A History of Philosophy, Vol. 3: Late Medieval and Renaissance Philosophy, Okham, Francis Bacon, and the Beginning of the Modern World

A History of Philosophy #3

by Frederick Charles Copleston

Conceived originally as a serious presentation of the development of philosophy for Catholic seminary students, Frederick Copleston's nine-volume  A History Of Philosophy has journeyed far beyond the modest purpose of its author to universal acclaim as the best history of philosophy in English.

Copleston, an Oxford Jesuit of immense erudition who once tangled with A. J. Ayer in a fabled debate about the existence of God and the possibility of metaphysics, knew that seminary students were fed a woefully inadequate diet of theses and proofs, and that their familiarity with most of history's great thinkers was reduced to simplistic caricatures. Copleston set out to redress the wrong by writing a complete history of Western philosophy, one crackling with incident and intellectual excitement -- and one that gives full place to each thinker, presenting his thought in a beautifully rounded manner and showing his links to those who went before and to those who came after him.

The result of Copleston's prodigious labors is a history of philosophy that is unlikely ever to be surpassed. Thought magazine summed up the general agreement among scholars and students alike when it reviewed Copleston's A History of Philosophy as "broad-minded and objective, comprehensive and scholarly, unified and well proportioned... We cannot recommend [it] too highly."

Genres: Philosophy, History, Nonfiction, Reference, Medieval, Renaissance, Medieval History

496 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1952

About the author

Frederick (Freddie) Charles Copleston was raised an Anglican and educated at Marlborough College from 1920 to 1925. Shortly after his eighteenth birthday he converted to Catholicism, and his father subsequently almost disowned him. After the initial shock, however, his father saw fit to help Copleston through his education and he attended St. John’s in Oxford in 1925, only managing a disappointing third in classical moderations. He redeemed himself somewhat with a good second at Greats in 1929.

In 1930 Copleston became a Jesuit, and, after two years at the Jesuit novitiate in Roehampton, he moved to Heythrop. He was ordained a Jesuit priest at Heythrop College in 1937 and soon after went to Germany (1938) to complete his training. Fortunately he made it back to Britain before the outbreak of war in 1939. The war made it impossible for him to study for his doctorate, as once intended, at the Gregorian University in Rome, and instead Copleston was invited to return to Heythrop to teach the history of philosophy to the few remaining Jesuits there.

While in Heythrop Copleston had time and interest to begin the work he is most famous for, his "A History of Philosophy" - a textbook that originally set out to deliver a clear account of ancient, medieval and modern philosophy in three volumes, which was instead completed in nine volumes (1975). To this day Copleston’s history remains a monumental achievement and stays true to the authors it discusses, being very much a work in exposition.

Copleston adopted a number of honorary roles throughout the remainder of his career. He was appointed Visiting Professor at Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, spending half of each year lecturing there from 1952 to 1968. He was made Fellow of the British Academy (FBA) in 1970, given a personal professorship from his own university (Heythrop, now re-established in the University of London) in 1972 and made an Honorary Fellow of St. John’s College, Oxford, in 1975. He was Visiting Professor at the University of Santa Clara between 1974 and 1982, and he delivered the Gifford Lectures at the University of Aberdeen between 1979 and 1981. His lectures were published under the title Religion and the One, and were largely a metaphysical tract attempting to express themes perennial in his thinking and more personal than in his history. Gerard J. Hughes notes Copleston as remarking "large doses of metaphysics like that certainly don’t boost one’s sales".

He received honorary doctorates from a number of institutions, notably, Santa Clara University, California, University of Uppsala and the University of St. Andrews (D.Litt) in later years. He was selected for membership in the Royal Institute of Philosophy and in the Aristotelian Society, and in 1993 he was made CBE.

Copleston’s personality saw him engage in the many responsibilities bestowed upon him with generous commitment and good humour.

