Historia de la Filosofía 2: de San Agustín a Escoto

A History of Philosophy #2

by Frederick Charles Copleston

En este segundo volumen de la «Historia de la filosofía», Frederick Copleston se había propuesto inicialmente presentar el desarrollo de la filosofía medieval, comprendiendo por tal los sistemas de pensamiento desarrollados desde el Renacimiento carolingio a finales del siglo VIII hasta finales del siglo XIV. Sin embargo, reflexiones posteriores lo convencieron de la conveniencia de incluir el desarrollo de la filosofía en un período más temprano, correspondiente a la última época del Imperio Romano de Occidente, para conectar secuencialmente con lo presentado en el primer volumen de la obra, que parte de los presocráticos y termina con el neoplatonismo. Por este motivo, este segundo volumen comienza con la exposición de los pensadores que sirvieron de base a la tradición cristiana medieval, tales como San Gregorio Niseno y San Agustín.

Genres: Philosophy, History, Nonfiction, Reference, Religion, Theology, Medieval

582 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1950

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

[James F · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is the second volume of Father Copleston's History of Philosophy, probably the most comprehensive modern history available (see my review of volume 1). As a Thomist, he is dealing in this volume with the philosophies he is most interested in and knowledgeable about, and he gives much more detail on the period than other more secular histories. The volume begins with the Patristic era and the early middle ages, then moves on to the rediscovery of Aristotle in the twelfth century and the major Christian syntheses of the thirteenth. The philosophers he emphasizes (devotes multiple chapters to) are Augustine (6 chapters), John Scotus Eriugena (2), Bonaventure (5), Thomas Aquinas (11) and Duns Scotus (6); he also gives shorter accounts of many other philosophers. The major weakness is the concentration on Christian philosophers; the treatment of the Islamic and Jewish philosophers is extremely sketchy, particularly for such important thinkers as Avicenna and Averroes.

Since I am not a Catholic, or even a Christian, this is not the period of philosophy which I personally am most interested in, and the aspects I am interested in, the logic and epistemology, are somewhat shortchanged for discussion of the natural theology and "psychology" (in the original sense of philosophy of the soul), but this is a legitimate reflection of what these philosophers themselves considered the most important part of their systems.

[Erik Graff · Rating 5 out of 5]

Copleston was popular at Loyola University Chicago--and not just because he and it were Jesuitical. His "A History of Philosophy' was reputed to be a clear, readable overview of the field, albeit almost entirely focused on the West. The reading of his first volume on classical Greek and Roman philosophy confirmed this opinion, so, eventually, I proceeded to read more.

While Volume I was good, Volume II, on medieval philosophy, was excellent. I'd been exposed to the medieval thinkers at seminary, but not so thoroughly, my interest being more in ancient and reformation thinking back then. Perhaps it was because I knew so little that I was so impressed by this introduction to the period.

[Matt Pitts · Rating 5 out of 5]

A phenomenal book. A thorough and engaging survey of a vast stretch of the history of philosophy in the medieval period. Hard to imagine a better survey of the period.

Original review from partial read: I didn’t read the whole thing, only select chapters, but what I read was impressive. I struggled with the chapters on Bonaventure, perhaps because I was new to his work. But I appreciated how short and focused the chapters were.

[Paul · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is enormously readable and fun, aside from Freddie's unclean attraction to the word "propaedeutic". He steers what I find to be a good middle ground between trying to dredge up every auteur whose works have ever been found and focusing solely on a handful of top names. Thus Augustine, Erigena, and Bonaventure get multiple chapters, while several thinkers go by in between, but we do get a page or five or more to actually get to know the thought of each one adduced in some reasonable measure, and there is a clear sense of connection and development. I personally found the character of one Richard of St. Victor so intriguing that I plan to chase down his works.

[Hesam.Ef · Rating 3 out of 5]

تسلط کاپلستون بر موضوع بسیار خوب است ولی بسیاری از بحث های قرون وسطی امروزه بحث های بیهوده ای به نظر می رسند. تعداد زیادی از آن ها در زمره ی علم وارد شده اند و از حوزه ی فلسفه خارج. فلسفه ی این دوره همان طور که انتظار می رود به شدت تحت تاثیر کلام مسیحیت است. نباید منتظر
فلسفه ای به معنای امروزی آن بود. البته حرکتی کند در جهت فلسفه ی مستقل در همین قرن آغاز می شود و رشد می کند که متاثر از ارسطو است. با کلی نگاه کردن برخی روندهای جالب مانند عناصر جهان سنتی را می توان در این کتاب ردیابی کرد. در کل فلسفه ی این دوره را می توان فلسفه ی دین زده یا دین یاور نامید.

[Sina · Rating 5 out of 5]

