tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post3375531339716933537..comments2024-03-11T04:11:06.487-04:00Comments on The Smithy: On the Use of ScholasticismLee Faberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00476833516234522602noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-63096128684812484332012-07-19T14:03:33.085-04:002012-07-19T14:03:33.085-04:00Could we perhaps have greater specificity vis-à-vi...Could we perhaps have greater specificity vis-à-vis those supposedly "useless problems concerning, for example, facts of history which have no connection with dogma, morality, or ecclesiastical discipline"? In general I would completely agree with the overall thrust of the point being made here, but it seems woefully misguided to ignore questions of historical particularity. This unavoidably gets us back to a previous discussion/debate relating to the importance of a narrative in the history of philosophy. It seems worth pondering that the formative years of Christian orthodoxy produced creedal statements not by way of scholiastic method but rather by debates regarding specific terms (being, nothing, co-eternal, etc.) that had evolved different connotations in different historical contexts. Again, I'm not challenging the point in this post, but we cannot ignore historicity as if to engage in scholastic theological debate in a cultural vacuum. To take one example, we are all familiar with the teaching of creation ex nihilo, but the meaning of "nothing" in antiquity was polysemous. Before scholastic methodology can be effective, there needs to be a great deal of throat clearing about the historical particularity of terms through different historical epochs.Chancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02426070717131852692noreply@blogger.com