Reviews

[Amir · Rating 3 out of 5]

جلد دوم و سوم تاریخ فلسفه کاپلستون سرگرم فلسفه قرون وسطاست. کاپلستون همون اول می خواد این تصور غالب رو از ذهنا پاک کنه که قرون وسطا آورده ای برای فلسفه نداشته. اما برداشت من غیرمتخصص از اون چیزی که تا نصف جلد دوم خوندم چیز دیگه ایه؛ این جلدها مشحون از مباحث کلامی و غیرفلسفیه و تلاش کاپلستون برای پررنگ کردن وجوه فلسفی آرای آبای کلیسا و اخلافش چندان موفق نیست. در نتیجه اونچه که به اسم فلسفه قرون وسطا می خوندم بسیار حوصله سر بر بود؛ از جلدهای دو و سه عبور کردم و رفتم سراغ جلد چهار. یعنی از دکارت به بعد
.
ترجمه هم با این که نسبتا متعادل بود اما قطعا به پای ترجمه ی جلد یک نمی رسید
.
زیاده عرضی نیست تا بخونیم و بریم جلو ببینیم چه خبره
پ.ن: تو این جلد بعدها به فرانسین بیکن سر خواهم زد
.

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

If there is to be any one aspect of Father Copleston's work for which I am grateful (and there is, in a sweeping yet quite comprehensive survey as he graced the world with), it would be his work on Ockham, and consequently the nominalism which resulted from his work. Now that I have stated that I am quite enthralled with William of Ockham, let me know state some aspects about the book.

I should confess, first of all, that I was rather apprehensive about picking up this volume of his History of Philosophy. The reason is rather childish, but it is because, well, it is on late medieval philosophy. And, granted, I struggled to make it through the final chapters on Francis Suarez. But the history of modern philosophy, beginning particularly with Descartes, is often misrepresented by a failure to appreciate the philosophic works of this time (which, in this work, is approximately the late 13th to the mid-15th centuries). (For example, I read Cajetan's Commentary on Being and Essence in conjunction with Descartes's Meditations on First Philosophy, and discovered some terms employed by Cajetan which were repeated, not coincidentally, I believe, by Descartes. Keep in mind that Descartes was educated, for eight or nine years, at Le Fleche, a Jesuit boarding school, and would have been well-educated not only in Thomism, but also commentators on Thomas Aquinas and, naturally at the time, but in traditional Roman Catholic thought to guard against the encroachments of Protestantism.)

This said, the volume is divided into three main parts: Ockham and the Ockhamist movement, Renaissance philosophy, and the Scholasticism of the Renaissance. The former is, of course, occupied mostly by Ockham, with some considerations to nominalists after him; the latter is mostly on Francis Suarez. The second part, however, will, for many readers, be the most rewarding. It discusses the new-found interest in Plato (who had lost influence following the Aristotelianism of Aquinas), and the scientific movement with a discussion of Francis Bacon.

This last discussion, on Bacon, is the most disappointing aspect of the work. I felt that more attention should have been devoted to Bacon, while chapters on, for instance, speculative mysticism and two rather lengthy and detailed chapters on Suarez were not necessary. I would certainly say that Suarez, and most definitely the mystics, did not have the influence upon philosophy that Bacon exerted. This is the greatest complaint which, I think, can be levelled upon this particular volume.

Yet, of course, one cannot complain too much of a mind so erudite and a hand that worked so long and hard to provide his students, and future generations of students, a comprehensive history of philosophy; and the individual who believes that this is a volume which can be skipped over must simply reconsider that (poor) decision.

[Joseph Yue · Rating 5 out of 5]

It is always a joy to sit down and read Copleston, in whom resides no agenda of any sort. His is a work of true scholarly humility, a fount of pure and unalloyed knowledge of the history of philosophical thoughts. He gives time to both the significant figures and the trivial, and a platform is equally offered to his friends as well as to his foes. In a day and age when most scholars prostitute their intellects to zeitgeist and various ideologies therein, being tutored by this old-fashioned Jesuit sage who has not compromised his honour and integrity is genuinely refreshing.