خوب بلاخره تمام شد
اولا لازم میدونم در مورد تناقض امتیازی که به این کتاب دادم ونظری که در مورد محتوی کتاب دارم توضیحی بدم
کتاب از نظر ساختار، جامعیت و تسلط نویسنده بر کلیه مطالب فلسفی مسیحی مثال زدنی هست.اما اگه بخوام به محتوی کتاب امتیاز بدم فکر کنم ۱ هم زیاد باشه :)
در واقع عنوان کتاب نباید فلسفه قرون وسطی باشه بلکه باید الهیات مسیحی باشه!
چیزی که کتاب در موردش بحث میکنه شیوه نگاه مسیحیان به دین هست و بررسی عقلانی سازی امور وحیانی به وسیله اموزه های فلسفی که از یونان به مسیحیت رسیده!
تمام کتاب بررسی نظرات علمای مسیحی مختلف در مورد خدا،تثلیث،آفرینش و ارتباط خدا با موجودات وتوجیه آموزه های کتاب مقدس به وسیله عقل و در جاهایی توجیه تناقضات موجود در کتاب مقدس به وسلیه عقل هست!
در واقع اصلا عجیب نیست که در جای جای کتاب نتنها فرشتگان به عنوان موجودات عینی و گاها انضمامی فرض گرفته شدن که در مورد ذات و صفاتشون هم بحث میشه!
در واقع کل کتاب بررسی الهیات جزمی مسیحیت هست یعنی ما با الهی دان هایی رو برو هستیم که خدا وحی تثلیث و کتاب مقدس رو مسلم گرفتن و حالا در تلاش هستند بهترین و کار آمد ترین شیوه تبین مسائل الهی رو ارائه بدن و در خلال این تلاش ها ابتکاراتی روشی و نه محتوایی به خرج میدن!در واقع ذره ای رویکردی انتقادی یا حتی شکاکانه در کل این اعصار پیدا نمیکنید که خود این مهم خوندن این نظریات رو برای فرد امروزی که نظریات جدید چه الهی چه فلسفی رو بلدهسخت و خارج از تحمل میکنه
پس چرا برای کسی که به دنبال فلسفه هست و نه الهیات خوندن این کتاب نتنها خوب بلکه لازمه؟
به دو علت:
اول اینکه درک روند تاریخی تفکر و شیوه رشد دانش و درک آف هه بونگ صرفا در خلال بررسی تاریخی افکار متفکرین ممکن هست درسته کل کتاب بحث های الهیاتی هست اما تز ها سنتز ها و آنتی تز ها به خوبی در خلال این دوره قابل مشاهده هست
دوم:
اصلی ترین فعالیت های فلسفی کلاسیک و مهم ترین نظریات فلسفی در واقع واکنشی به الهیات مسیحی بود
در واقع برای درک درست ضرورت به وجود آمدن فلسفه نقدی یا برای درک کامل ایده آلیسم آلمانی که خودشون پایه ها ی اصلی فهم. فلسفه مدرن هستند درک الهیات مسیحی و فضای حاکم بر اون ضروریه!
برای من رویارویی با الهیات مسیحی مواجه ای تلخ و ناخوشایند اما آموزنده و ضروری بود

[Moderated · Rating 4 out of 5]

"The 'darkness' which envelops God is due primarily to the utter transcendence of the divine essence, and Gregory drew the conclusion that even in heaven the soul is always pressing forward, drawn by love, to penetrate further into God. A static condition would mean either satiety or death: spiritual life demands constant progress and the nature of the divine transcendence involves the same progress, since the human mind can never comprehend God."

“Are we certain of the existence of any real object or are we confined to certain knowledge of abstract principles and mathematical truths? Augustine answers that a man is at least certain of his existence. Even supposing that he doubts of the existence of other created objects or of God, the very fact of his doubt shows that he exists, for he could not doubt, did he not exist. Nor is it of any use to suggest that one might be deceived into thinking that one exists, for 'if you did not exist, you could not be deceived in anything.’ In this way St. Augustine anticipates Descartes: Si fallor, sum.”

"...when he said that happiness is to be found in the attainment and possession of the eternal and immutable Object, God, he was thinking, not of a purely philosophic and- theoretic contemplation of God, but of a loving union with and possession of God..."

"...does he not approve the pirate's reply to Alexander the Great, 'Because I do it with a little ship, I am called a robber, and you, because you do it with a great fleet, are called an emperor'?"

"the affirmative method means ascribing to God the perfections found in creatures, that is, the perfections which are compatible with the spiritual Nature of God."

"...even if certain names describe God better than others, they are very far from representing an adequate knowledge and conception of God on our part, and he expresses this conviction by speaking of God as the superessential Essence, the super-essential Beautiful, and so on."

"As God is utterly transcendent, we praise Him best 'by denying or removing all things that are— just as men who, carving a statue out of marble, remove all the impediments that hinder the clear perception of the latent image and by this mere removal display the hidden statue itself in its hidden beauty'. The human being is inclined to form anthropomorphic conceptions of the Deity, and it is necessary to strip away these human, all-too-human conceptions by the via remotionis; but the Pseudo-Dionysius does not mean that from this process there results a clear view of what God is in Himself: the comparison of the statue must not mislead us. When the mind has stripped away from its idea of God the human modes of thought and inadequate conceptions of the Deity, it enters upon the 'Darkness of Unknowing', wherein it 'renouncesall the apprehension of the understanding and is wrapped in that which is wholly intangible and invisible . . . united .. . to Him that is wholly unknowable';5 this is the province of mysticism."

"...the attempted 'explanation' or development of the dogma by this or that Father is simply the result of the Father's rational effort and is not final."

The problem of Universals - "If extramental objects are particular and human concepts universal, it is clearly of importance to discover the relation holding between them. If the fact that subsistent objects are individual and concepts general means that universal concepts have no foundation in extramental reality, if the universality of concepts means that they are mere ideas, then a rift between thought and objects is created and our knowledge, so far as it is expressed in universal concepts and judgements, is of doubtful validity at the very least."
'What, if anything, in extramental reality corresponds to the universal concepts in the mind?' This may be called the ontological approach, and it was under this form that the early mediaevals discussed the matter. Or one may ask how our universal concepts are formed. This is the psychological approach."

"...Richard admits indeed that we cannot fully comprehend the mysteries of Faith, particularly that of the Blessed Trinity, but that does not prevent his attempting to show that a plurality of Persons in the Godhead necessarily follows from the fact that God is Love and to demonstrate the trinity of Persons in one Nature."

"St. Bonaventure was perfectly faithful to the spirit of St. Francis in regarding union with God as the most important aim in life; but he saw very well that this would scarcely be attained without knowledge of God and the things of God, or at least that such knowledge, so far from being a hindrance to union with God, should predispose the soul to closer union."

"Although St. Bonaventure did not postulate an explicit and clear idea of God in every human being, still less any immediate vision or experience of God, he certainly postulated a dim awareness of God in every human being, an implicit knowledge which cannot be fully denied and which can become an explicit and clear awareness through interior reflection alone, even if it may sometimes need to be supported by reflection on the sensible world."

"Imagine, he says, an eye fixed and motionless on a wall and observing the successive movements of all persons and things down below with a single act of vision. The eye is not changed, nor its act of vision, but the things under the wall are changed. This illustration, remarks Bonaventure, is really in no way like what it illustrates, for the divine knowledge cannot be pictured in this way; but it may help towards an understanding of what is meant."

