Of all the explicitly theological thinkers I've read, Descartes is by far my favorite. He's one of the sharpest people out there IMO, and the exchanges in the Objections and Replies are fascinating.
Plus - and this is pure, unadulterated, unverifiable speculation if not sheer wishful thinking on my part - I have this theory that Descartes is the inverse of Kant: Whereas Kant is known as the Supremely Rational philosopher when really he was just another religious dude, Descartes is known as this devout philosopher who tried to reconcile reason and religion yet I suspect that Descartes was so traumatized by what happened to Galileo that his religion stuff is just him covering his ass. No clue how that could be proven, but I like to think that it's true.
Anyway, he's sharp as hell, the
Meditations are a great (and, by philosophy standards, also an easy) read, and seeing the give-and-take between him and his contemporaries is like reading a 17th Century version of a forum debate
Ok. Here's your "homework" for this thread:
1) You said that Hicks' discussion of Medieval philosophy was "complete horseshit." We went back-and-forth and seemed to reach the following point: I say that Hicks' book isn't - and never purports to be - a nuanced history of Medieval philosophy which burrows into all the nooks and crannies of ten centuries of thinking; rather, I say that he looks merely to set up a general context that hits the major points. I'm not asking if you think that he thoroughly articulates all the nuances of this or that philosopher/philosophy to your satisfaction. My question is much simpler: Do you wish to deny even that the general context that he sets up is accurate and maintain that it is "complete horseshit"?
2) You said that his characterization of Kant as being "anti-reason" was in error. I explained in great detail with lots of references and quotes why it's not. If you maintain that it is, then, since I already made my argument, it's now your turn to make a counterargument if you feel like it.
Your point about Descartes would have to be very well argued to cary any weight. He uses the ''religion stuff that (in your words) covers his ass'' in order to end his methodical doubt loophole. It serves a very important role in the philosophy of Descartes. Without it, the rest doesn't follow. It is because God exists and is perfect (ontological proof of Anselm and the consequences (+ Augustine's proof which is not as important for this)) that he is good and thus our senses don't betray us. I am simplifying, of course, I won't repeat the meditations here, but if you've read them you know perfectly well that God is not a mere ''covering his ass'' kind of thing.
1) I wish to say that oversimplification is a death in any history of philosophy. It serves as portraying your philosophers as the good ones and the others as the bad ones who are ''faith-based, collectivist (bad communist, gulags !)', etc.''. Any real account of history ought to be (ought! to be! ought / is OMG). Plus, Medieval philosophy is very rational. You said you didn't want to talk about Aquinas (I think, because it's accepted by Hicks as the start of rationality, something like that ? And then he proceeds to say that Renaissance was the real start of rationality, which in fact was a decrease, a reaction to the too-rational, dry scholasticism. I might be wrong on the assumption of Hicks here, hence the parentheses, but I stand on saying that the Renaissance is a rational regress.)
On the opposition of faith and reason in the medieval period, much can be said. I already stated that my main reproach is the radical dichotomy. In contrasting Medieval philosophy with the modern era, Hicks says : ''But what is fundamental to all three is the central status of reason as objective and competent—in contrast to the faith, mysticism, and intellectual authoritarianism of earlier ages. But what is fundamental to all three is the central status of reason as objective and competent—in contrast to the faith, mysticism, and intellectual authoritarianism of earlier ages''
Are you seriously going to say that the medieval era, an era where rational argumentation was the most important thing (have a look at the scholastic method : question, objections, sed contra, response, solution) was irrational ? Read one text by Siger de Brabant or Boece de Dacie and tell me it's not based on reason. It's, in fact, too reason based and losses sight of reality. I think you know about medieval philosophy, since you seem knowledgeable, and know the above quote is a sweeping quote meant to push a false dichotomy.
Also, in talking about faith, you seem stuck on religious faith. Augustine, who I won't deny is a religious thinker (that would be ridiculous) has a different idea. First of all, read his contra academicos, he prefigures Descartes' cogito ergo sum and phenomenology. In arguing against scepticism, he refers to the internal knowledge (I know I am, I know I perceive this to be blue, even if it might not be blue in-itself and I don't know if the universe is created or eternal, but I know it is either created or eternal). His account of faith is very interesting. For him, we always have to have faith before we know. He does not blindly believe in God. He believe in him and offers rational argument for him. He would also say that you have faith in lots of things, even if it's not a religious faith. You believe that George Washington founded the USA, even if you don't know it for sure. You believe in all sorts of things. He believes in God and rationally tries to explain it. Does he succeed in convincing me ? No. But tons of philosophers were rational and wrong.
2) Your arguments were mainly one quote and someone saying he was religious. I don't think religion = irrationality.
''Rationalism. Any variety of views emphasizing the role or importance of reason, usually including *intuition, in contrast to sensory experience (including introspection), the feelings, or authority.'' '' Rationalism in fact can take two main forms, according as it claims that some of our propositional knowledge, i.e. knowledge of truth of certain propositions, comes to us without coming through the senses, or claims that some of the materials through which our knowledge is cnstructed are present in the mind without coming through the senses. The latter will be the case if some of our concepts are *a priori (...). It might be, for instance, that concept such as those of substance or causation are present with us from the beginning in the sense that, as Kant thought, we do not find out the world contains substances and causes, but cannot help but see the world as composed........''
(oxford companion to philosophy)
Such a view that REASON is A PRIORI to knowledge and is how we INTELLIGE (I don't know how to translate intellegere in English) the world is found in Kant. Reason plays a major role in our understanding of the world. If you wish to argue that Kant does not answer to such a definition of what constitute Rationalism (and he would thus be anti-reason) you better provide better arguments or change the accepted definition of Rationalism (and changing definitions to fit your view is not recommended). In the mean time, Kant will remain a Rationalist.
BTW, this view is already pre-figured in Dietrich of Freiberg, a Medieval Scholar. Look him up.