[Lingling · Rating 5 out of 5]

作者认为13世纪学者对亚氏理论的态度其实代表了他们对哲学这一学科/领域的态度。得益于亚氏理论的辉煌，哲学（独立于神学）首次展现了它的力量。但13世纪的哲学还是从属于神学，尽管他们的关系未来会颠倒过来。
13世纪教皇和国王/帝王之间的权利达到微妙的平衡。民族国家呈上升态势。

13世纪很多原创的独立思想家，14世纪则已不同学派著称。除了延续13世纪学者的理论，14世纪出现了一个新的运动（以William of Ockham为代表），反对前人的现实主义，更注重分析/批评而不是整合/推断，其直接结果是让信仰悬在空中（失去了哲学上的理性基础）。14世纪的大学生活主要特色是科学的发展。

文艺复兴时期柏拉图的作品才被翻译。个人主义萌芽。一群人文学家崇尚拉丁文学经典，攻击亚氏逻辑和抽象概念“in the name of good taste, realism and the feeling for the concrete, rhetoric and literary exposition”（礼貌的怀疑派人文学家代表蒙田）。文艺复兴时期的科学家们为了知识本身而求知，但同时也有一批学者强调知识的实用性，比如培根以Machiavelli的《君主论》。文艺复兴的第一时期意大利的人文主义，最后阶段现代科学的发展。

William of Ockham (between 1290 and 1300 or about 1280 to 1349死于黑死病）曾卷入皇帝和教皇之间的争斗。具有原创性的思想体系。唯名（nominalist）运动的代表。他首先是一个神学家（Franciscan Order）。关于本质的形而上学（metaphysic of essences）是非基督教的发明，不应在基督神学和哲学中占有一席之地。他采用了唯名论（terminist，代表人物13世纪的Peter of Spain)的逻辑，也推动了唯名论的发展。名词/词语的含义：无论口语还是书面的词语都不同于它所表达的概念。通用概念（universals）只是词语，不是实际存在的，真正实际存在的只有个体。通用概念是一种理解的手段。

他把科学分为两种：实际科学（real science）和理性科学。前者研究实体，后者研究非实体（比如逻辑）。直觉知识是所有关于实体知识的基础，这一观点体现了他的哲学经验主义的一面。宇宙是由绝对（物体和绝对事件）组成的（不涉及任何真正的关系），所以研究绝对可以完全不涉及上帝（他充分意识到所有的绝对都依赖于上帝）。Ockham’s razor. 他的哲学思想运用了经济原则（越简单越好），比如时间和运动（motion）是一回事。他的经验主义三大特色：1）所有关于现实世界的知识都以经验为基础；2）经济原则（如果两个因素能解释清楚问题，绝不加入第三个因素）；3）当人们提出不必要和无法观测到的事物时往往被语言所误导。“'Nouns which are derived from verbs and also nouns which derive from adverbs, conjunctions, prepositions, and in general from syncategorematic terms ... have been introduced only for the sake of brevity in speaking or as ornaments of speech; and many of them are equivalent in signification to propositions, when they do not stand for the terms from which they derive; and so they do not signify any things in addition to those from which they derive.”

Ockham对于上帝存在的传统证明从逻辑角度持批判态度。只有个体是实际存在的，通用概念属于人的思维范畴而不应归于上帝。神性的全能不能被哲学证明，但能通过信仰得知。自然界的一切从而获得了一定的稳定性，可被看作是上帝万能意志的体现。

Ockham的伦理观。他不认为不灭的灵魂可以被证明（只能通过信仰）。人有三部分：肉体，感性（sensitive）灵魂和理性（rational）灵魂，是一个整体（灵魂在人死后脱离身体后不再是人）。理性生物的一大特点就是自由意志。对于Ockham来说，神的旨意是道德的最终标准，道德法则是建立在神的自由选择基础上（而不是神的本质基础上）。但人有可能不知道上帝的旨意，在此条件下他只能遵从他认为的上帝的旨意。

Ockham的政治理论。私有财产权是上帝赐予的自然权利，不可侵犯。国家在财富转化过程中能够调节私有财产权的行使，但它不能违背个人的意愿而剥夺这一权利。在皇帝和教皇之间的斗争中，Ockham支持国家独立于教会，对于教会本身他反对教皇的绝对权力。所有世俗权力并非来自教皇。人民有选择政府形式的自由。