"...Bonaventure admits that matter never actually exists apart from form and only states that if it is considered, as it can be considered, in abstraction from all form, as mere potentiality, then it can justly be said to be essentially the same. If the angels have an element of possibility, of potency in them, as they have, they must possess matter, for matter, considered in itself, is simply possibility or potency. It is only in the Being who is pure Act, without any potency or possibility, that there is no matter."

"It is plain, then, that St. Thomas would not agree with the Leibnizian 'optimism' or maintain that this is the best of all possible worlds. In view of the divine omnipotence the phrase 'the best of all possible worlds' does not seem to have much meaning: it has meaning only if one supposes from the start that God creates from a necessity of His nature, from which it would follow, since God is goodness itself, that the world which proceeds from Him necessarily must be the best possible. But if God creates not from a necessity of nature, but according to His nature, according to intelligence and will, that is, freely, and if God is omnipotent, it must always be possible for God to create a better world. Why, then, did He create this particular world? That is a question to which we cannot give any adequate answer, though we can certainly attempt to answer the question why God created a world in which suffering and evil are present: that is to say, we can attempt to answer the problem of evil, provided that we remember that we cannot expect to attain any comprehensive solution of the problem in this life, owing to the finitude and imperfection of our intelligences and the fact that we cannot fathom the divine counsel and plans."

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

As one might imagine (and, if one is conscious not to prejudge, one would indeed imagine after a brief survey of the table of contents), this is a sweeping summation of a large amount of time in the history of philosophy. This is most certainly true: Father Copleston begins with a consideration of early Christian philosophy (whether or not one would call the early Christians "philosophers" in the true sense is, in my mind, debatable; most certainly some of the Ante-Nicene fathers are more philosophic than others), through (of course) Augustine and ending with Duns Scotus. For those who want numbers, the volume begins effectively with the 2nd century CE and ends at the 13th: approximately 1100 years!

This is, in some ways, rather unfortunate; allow me to elucidate. Some philosophers are of the belief that philosophy was subjugated to theology as a result of the rise of the Christian faith, was held captive to the demands of bored monks bickering on matters of faith and employing philosophical tools to prove inherently non-philosophical points, and was only released with Ockham in the 13th century. That Copleston encapsules so much time into one volume would seem to enforce such a conception; but at the same time, one must also realize that it is not entirely a misconception, and Copleston even mentions the fact in this volume. For instance, one often finds him noting that Augustine never divided philosophy from theology: they were, in his and in some previous Christian minds (think Clement of Alexandria), one and the same thing; the only difference being that, whereas the pagans had philosophy, which was good, the Christians had revelation, which fulfilled philosophy's inevitable shortcomings. The distinction between faith and philosophy did not really begin until Aquinas. So, in a way, and as Copleston will openly declare at many time, the opinion that philosophy operated within a distinctively theological context is true; the difference will lie in the opinion that, in contradistinction to those philosophers mentioned above, Copleston would argue that philosophy was not subjugated in the sense that it was not free to speculate; it only speculated in a new context. The validity of this argument I will not argue in favor or in disagreement with.

This being said, what Copleston discusses, is discussed in detail. Six chapters are devoted to Augustine, and both Islamic and Jewish philosophy are each given a chapter (which, I believe, is far too short, especially considering that the former includes persons such as Avicenna and Averroes). Bonaventure is given five chapters, while to Duns Scotus is devoted six. But of course, as one might guess, the main focus of the work is on Thomas Aquinas, the crowning jewel of medieval philosophy (and theology). Ten chapters (and an additional chapter discussing controversies surrounding his Aristotelianism) are devoted to him, so that one feels, for a large section of the reading of this volume, is essentially a work on Aquinas and the origins of Thomism. But, most certainly, I do not think this should be too much of a bother, since often the only philosopher given any attention at all from these eleven centuries is Aquinas.

It is, of course, a necessary read for anyone who wishes to attain at least a basic grounding of the history of philosophy. One cannot reject the works of this period as "merely theological," for without theology, we cannot at all be certain where philosophy would have gone. This is not a good argument--in fact, it is no argument at all. But what I do want to say is that one cannot rightly write off the works of these persons because their interests were directly related to ecclesiastical concerns and controversies; indeed, philosophy proved her use and influence during this time as much as at any other time.

[☾ · Rating 3 out of 5]

(3.5/5)

It seems to me a good synthesis of the various philosophical systems of the 13th century, the book separates theology from the philosophy of the Saints, thus leaving a nucleus that contains their main philosophical ideas, which were founded on Aristotelianism and Neoplatonism, and that were modified in support of the idea of ​​God.

I mainly liked the part of St. Augustine, when he talks about enlightenment and how he realizes this, it seems to me a beautiful system, really done through faith and also the heart, I like the philosophy of St. Thomas and Duns Scotus too.

It is possible to notice the main differences between each one, arising from the fact that their systems varied in essential things that led them to change some aspects with respect to others, and I like how they approach this universal point of view in systems. I like when they talk about the illumination, the rationes seminales, and the difference between existence and essence by Thomas Aquinas.


//

Me parece una buena síntesis de los diversos sistemas filosóficos del siglo 13, el libro separa la teología de la filosofía de los Santos, para dejar de esta forma un núcleo que contiene sus principales ideas filosóficas, las cuales fueron fundadas en el aristotelismo y neoplatonismo, y que fueron modificadas como apoyo a la idea de Dios. Me gustó principalmente la parte de San Agustín, cuando habla de la iluminación y cómo él se da cuenta de esto, me parece un sistema hermoso, realmente hecho a través de la fe y el corazón, y también me agrada la filosofía de Santo Tomás y Duns Escoto.

Es posible notar las diferencias principales entre cada uno, surgiendo a partir de que sus sistema variaba en cosas esenciales qué los llevaban a cambiar algunos aspectos con respecto a los de otros, y me agrada como aborda este punto de vista universal en los sistemas.

