic Philosophy? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Henderson, L. 2020. Resolution of Deep Disagreement: Not Simply Consensus. Informal Logic 40(3), 359–382.
Horkheimer, M. & Theodor, A. 2002. Dialectic of Enlightenment. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Kelly, T. 2014. Evidence. In: Zalta, E. N. & Nodelman, U. (eds.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2024 Edition). url: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evidence/.
Kobusch, T. 2006. Christliche Philosophie. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchge- sellschaft.
Larsen, A. 2011. The School of Heretics: Academic Condemnation at the University of Oxford, 1277–1409. Leiden: Brill.
Lenz, M. 1998. Himmlische Sätze: Die Beweisbarkeit von Glaubenssätzen nach Wilhelm von Ockham. Bochumer Philosophisches Jahrbuch für Antike und Mittelalter 3, 99–120.
Marenbon, J. 1991. Later Medieval Philosophy (1150–1350). London: Routledge.
Marenbon, J. 2015. Pagans and Philosophers. Princeton, New York: Princeton University Press.
Piché, D. 2018. Parisian Condemnation of 1277. In: Lagerlund, H. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Medieval Philosophy. Dordrecht: Springer.
Piron, S. 2011. Le plan de l’évêque. Pour une critique interne de la condamnation du 7 mars 1277. Recherches de théologie et philosophie médiévales 78(2), 383–415.
Ranalli, C. & Lagewaard, T. 2022. Deep Disagreemen (Part i): Theories of Deep Disagreement. Philosophy Compass, 1–18.
Smith, J. E. H. 2019. Irrationality. A History of the Dark Side of Reason. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Schliesser, E. 2016. The Letter against Derrida’s Honorary Degree, Re-Examined. Digressions & Impressions. url: https://digressionsnimpressions.typepad.com/digressionsimpressions/2016/03/the-letter-against-derridas-honorary-degree.html.
Schröcker, H. 2003. Das Verhältnis der Allmacht Gottes zum Kontradiktionsprinzip nach Wilhelm von Ockham (Veröffentlichungen des Grabmann-Institutes, Bd. 49). Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
Thijssen, J. M. M. H. 2018. Condemnation of 1277. In: Zalta, E. N. & Nodelman, U. (eds.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2024 Edition). url: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/condemnation/.
Wetherbee, B. 2015. Places in the Polity of Rhetoric. PhD Dissertation 2015. Kentucky: University of Louisville. url: https://ir.library.louisville.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3333&context=etd.
Yardley, B. 2021. When to Trust Authorative Testimony: Generation and Transmission of Knowledge in Saadya Gaon, Al-Ghazali and Thomas Aquinas. PhD Dissertation. Milwaukee: Marquette University. url: https://epublications.marquette.edu/dissertations_mu/1075/.
| Insgesamt | Letzte 365 Tage | In den letzten 30 Tagen | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aufrufe von Kurzbeschreibungen | 1014 | 161 | 23 |
| Gesamttextansichten | 20 | 6 | 0 |
| PDF-Downloads | 37 | 12 | 0 |
The Condemnation of 1277 is one of the most salient events in arguing about the nature and boundaries of philosophy. My aim is not to add another estimation of the Condemnation as a clash of faith and reason, but rather to consider the concept of philosophy at work. To sidestep deciding on a particular notion of philosophy in advance, I will focus on the kind of disagreement displayed in the document of the Condemnation. With a side-glance to contemporary argumentation theory, I shall argue that the disagreement we encounter fulfils crucial criteria of what is known today as deep disagreement. We will see that we are in fact dealing not with one concept of philosophy but two different kinds of philosophy. At the same time, it will turn out that the reception has mainly focused on one kind of philosophy only, namely the rationalist approach attacked in the Condemnation.
| Insgesamt | Letzte 365 Tage | In den letzten 30 Tagen | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aufrufe von Kurzbeschreibungen | 1014 | 161 | 23 |
| Gesamttextansichten | 20 | 6 | 0 |
| PDF-Downloads | 37 | 12 | 0 |