唯名运动以Ockham为首但其他学者也有不同理论。其中Nicholas of Autrecourt的理论较为极端。我们无法从一个事物的存在确定得推出另一个事物的存在。他认为事物的存在无法被证明（不代表他否认事物的存在，也不代表他认为事物的非存在可以被证明）。形而上的争论是可能的（probable）但不确定（not demonstrative）。

14世纪的科学是13世纪科学发展的延续（得益于希腊和阿拉伯科学作品的翻译），受到唯名运动的促进。14世纪的物理学家们关注运动（包括天体运动）的问题。Nicholas曾提出过是否有多个世界的问题，最终结论是上帝只创造了一个世界。

Marsilius of Padua (?-1343)强烈反对教廷对世俗社会的干预，主张国家完全独立于教廷，且高于教廷（理想国家里包括priesthood）。他把北部意大利的战乱归咎于教皇。他把政府划分成两类，一类被人民拥护（民选政府优于非民选政府），另一类不被人民认可（专制政体）。行政权力（执法）受制于立法权力。

14世纪的神秘主义神学家Eckhart：灵魂与上帝超越的神秘的结合不是通过爱和知识（这些是灵魂的活动而不是本质），而是在灵魂最深处（innermost recess of the soul)发生(上帝把灵魂和他自己以一种隐藏的无法形容的（ineffable）方式结合在一起）。在他的德语布道中他提到就像面包变成基督的身体，灵魂也变成了上帝。他还说就像我们吃的食物变成了我们一样我们也和神合二为一。这些都被教廷斥为异端。

John Tauler（1300-1361）神秘主义者以布道者著称。黑死病时期对病人和快死的人关怀倍至。

14世纪的德国神秘主义（Eckhart，Tauler，Suso）特征是理论猜想和实际相结合。他们都是Dominican Order的成员。主要思想是灵魂的ground或者spark神秘地与上帝结合（超越了智力和意志）。他们在布道中宣扬这一思想，旨在提升精神生活。

文艺复兴的第一阶段人文主义源于意大利，继而传播到北欧。很难确切定义文艺复兴的发起时间，因为12世纪开始陆续有杰出人物（Thomas Aquinas，Dante，Boccaccio）尊重经典（且在文艺上造诣深厚）。14世纪末Manuel Chrysoloras第一位真正在西方教授古典希腊文的老师开始在弗洛伦萨教学。当时意大利的政治环境有利于文艺复兴运动。一大特点是一种新的教育风格和理想的兴起（以人为本）。尽管教育理想是充分发展个人的人格，但实际上道德或不道德的个人主义后来开始盛行（有些人为了名声）。后期西塞罗主义压倒了亚氏。

第二阶段是北部运动（改革），更平民化，强调道德观念，但随着时间流逝也逐渐退化成语法主义。

人文主义很多学者复兴了新柏拉图主义。意大利柏拉图学者们并没有脱离宗教的框架来宣扬柏拉图（人并没有跟上帝或他人分离）。很多学者攻击亚氏逻辑枯燥，深奥，人为的（非自然），而推崇西塞罗的辩论术。也有学者维护亚氏理论。

Nicolas of Cusa（1401-1464）关心教会的统一问题。对于国家他不认为君主的权力直接来自上帝，而是来自人民；对于教会他提倡权力由教会组织掌握而不是集中于教皇一人之手。但他后来意识到为了教会的统一教皇的地位不可撼动，所以他改变了做法开始支持教皇的权威。
他认为上帝是超越的，不可知的。但同时宇宙是神的缩影，而每个具体的事物又是宇宙的缩影（contraction）。
他说柏拉图的“世界的灵魂”，亚氏的“自然”，在他眼里都是上帝。尽管他是15世纪的，但很多学者把他归为中世纪的思想家（源于他对前人的继承）。同时他的思想又具有现代特质，也被后来的哲学家如莱布里兹借鉴。