Mis partes favoritas son cuando se habla de la iluminación, las rationes seminales, y la diferencia entre existencia y esencia planteada por Tomás de Aquino.

[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.

[Zachary Horn · Rating 4 out of 5]

Another really excellent contribution from Copleston. Undeniably meaty and at times dense, this volume nonetheless remarkably captures the philosophical movements represented in the critical thinkers of the medieval period with enviable concision and clarity. One minor complaint—given the unfortunately lapsed state of my Latin, I did find the frequency of untranslated Latin phrases irksome, and in a few cases directly inhibiting to comprehension of the main point Copleston was making.

[Lingling · Rating 5 out of 5]

西方哲学史第二卷中世纪哲学（公元八世纪到14世纪初，第三卷侧重于中世纪后期）。作者驳斥了传统观念古代和现代哲学好比自由人，而中世纪哲学却像个奴隶。他认为所有哲学思想都受到外部因素影响，不应夸大神学的影响。预感这本书读起来可能挺困难，因为对中世纪的哲学家们非常陌生。

作者在讨论中世纪前先概述了希腊和拉丁神父们的主要哲学观点（柏拉图的影响和希腊哲学家对旧约的借鉴）。

St. Gregory of Nyssa(公元335-395) 希腊神父（后来成了主教）中最博学的之一（其观点受柏拉图和新柏拉图主义影响，以基督信仰为中心）。上帝出于善意和爱创造了世界。罪是人类自由选择的结果，不由上帝负责。上帝虽然预见了罪恶，但他允许其存在，是因为他知道他最终会把所有人都带到他身边。St Gregory是系统神秘神学的真正奠基人。人能够感知事物，但这些只是上帝的幻像。灵魂在求知过程中的无力感（无法看到上帝的真面目）使其陷入一片黑暗中（在中世纪文献中被称为未知的云雾）。环绕着上帝的黑暗主要源于神性的超越性。Gregory得出结论即使在天堂，灵魂仍不断上升（被爱牵引）试图接近上帝。所以神的黑暗是一直存在的，而Gregory强调这一处于黑暗中的知识高于智识（不是因为他轻视人的智力而是他意识到上帝的超越性）。

另一对中世纪影响更大的神父St. Augustine (公元354-430，死于8月28日，无论文学还是神学造诣在整个西方直到13世纪都处于统治地位，著作等身）出生于北非塔加斯特（Tagaste），早期生活方式背离基督教（情妇和私生子），信仰上偏向摩尼教（灵魂来自好的原则，肉体来自坏的原则）。去罗马前他跟摩尼教的主教请教关于为何好坏原则处于永远的冲突中，没能得到满意的答案，动摇了他对摩尼教的信仰。他到罗马后办了个学校教辩论术，后来去了米兰（找了第二个情妇，母亲又给他找了个结婚对象）。在此期间接触到新柏拉图主义和新约。跟两位神父交谈后他开始悔过自新，从道德上（而后思想上）皈依了基督教。

Augustine的哲学思想跟基督信仰很难明确区分，在他看来人是一个整体（堕落后被救赎），而不是分为超自然和自然人两部分。他的哲学没有明确定义的系统，但作者认为正是这种模糊性为他的思想流传提供了可能。Augustine认为对真理的追求能带来真正的幸福，真正的美。“有限的不断变化的人的意识如何能获知明确的永恒的真理（制约意识从而超越意识）？”（答案是因为上帝的照明）。关于真实存在，他认为人���少能确定自己的存在。（先于笛卡尔的我思故我在，但他并不关心外部世界是否真实存在，他只在乎关于永恒真理的知识以及其与上帝的关系）。更进一步，人能理解自己存在的事实和自己活着的事实，这样一来人能确定三件事：存在，活着和理解。他认为上帝从虚无中创造世界（最初同时创造了物质或者说所有事物的雏形，创世纪里每天产生的不同事物源于后来的发展过程）。灵魂是不灭的（非物质）。教会高于世俗国家。

Pseudo-Dionysius（5世纪晚期到6世纪早期希腊哲学家/神学家）从正反面描述上帝。正面：上帝是完美的，代表一切美好。反面：所有的不完美都跟上帝无关。反面比正面更具体，最终抵达（环绕上帝）不可知的黑暗。关于世界和上帝的关系，上帝从自身散发到万事万物（创造是上帝的自然之举）。上帝既是起点也是终点。他视恶为德性的匮乏（本身不是具体的存在）。

查理曼大帝（公元八世纪末九世纪初）除了军事和政治才能外，还很重视教育。对当时欧洲很多学校（据说包括后来发展成巴黎大学的学校）的发展做出了很大贡献。很多学校是为了培养神职人员。学校里主要教授七种文学艺术包括语法（grammar），辩论（rhetoric），辩证（dialectic），代数，几何，天文学和音乐。九世纪的学者很少有原创思想，但对传承起了重要作用。

九世纪最值得一提的哲学体系来自John Scotus Eriugena(810-877),一位爱尔兰哲学家。他精通希腊文（把前人的作品翻译成拉丁文）。他的体系也是从前人的基础上发展起来的。认为上帝既是“Nature which creates and is not created”, 也是“Nature which neither creates nor is created”，既是“Nature both creates and is created”，也是“Nature which does not create”. 他的作品后来被教皇给禁了（理由是宣扬泛神论和蔑视权威）。“Authority is nothing else than the truth found by reason and handed on by the Fathers”.作者认为他从未怀疑上帝的存在（来自Scripture），只是对三位一体（圣父，圣子，圣灵）持保留态度（不能直接从理性推导出来而是需要启示revelation）。

