Medieval Philosophy discussion

Why are there a bunch of books on the Medieval Philosophy Bookshelf that are neither about Medieval topics, specifically, nor philosophy, generally? For instance, what is a book about Sarah Palin doing here?

(They have since been removed.)

It's no wonder no one is contributing to this group, with irrelevant material having nothing to do with Medieval Philosophy.

Well, the irrelevant books are no longer visible because I deleted all of them, so maybe that is why you ask this question.

On the Medieval Philosophy Bookshelf I deleted a biography of Sarah Palin, a political punditry book about Mubarak and 21st century Egypt's future during Obama's tenure, and lastly, a book about Post 9/11 stuff.

Clearly not medieval philosophy; clearly not philosophy; and clearly not of or relating to the medieval period, or medievalism more generally.

To answer your question: medieval topics "speak about" as you say, those things that are considered to be related to the medieval period; and for this group, that which is specifically related to medieval philosophy.

Sure, we can define "philosophy" but that seems to be more than we need to do, especially given how futile it would be if we were hoping to obtain some 'real' sense of the term.

It should be enough to have a paradigmatic understanding of Medieval Philosophy here, in the context of this site.

So, back to why I posed my initial question: anyone who wants to suggest that books about Sarah Palin, 9/11, and Egypt's Mubarak are Medieval Philosophy, I'm more than willing to hear their argument.

So, It's unclear to me why you are asking if we (you and I?) can define "philosophy."

Please tell me what you understand "neo" to add to "medieval" and maybe I can have more to say about.

There are professional philosophers who consider themselves Neo-Kantians, yet I know of no one who would say such a person is an early-modern philosopher; moreover, there are those who consider themselves Neo-Platonists, yet no one, including themselves, thinks of such people as ancient philosophers.

They may specialize in early-modern philosophy or ancient philosophy, and thus be referred to as 'early modern' or 'ancient philosophers', but that is just in the sense that their strongest expertise is in philosophers and philosophical views of those respective periods; furthermore, such a label tends to indicate one's respective methodology to some extent and, in that sense a Neo-Kantian applies some sort of Kantian apparatus to contemporary philosophical debates and projects. The same holds for all the so-called Neo-Platonists, Thomists and Neo-Thomists.

I also have read Maritian, Gilson, and Lonergan. As we all know, they were not from the medieval period, but some of their work is related to medieval philosophy, especially Gilson, who was a recognized scholar in medieval history of philosophy.

So, the question, "are their writings medieval philosophies or not?" strikes me as peculiar. Firstly, they are 20th century figures--obviously not medieval figures; secondly, It's not as if all three of their respective writings are univocal; furthermore, even within their own writings, it's not as if, say, Lonergan only wrote on one or two topics such that those could be easily deemed "medieval."

Lets just say, for the sake of the argument, that they were espousing medieval philosophies. Their writings are at least in the same ballpark as medieval philosophy, compared to books about Mubarak & Obama, post 9/11 social commentary, and biographies of Sarah Palin, all of which miss the ballpark completely and land on another continent.