自然哲学家们视自然为一个自给自足的系统，跟超自然的关系有所松动（他们仍然是基督徒）。最著名的意大利自然哲学家是Giordano Bruno（1548-1600），一开始是Dominican Order的成员，最后由于异端思想被宗教裁判所烧死。他的思想受到新柏拉图主义的启发（从泛神主义角度），同时深受哥白尼的影响（本身不是科学家). 太阳只是无数恒星中的一颗，更不用说地球了（绝不是宇宙中心）。他最后的遭遇更多是因为他公然否认一些重要的神学教旨。

Pierre Gassendi（1592-1655）复兴了依壁鸠鲁的哲学（用基督教的正统改造了依壁鸠鲁哲学）。他跟笛卡尔有过争论（从经验主义出发批判笛卡尔）。

文艺复兴时期的科学以观察（经验数据）为主，也有一些对照实验（controlled experiments）。伽利略（1564-1642）著名的比萨斜塔实验。天文学家，对水利和机械学也有重要贡献。并不是说16世纪初用对照实验来验证假设已经很普遍了，恰恰相反，这些还在萌芽阶段。伽利略和宗教裁判所之间的冲突，作者（作为一位神父也许会偏向教会）认为教廷对科学的敌对在这一事件上被夸大了，冲突源于伽利略不肯承认哥白尼学说的假设性质，而坚持其为绝对真理（教会的立场是实验数据不能百分百证明哥白尼假说）。
作者认为文艺复兴时期的科学并没有突然割断世界和上帝之间的纽带。

中世纪后第一位杰出的哲学家是英国的Francis Bacon（1561-1626）。文艺复兴时期英国大学的整体氛围还是趋于保守的（亚氏逻辑思维盛行多年）。培根的思想充满前瞻性，强调了知识的实用性和在人类战胜自然的过程中重要作用。他担任法官时曾被告受贿，作者认为是政治斗争的结果，也就是说虽然他不是圣人但也不是两面三刀的政客。
培根把理性灵魂分为三部分：记忆（历史），想象力（诗歌），和理性（哲学）。哲学分为三个分支：上帝，自然和人。他不赞同日心说。他认为终极原因（final causality）不应该属于物理学范畴，从这个角度来看他认为Democritus的哲学高于柏拉图和亚氏哲学。他把哲学和神学划清了界限：哲学关于物质世界，神学精神世界。
关于“偶像”的理论：1）idols of the tribe: 人的本性中的错误（比如过分依赖感官，wishful thinking）；2）idols of den：每个人由于自己的性格，教育，阅读等会犯的错误；3）idols of the market-place由于语言产生的错误；4）idols of the theatre过去的哲学系统（人自己创造出来的比舞台剧好不了多少的非真实世界）。
培根认为一旦掌握了归纳法，所有科学家都可能达到同一水平，而忽视了科学家的“天才”。

政治理论：Machiavelli和Hobbes都坚信个人主义，所以他们自然而然认为强有力的君主政权是阻止社会分崩离析的唯一途径。
St. Thomas More (1478-1535) 曾任英国大法官，被亨利八世砍了头（因为拒绝承认其为教会首脑）。著名作品《乌托邦》，部分反对Machiavelli君主论里的政客伎俩（尽管More对《君主论》并不熟悉），部分反对当时正呈上升势头的商业剥削（反对圈地运动），另一方面有些想法被后来的社会主义借鉴。

文艺复兴时期亚氏的学院派主要由西班牙的神学家/哲学家们复兴/发扬光大，但在整个文艺复兴哲学中他们对非学院派哲学没有太大影响除了政治理论方面（对当时的科学发现重视不足）。其重要人物基本来自Dominicans和Jesuits（Society of Jesus成立于1540年）。16世纪这两派神学家曾有过一场关于神的恩典和人的自由意志的著名争论。
政治理论方面他们认为君权并非直接来自神，而是来自人民（由公众来决定政府的形式）。他们继承并发展了（起始于12世纪）社会契约理论（不同于后来卢梭的学说）。同时也发展了“law of nations”。
Francis Suarez（1548-1617）Salamanca大学学的canon law。著作等身。在他之前的学院派主要评论亚氏作品，而他采用了一种新的写作方式：他具体讨论了五十多个问题，分析详尽（但综述能力稍逊一筹）。