中世纪早期（10世纪到12世纪）的哲学思想主要围绕着认识论（意识和现实的关系）和本体论【外部世界的什么对应着意识中的普遍概念（局限于genera 和species层面上）或者普遍概念是如何形成的？】第一个解决方案是“夸张的现实”（想法和实物间明确的对应关系）。比如人这一概念，柏拉图认为它是人类本性的理想化状态（个体的人只能或多或少的模仿），而中世纪学者认为它反映了外部世界真实存在的一种物质，人参与其中（或者无意之间改变了，个体的人之间的差异只是偶然的）。与这一观点对立的一派（Roscelin）认为只有个体是真实存在的，普遍的概念不过是主观想象（只是一个词，没有实体对照）。后来Abelard（才华横溢，但非常有棱角，对老师们的攻击毫不留情，曾因为无法跟其他僧侣打交道而离开过两个修道院）把辩证法用于神学（从而被打成异端），认为普遍概念既不是超现实，也不是纯粹主观意念，而是介于两者之间，“by universal ideas the mind conceived a common and confused image of many things…”。 John of Salisbury（1115/20-1180，才华横溢的人文学家，文学造诣很深）也反对超现实派，认为普遍概念是抽象的脑力建设，虽然没有实在的外部存在，但确是建立在客观基础之上的。

ST. ANSELM（1033-1109）受Augustine影响很大，认为不是为了信奉上帝才想去理解（教义），而是信奉之后想要理解。他在哲学史上占有一席之地是因为他对自然神学的贡献。作者认为不论他试图证明上帝的存在是否成功，他能够系统性的对待这一课题就对哲学发展做了贡献。两大问题：上帝的存在和三位一体。Thomist（托马斯主义者）认为前者属于哲学范畴（可以通过理性推导），而后者是神学问题（不能通过理性推导，只能通过神的启示）。Anselm的观点是两个问题都能通过理性推导（他没有把神学和哲学分开）。

中世纪对欧洲文明最大的贡献之一是大学系统（最伟大的中世纪大学在巴黎，12，13世纪）。“Italy has Papacy，Germany has Empire，France has Knowledge”。地方大学也各有所长，最著名的是School of Chartres，把柏拉图和亚里士多德的学说都发扬光大。School of St Victor：Hugh of St. Victor（德国人）证明了上帝的存在，信仰和神秘主义；Richard of St Victor（苏格兰人）证明了上帝的存在。辨证神学在下一个世纪（13）得到系统整合从而到达顶峰。

伊斯兰教哲学：之所以在中世纪哲学史中讨论伊斯兰哲学是因为早期亚里士多德的著作被翻译成叙利亚语，波斯语等阿拉伯语言，后来12世纪又从阿拉伯语翻译回拉丁文，中世纪的学者接触到的亚氏理论并非原汁原味而是很大程度上被阿拉伯学者诠释过的。Avicenna（阿拉伯世界东部文化的杰出代表，就是他说读了四十多遍也没看懂亚氏的著作）至少在三个主题上影响了中世纪学者：1）知识和照明（illumination），2）本质和存在的关系，3）物质作为个体化（individuation）的原则。Averroes（1126-1198，西部的杰出代表）写了很多关于亚氏作品的评论，但有些部分很难分清哪些是亚氏的观点，哪些是Averroes的观点。

但丁（1265-1321）对阿拉伯哲学家们的态度。这一问题源于但丁在神曲里把穆罕穆德放到了地狱，而把Averroes和Avicenna放到了地狱边境（limbo），把Averroist拉丁学派的Siger of Brabant放到了天堂，更甚者把Siger的悼词放到了St Thomas Aquinas（Siger的强悍反对者）的嘴里。但丁把哲学家们放在好的位置（Siger是基督徒所以在天堂）。但丁的哲学也受到了伊斯兰学者的影响，尤其是Averroes。

亚氏的著作由于翻译问题（有些从希腊文，有些从阿拉伯文）以及中世纪早期的学者对历史的认知有限（无法完全理解柏拉图，亚氏以及新柏拉图主义的联系和区别），从而导致其他人的作品被误认为亚氏的著作，直接结果是教皇一段时间把亚氏某些著作列为禁书，也禁止在大学教授。但13，14世纪教会对亚氏的官方态度已经是接受了（认为其跟基督教是兼容的，这并不意味着所有中世纪学者都全心全意的拥护亚氏理论）。

13世纪巴黎大学（其次牛津大学）影响广泛。欧洲的大学相对教会和国家来说拥有一定的特权（比如学生免于兵役，大学不用交税，charter由教皇或者帝王/君主授予）。中世纪的人早在13，14岁就进入大学学习，艺术类课程要4年半到6年，神学更长。成为博士教授神学的最低年龄是34岁，而教授艺术最低年龄是20岁。

Robert Grosseteste （1170-1253）1221年成为牛津的校长。他继承了Augustinian传统（也采用了一些亚氏哲学观点），并结合了经验科学（数学上也有建树，影响了Roger Bacon）。他的哲学围绕着光的理念（光结合了物质形成了没有维度的简单事物）。真理的显现是因为神的光照，而不涉及上帝的形象（vision of God）。

Alexander of Hale(1170/80-1245) 巴黎大学第一位Franciscan Order的神学教授。他的学说（并非他个人的贡献也包含了其他学者的研究）代表了对亚氏理论态度转变的一个阶段。他认为由于亚氏不是基督徒（没有得到神的启示）所以亚氏的哲学不可能令人满意（站在山上的人比山脚下的人对山谷的景色看得更多）。他的著作更多的是总结（试图糅合）前人的观点（没有独立的发展）。

St. Bonaventure(1221-1274) Franciscan Order的代表人物。维护St Augustine的传统（主要兴趣在于灵魂上升到上帝处）。没有严格区分哲学和神学。他认为令人满意的哲学体系是不可能的，除非哲学家被信仰之光指引。他觉得亚氏作为自然哲学家成就显著，但他不认为亚氏的形而上学令人满意（缺乏信仰之光）。

他对上帝存在的证明主要通过灵魂上升。他认为人天生有追求幸福的渴望，而上帝就是善，就是幸福，所以人的内心深处有上帝的存在。他不赞成亚氏关于永恒世界的观点因为他认为永恒世界否认了世界是上帝创造的（Aquinas对此有不同看法，认为即使世界是永恒的，也有可能上帝从永恒中创造了世界）。基于此他对亚氏持有敌对态度。最后关于为何上帝不让这个世界变得更好，只能回答“that He so willed and that He Himself knows the reason.”

他认为上帝创造了整个的人的灵魂（不灭的），而不是仅仅理性部分。灵魂是跟身体的整体连在一起的（并非只跟特定的部位比如心脏联系在一起）。灵魂是精神层面的，旨在追求完美的幸福。所以灵魂自然而然是不灭的，从而证明了上帝的存在。灵魂的本质是上帝的形象。Bonaventure的形而上学体系里三个中心点：创造creation，范例exemplarism，和启示illumination。

Albert the Great（1206-1280）Dominican Order的代表人物，是Thomas Aquinas的老师，一生大部分时间在科隆。他兴趣广泛，思想开明，博学多才，注重观察和实验。他认为哲学和神学界限分明：哲学（一门独立的科学）建立在理性（light of reason）之上，而神学建立在信仰（light of faith）之上。他把哲学思想用于神学中（重大贡献），并强调虽然神学里的哲学思想不是主要的但可以作为次要手段来反驳那些敌对的哲学家。他的理论没有一个完整的体系，总体而言继承了Augustine的传统，但是用亚氏的分类来诠释Augustine。他最大的贡献是让中世纪的人认识到亚氏理论的重要性。

St Thomas Aquinas（1224/5-1274）中世纪最有影响力的哲学家。他的哲学系统性很强，一大特点是采用了亚氏哲学的“客观性”，同时相比Bonaventure的理论Aquinas的哲学可以和现代哲学媲美（而不囿于中世纪的背景）。

人的自然终点在此生不完美的幸福，可以通过人的本质和力量来达到（其方法可以通过哲学获得）；人的超自然终点只有来世通过上帝的形象来达到（属于神学范畴）。两者不矛盾。前者即使是不完全的但并不代表它是错的。Aquinas对亚氏评价很高，认为他在非基督徒哲学家中凭借人的理性和智力达到了巅峰。他觉得亚氏的形而上学虽然不完整但可以让人满意，同时他也承认任何独立的形而上的系统都有可能有错误（没有信仰之光）。

Aquinas和Bonaventure对亚氏的不同态度可以结合当时的背景来看。13世纪拉丁基督世界第一次熟悉了亚氏的理论（起源完全独立于基督教，被基督教的对手比如Averroes视为人类智慧的顶峰）其深度和广度13世纪的基督学者们无法忽视。对待亚氏理论可以有不同的态度。Bonaventure认为亚氏没有神性之光的照耀所以其体系注定是错的。Aquinas则认为亚氏系统是一个把神学和哲学焊接在一起的绝妙工具，即使不是基督徒亚氏也有可能获得形而上的真理，尽管他人对亚氏学说的诠释有可能出错。

St. Thomas证明天使的存在（为了填补人和上帝之间的空隙），认为天使是纯精神的，没有实体。本质和存在（只有上帝这两者是合一的，对于其他所有有限的事物这二者的区别是客观的独立于意识）行动和潜能。他提出了5条论据证明上帝的存在（unmoved mover；first efficient cause；necessary being；self-existing Perfection/supreme Being；intelligent Being）。关于上帝的本质，他采用的也是排除法，通过认识上帝不是什么来了解上帝的本质。当我们说上帝不是有形的，我们并不是否认上帝有身体，而是说上帝不仅仅有身体并且没有肉身所具有的所有缺点。当我们说上帝是睿智（wise）的和我们说人是睿智的，这两个“睿智”既不完全等同（equivocal）也不统一（univocal）而是类似的（analogical，相对于第三者的关系来说）。动物/药品/气色是健康的，这三个健康相对主语来说表达不同的意思（动物拥有健康，药品是健康的原因，气色是健康的体现）。

“It is plain, then, that St. Thomas would not agree with the Leibnizian 'optimism' or maintain that this is the best of all possible worlds.”“ if God creates not from a necessity of nature, but according to His nature, according to intelligence and will, that is, freely, and if God is omnipotent, it must always be possible for God to create a better world. ”如何看待世上的罪恶？对于物理性质的恶，St. Thomas认为上帝就像一个艺术家而世界是他的作品，为了宇宙/世界的完整性，上帝不经意得创造了（willed by accident）某些物理性质的恶（比如疼痛，死亡）。对于道德上的恶，上帝允许它的存在是为了成全人类自由选择的权利（可以选择上帝也可以选择作恶）。

灵魂和肉体是一体的（更接近亚氏理论）。生命的不同层次：植物性的（vegetative level of life：营养，成长和繁殖）；感官性的（sensitive level：五大外部感官，四大内部感官，行动力和感官欲望）；理性的（rational level：主动智力，被动智力，和意志will）。对于智力和意志哪个更高级，St Thomas认为关于实体的知识智力更甚一筹但有时候意志高于智力（比如对上帝的爱高于关于上帝的知识）。灵魂的精神性使得灵魂可以不灭（即使身体死亡）。

知识是如何产生的？主动智力（是一个动态的过程）从个别元素中提炼出抽象的共性，从而在被动智力（静止的部分）中产生了概念。头脑中知识的来源是感官认知。人的智力无法直接感知上帝，但可以获得类似的间接的不完美的关于上帝的知识。

亚氏的幸福（可在此生获得，是人的自然终点）在St. Thomas看来是不完整/不完美的幸福（只有来生上帝的影像才是完美的幸福，也是人的超自然终点）。St. Thomas的伦理学里宗教是仅次于公正的德行，这一点不同于亚氏理论（上帝和人没有个人关系）。所以St. Thomas的政治理论虽然建立在亚氏理论基础上，但却增加了教会的重要性。国家是建立在人的本质基础之上的自然机构。虽然国家可能成为一个完美的社会，但由于人只有一个超自然的终点，国家只是教会的侍女（handmaid）。

St. Thomas的学说一开始被认为是危险的，直到13世纪最后二十年才被接受。1323年Thomas被册封（canonization）为圣人。但他的学说成为正统是后来的事。