前三卷的总结：中世纪到文艺复兴时代：中世纪早期思想家主要关注于理解信仰，13世纪对亚里士多德的重新发现开阔了中世纪思想家们的视野，（remotely）为自然科学的发展铺平了道路。把历史分割成age of faith（中世纪）到age of reason（启蒙运动）到age of science（现代）有一定道理。哲学和科学，哲学和神学的关系是什么？哲学能否提供有效的形而上体系？哲学是否能成为科学知识和信仰之间的桥梁？作者试图在接下来的卷本回答这些问题。

[Del Herman · Rating 5 out of 5]

Reading the Jesuit priest Frederick Copleston's history of philosophy out of order. This third volume covers the period from William of Ockham and the nominalist movement at the end of the Middle Ages through the Renaissance and the beginnings of the Scientific Revolution all the way to Francis Suarez in the wake of the Council of Trent. Even though this was written originally for Catholic seminary students (and hence is biased to cover trends in Catholic philosophy: seriously, I have never seen so much attention paid to Suarez in any history of philosophy I've ever flipped through), it is probably the best history of philosophy out there. Incredibly thorough and well-written.

[Moderated · Rating 5 out of 5]

"When one looks at mediaeval philosophy, one certainly sees variety; but it is a variety within a common pattern, or at least it is a variety set against a common and well-defined background. There was certainly original thought; but none the less one gets the impression of a common effort, of what one may call teamwork. The thirteenth-century philosophers criticized one another's opinions; but they accepted not only the same religious faith but also, for the most part, the same metaphysical principles. One thus obtains the impression of a philosophical development which was carried on by men of independent minds but which was at the same time a common development, to which the individual philosophers made their several contributions."

"Whereas certain forms of Oriental thought would scarcely favour the study of nature, owing to the notion that the phenomenal world is illusion or mere 'appearance', Christian philosophy favoured in a sense the investigation of nature, or at least set no theoretical bar to it, because it regarded the material world not only as real but also as the creation of God, and so as worthy of study."

"For Ockham there is on the one hand God, free and omnipotent, and on the other hand creatures, utterly contingent and dependent. True, all orthodox Christian thinkers of the Middle Ages held the same; but the point is that according to Ockham the metaphysic of essences was a non-Christian invention which had no place in Christian theology and philosophy."

"The choice of the end and the choice of the means are both utterly contingent. This does not mean, of course, that we have to picture God as a sort of capricious superman, liable to alter the world-order from day to day or from moment to moment. On the supposition that God has chosen a world-order, that order remains stable. But the choice of the order is in no way necessary: it is the effect of the divine choice and of the divine choice alone."
"If the order of the world is entirely contingent on the divine choice, it is obviously impossible to deduce it a priori. If we want to know what it is, one must examine what it is in fact."

[Felipe · Rating 4 out of 5]

Volume III of Copleston's History focuses on Late Medieval and Renaissance philosophy, particularly the nominalist movement represented by Ockham and the growing shift toward scientific approaches, as well as the increasing separation between philosophy and theology.

This is not, to me, a book to read from cover to cover. The sprawling nature of Copleston's undertaking suggests that it is more suited to selected reading, yet until now the topics were interesting enough that I didn't even consider this approach. However, this volume, differently than the first two, consisted of mainly very specific authors that simply did not strike my interesting enough to justify the cover to cover reading strategy. At first, I was a little sad about this, but over the course of the book I reached the conclusion that it is impossible to be interested in everything, and that it is ok to just skip the discussions that feel too tangential to my goals. That said, this volume was not worse than the others in any way: Copleston treatment is still objectively world-class, even if my enjoyment was diminished. Hence my four stars rating.