Siger of Brabant（1235-1282，被他的疯子秘书刺杀了）是拉丁Averrorist的代表人物。他认为理性能够证明所有人只有一个思想上的灵魂（亚氏理论所有人的被动智力/灵魂只有一个，Averroes不仅被动智力，连主动智力也只有一个），尽管信仰让人们相信每个人都有一个自己的思想灵魂（上帝奇迹般的复制了多个灵魂）。但丁把Siger放到了天堂，且让St.Thomas（他的对手）赞扬了他，有学者诠释为神学（St Thomas神学的象征）向哲学（Siger哲学的象���）致敬。

Roger Bacon (c. 1212 to after 1292)，Franciscan Order 的代表人物，区别于Francis Bacon (1561-1626)。As Professor Adamson remarked, 'it is more than probable that in all fairness, when we speak of the Baconian reform of science, we should refer to the forgotten monk of the thirteenth century rather than to the brilliant and famous Chancellor of the seventeenth'，while Bridges observes that though Francis Bacon was 'immeasurably superior as a writer, Roger Bacon had the sounder estimate and the firmer grasp of that combination of deductive with inductive matters which marks the scientific discoverer'.

It is in the 《Opus Minus》that Bacon treats of the seven sins of theology。《Opus Maius》（他的最重要作品）第一部分人类无知的四大原因：subjection to unworthy authority, the influence of habit, popular prejudice, and making a show of apparent wisdom to cover one's own ignorance.前三者前人都论述过，但第四点最危险。第二部分神学。三四部分强调了语言和数学的重要性。五六部分提到了光学和实验科学。最后部分关于道德哲学（人和上帝的关系，人和人之间的关系）。

John Duns Scotus（1265/1266-1308）承上启下。Scotus认为智力的对象不仅是物质，也包括非物质（在天堂灵魂可以直接认知非物质），这一观点不同于St Thomas。他接受了亚氏关于抽象的说明，但不认为主动智力和被动智力是两种力量，而是一种力量的不同方面/作用。基于归纳法和知识的客观性他反对St Thomas的理论。Scotus的理想科学是数学。他对神学的定义/看法（跟几何学这种能用理性理解的科学不同，是实用科学practical science）不同于St Thomas（认为神学是speculative science因为是关于神的而不是人类的行为）。两者的分歧在于St Thomas强调智力和理论思考，而Scotus注重意志和爱。Scotus区分直觉和抽象的知识。

Scotus的形而上学定义为science of being as being。他的学说一大特征是提出了客观正式的区别（objective formal distinction）这一说法/概念。比如人的灵魂具有rational soul和sensitive soul这一正式区别（并不存在实体对应于这两者但确是完全不同的）。他提出这一概念是为了维持知识的客观性。

Scotus的自然神学：上帝的存在需要理性证明（a posteriori）。我们关于上帝的自然知识是模糊的。他觉得first mover这个证据不够充分，更偏向于the first cause。他最为关注的是上帝的无限性（infinity）。

身体和灵魂的关系。St Thomas认为灵魂和身体结合是为了灵魂好，而Scotus认为是为了人的整体好（the good of the composite being, man).意志（不同于智力，高于智力）是自由的。哲学可以证明理性灵魂是人的特定形态，但哲学不能证明灵魂不灭和死后身体能复活。

[Ammara Khan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Medieval Philosophy starts from Patristic Philosophy and ends with Duns Scotus. Though I have a basic understanding of Medieval Philosophy, my knowledge of the area is rather patchy. After reading this volume I feel my comprehension of the field has improved a great deal. Copleston devotes most of the chapters to Augustine, Bonaventure, Thomas Aquinas and Duns Scotus. It is quite clear that Copleston, as a Jesuit priest, is in his element in this volume. Being a Thomist himself, he holds Thomas Aquinas in the highest regard and believes that he is the greatest synthesiser (of Greek Philosophy with Christian theology) of the Medieval Period. His treatment of the Muslim and Jewish Philosophy, on the other hand, is cursory at best. Also, as a non-religious person interested in philosophy in its purely intellectual scope, I found it unnerving that he treats Faith and Truth as indubitable facts. But despite this disproportionate treatment of individual philosophers and overly religious colouring of the arguments, Medieval Philosophy goes a long way in putting together an exhaustive account of a Philosophical era overlooked by other secular histories.

[Joseph Yue · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have no words to describe this magnificent work other than "the majestic philosophical spectacle of the century". There is no beating around the bush, Fr. Copleston simply lavishes his sea of knowledge on the reader unceasingly, covering the vast period of 1000 years from early patristic era to late medieval time. It is true that, just as expected, he spent much effort on expounding the nuances in the thoughts of the intellectual giants such as St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, but the relatively unknown figures also got a place of their own. At the beginning of the book, Fr. Copleston clearly states that it is not his intention to compose an encyclopaedia of philosophy. Indeed he kept his words well, for he did not write an insipid report of past ideas, instead he conducted a vivacious symphony in which everyone is placed exactly where he should be. If there's an even better and more enjoyable way to learn philosophy than reading Fr. Copleston, it is probably being taught directly by the apparition of St. Thomas himself.

[David Withun · Rating 3 out of 5]

-

[Felipe · Rating 5 out of 5]

Once again, Copleston absolutely delivers in his History of Philosophy series. As in the first volume, he exposes the major philosophical figures in a clear, erudite, serious, and charitable way. Yet, this time around, the focus in centered on medieval philosophy up until Duns Scotus, rather than the Greek and hellenism philosophy of the first volume.

Upon reading my last review of him, it became apparent how much I praised him. Still, this time around, the author managed to surpass himself. I attribute this partially due to the subject matter, which is probably his specialty since he was a jesuit priest. Additionally, I attribute this increase in quality to my better familiarity and preparedness on the subject, as I read extensively from Aquinas before tackling this book. Lastly, there are now many passages that explore the historical impacts and context of the thinkers highlighted, which I think raises up the authors to not merely thinkers but thinkers within a tradition and time period.