However, there are, of course, great sections. My two main interests upon picking up the book were the two authors I had previously read, namely Francis Bacon and Machiavelli. From these two, the treatment of the first was impressive, given how concise it was. Therefore, to me the highlights of the volume were absolutely the chapter on Bacon and the closing chapter where he considers the first three volumes of his history in a broader discussion.

[Mustafa Hasson · Rating 3 out of 5]

تاريخ الفلسفة - فردريك كوبلستون
المجلد الثالث

يتناول هذا المجلد إجملاً فلسفة العصر الوسيط من اوكام (احد أعلام المذهب الاسمي) إلى سوريز في ثلاثة أجزاء، وتشمل أربعة وعشرين فصلاً، يستعرض خلالها العديد من الأفكار والحركات والمذاهب الفلسفية مثل الحركة الاوكامية-المذهب الاسمي، طبيعة الدولة والقانون، التصوف النظري، إحياء الأفلاطونية، نقد المنطق الأرسطي، فلسفة الطبيعة، الحركة العلمية في عصر النهضة، أثر العلم على الفلسفة، إحياء الاسكولائية وغيرها.

ما يثير للإهتمام في هذه الفترة هو تحول الجو العام للفلسفة نحو التجربة والبحث في العالم المادي بعد أن ظلَّ لوقت طويل محصوراً بالجانب النظري، وهذا لا يعني أن المنهج الفلسفي قد تغيَّر أو أُستبدل بمنهج جديد، بل يعني خلق بيئة فكرية مناسبة وداعمة لإزدهار التجربة، لذا نشهد بعد وقت قصير أن التجربة قد أحتلت صدارة المشهد الفلسفي في ذلك الوقت وما بعده، وهذا الأمر يرجع إلى كون الفلسفة المسيحية قد اعتبرت العالم المادي ليس حقيقياً فحسب، بل ايضاً اعتباره خليقة الله، وبالتالي فهو يستحق الدراسة.


الرأي الشخصي :

1. يحاول المؤلف إبراز ان الكنيسة واللاهوت المسيحي في العصور الوسطى كانت ذات نِتاج وتقدم بالنسبة للفلسفة، بل اكثر من ذلك فهو يحاول في هذا المجلد تبرير أفعال الكنيسة في محاكم التفتيش.

2. بغض النظر عن كل شيء فإن هذا الجزء الذي يعرض لفلسفة العصر الوسيط هو كنزٌ من المعارف الفلسفية كما يصرح بذلك المترجم إمام عبد الفتاح إمام.

التقييم : 3.5/5 ⭐ ⭐ ⭐

[Jeffrey Falk · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is the least interesting and most disappointing volume in Copleston's history so far. With a few exceptions (e.g, Bacon, Machiavelli), it contains minute detail on relatively minor figures in between Aquinas and the Enlightenment. In recounting the Renaissance, it arguably downplays the rift between Aristotelianism and Platonism and the confusions of Renaissance figures regarding which system was most consonant with their work and thought (for instance, Galileo mistakenly identified with Plato for complicated reasons). Two of the best parts of the book are at the end. Chapters on Hugo Grotius and Francis Suarez are fascinating and invaluable (particularly the latter's anticipation of an objective epistemology based on Aristotle and purified of his Platonic influence, which Ayn Rand would eventually achieve). Also, an overview of the first three volumes at this volume's end is useful (if incomplete--e.g., Augustine is omitted).

[Bahman Bahman · Rating 2 out of 5]

مفصل ترین کتاب تاریخ فلسفه در زبان فارسی به احتمال زیاد تاریخ فلسفه نوشته فردریک کاپلستون است که مرجع درسی دانشجویان فلسفه، و هم مرجع تدریس بسیاری از اساتید آنها، از دوره لیسانس تا دکترا است. دوره نه جلدی تاریخ فلسفه، به قلم چارلز کاپلستون، که به همت عده ای از مترجمان زبده به فارسی ترجمه شده است. مجموعه ای در دسترس خوانندگان فارسی زبان قرار می دهد که تا حد زیادی می توانند آنان را از متن های دیگر بی نیاز سازد، زیرا هدف نگارنده این بوده است که سیر تحول فلسفه را از آغاز تا اواخر قرن بیستم با زبانی ساده و روان برای خواننده تحصیل کرده معمولی بیان کند.

[Toni · Rating 4 out of 5]

Como materialista este periodo me resulta menos atractivo desde el punto de vista de la filosofía natural. Desde la filosofía política sin embargo es muy interesante, y el surgimiento o consolidación de la filosofía del lenguaje también.
- Nada que fuera libre puede ser eterno-
- La reciente practica de desacreditar las letras con injurias personales, vil producto de un espíritu falto de dominio de si.-
- No se puede encontrar certeza en las cuestiones morales en el mismo grado que en la ciencia matemática-

[Hesam.Ef · Rating 3 out of 5]

فقط یک پیشنهاد. قبل از خوندن فلسفه یا تاریخ فلسفه قرون وسطی سعی کنید یک مطالعه مقدماتی در کلام و الهیات مسیحی داشته باشید، چون فلسفه این دوره از
کلام مسیحی تأثیر زیادی گرفته. در این جلد و جلد قبلی همین کتاب هم خواسته یا ناخواسته این اتفاق افتاده و مسائل کلامی مسیحیت مطرح شده
من خودم به همین دلیل برخی از مطالب رو کامل متوجه نشدم

[Jim · Rating 2 out of 5]

This was a long slog through medieval philosophy which did not appeal to me as much as volumes I & II.

[Davidk · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very informative

[Aaron Crofut · Rating 3 out of 5]

Useful overview of Ockham and whetted my curiosity about Francis Suarez's impact on political philosophy. Metaphysics just doesn't seem to be my thing, though.

[☾ · Rating 3 out of 5]

(3.5/5)

[Hesham Sheir · Rating 4 out of 5]

اسم الكتاب: تاريخ الفلسفة: المجلد الثالث: من أوكام إلى سوريز. (موسوعة فلسفية)
الكاتب: فريدريك كوبلستون (فيلسوف ومؤرخ ولاهوتي إنجليزي).
تاريخ صدور الكتاب: الموسوعة مكونة من تسع مجلدات صدرت من 1946 إلى 1975.
التقييم: 4/5.

المجلد الثالث من تاريخ الفلسفة ل فريدريك كوبلستون يتابع تاريخ فلسفة العصور الوسطى في القرن الرابع عشر، ويتوقف وقفة مطولة عند فلسفة وليم أوكام؛ والتي كان أهم سماتها ظهور اتجاهات نقدية، خاصةً نحو الميتافيزيقا، واتساع الهوة التي تفصل بين اللاهوت والفلسفة، وترك إثبات الكثير مما جاء في الوحي للإيمان وحده، واتخاذ اتجاهات أكثر تجريبية.
ويستعرض الكتاب اتجاهات فلسفة الطبيعة، ثم تطور الحركة العلمية في عصر النهضة، وأثر ذلك على توجيه الفلسفة لاتجاهات أكثر تجريبية. ويستعرض الكتاب بعد ذلك الاتجاهات الاسكولائية الباقية في القرن الرابع عشر والخامس عشر، انتهاءً ب فرانسيس سوريز وكتاباته القانونية القيمة.

الملفت للنظر حقاً هو أن الحدث الفارق في تطور فلسفة العصر الوسيط كان هو اكتشاف منهج أرسطو، وتوافر ترجمات كاملة لكتاباته. في حين أن النقطة الفارقة في مواصلة الفلسفة لتطورها في عصر النهضة كانت الخروج من عباءة أرسطو، وظهور مذاهب نقدية لفلسفته. وليس هناك أي تعارض في هاتين الحقيقتين، فتطور العلم والحضارة في حاجة دائماً لمذاهب نقدية جادة تنقد القديم، وتقيم الجديد على أرض أكثر صلابة.

[Dave Peticolas · Rating 4 out of 5]

[David · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good overview of philosophy between about 1300 and the rise of the modern period.

[Luís Branco · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very compendious, but very efficient historical narrative.

[Lauren Henry]

seen on table in 02.04