As in the last time, he is very erudite, linking up different doctrines, in a very clear, although difficult, manner. There is little to no handholding, and there are still many untranslated passages, but this time in latin rather than Greek. However, as I said, I came much more prepared this time. Hence, this aspects weren't as much of an issue as they were before. I actually appreciated his lean and precise commentary, despite its challenges.

The chapters on Aquinas, the problem of universals, and Augustine were specially well written, but the chapters on some of the less known thinkers, such as Alexander of Hales, or the ones which highlight many thinkers within a single tradition, such as The School of Chartres felt a little excessive in length and depth.

My single criticism in the work lies in the exposition of Anselm. When dealing with the ontological argument, Copleston is too charitable. I think he could have been a little harsher to what to me is the worst argument I've ever seen. Of course, writing isn't at all impartial, ever. Yet, in this chapter his defense of Anselm is a little too incisive to my tastes.

All in all, an excellent book on the history of Philosophy that is sure to give a throughout comprehension of the medieval period. Despite being very heavy on metaphysics, to the point that previous study is mandatory, I feel like this series warrants the commitment necessary to fully appreciate it. Specially since, to me, it stands as one of the greatest academic accomplishments in systematic synthesis of the 20th century.

[fake · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book convinced me that it's not the slumber of the mind that breeds monsters, but rather its active involvement. The narrative unfolds like a captivating story of thought corrupted by systems and stratification. The carcasses haven't yet appeared, but already the monsters of individualism and racism are visible by the end of the 13th century. It's a time when "the virtual became actual" and logocentric views permeated the minds of thinkers. The source of corruption is, of course, Greece with its revered philosophers, Plato and Aristotle. Their stratified thought couldn't imagine anything outside of pre-existing coordinates of the language system, which spread like a virus over the field of thought and further stratified it. This led to deductions such as "as light is an eternal source of truth, that means that white is good and black is bad," formulated by none other than Saint Bonaventure himself. Such thinking paved the way for harmful lines of thought. Traces of the word "judgment" began to appear during this epoch as a means to justify the discernment of "essential truth". All other philosophical spillages seem to stem from the thinkers of the 12th and 13th centuries who adopted Greek ideas.

What's also fascinating are insights like "how one concept or word necessarily involves its correlative or word... in proof he employed a grammatical method, in that from one word he concludes to another word which is contained in or presupposed by the first word." This reminds me of machine learning and AI. There are other gems, too, but I'm too lazy to look for them now.

It's an intriguing read, although occasionally one must exercise a bit of patience to wade through the abundance of Latin words.

[Matthew Abbott · Rating 5 out of 5]

Copleston is well-read and informed on the major philosophical developments of the medieval period.

He stitches together the different currents of thought of the period, and how each philosopher developed their views from previous thinkers, and where they did not.

This includes the interplay between Ancient Greek philosophy and medieval.

I enjoyed the proofs for God’s existence. Although I found none of them convincing, well at least not watertight like a proof should be. Proof of such kind only exists in the realm of mathematics and the formal sciences.

Other topics include the nature of god, the soul’s immortality, the question of evil and morals from a Christian perspective, creation from eternity, free will, and many other topics. This book is more or less encyclopaedic in its breadth and deepness.

Also included is some philosophy from Avecinna and mamoniades who weren’t Christians but were important thinkers in this period nonetheless.

I really enjoyed it but found it exceedingly challenging at the same time. I’d recommend it for someone who wants a good overview of philosophy from this timespan. You don’t really need much philosophical background but it would of course help you make the most of it if you did.

[Paul · Rating 4 out of 5]

In case you're confused, Goodreads has these two books (in my early 1960s, pre-ISBN edition) listed as separate editions of the single History of Philosophy Volume 2, which I can only assume was usually published as a single huge tome. My two "read dates" are the first half and the second half.

The author sounds like a confirmed Thomist, and yet he actually made me aware of a great many criticisms of Thomas' actual claims and arguments. After reading Lonergan treating Scotus as his private punching dummy, I found the Scotist chapters in this book were very sympathetic. Copleston saw Scotus as being unfairly tarred as a pre-Ockhamist and was at pains to explain how he tried, sometimes through tortured arguments (he was the doctor subtilis, apparently) to explain God as, say, loving HImself both completely logically and completely freely.

Actually, I should point out that among the chapters I found most interesting in the whole complex were the Islamic and Jewish philosophers chapter in part I and the Franciscan thinkers (i.e., between Bonaventure and Scotus) in this part II. You'd have thought Roger Bacon would get a chapter of his own...

[Acharnist · Rating 5 out of 5]

I'm not sure I've gained any new knowledge about Scholastic philosophy after reading this volume (in fact I think I know even less now), but in any case I definitely enjojyed peeking into the minds of these great thinkers. One can only stand in awe of what St. Thomas achieved with his philo-theo-logical system of thought.

One nitpick I have with Copleston's method of communication is that, though he understandably devotes most of his pages to major thinkers like St. Augustine and St. Thomas, the other philosophers's systems are often not any easier to comprehend, and because he packs them into less writing space, this has the effect (for me at least) that the less significant philosophers were much more difficult to read. Just something to be wary of I guess.

On to Volume 3!

[Samuel Eastlund · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent overview of the major (and minor) thinkers of medieval philosophy. There really aren't many 'big names' in the history of western philosophy between Augustine and Bacon, but those who are there are influential and deservedly so. The minor thinkers up until Anselm are well presented, so it will give you a good idea of the sort of things people in the West were thinking about at this time. Obviously a significant amount of space is taken up by Aquinas, Bonaventure and Scotus. A very good post-introduction text on Aquinas, but modern readers would probably want to start somewhere else before reading this.

[Mustafa Hasson · Rating 5 out of 5]

تاريخ الفلسفة
المجلد الثاني

في هذا المجلد يأخذنا كوبلستون إلى ما قبل العصور الوسطى المؤثرات الفكرية في هذه الحقبة وتأثيرها على حقبة عصر الآباء، أبرز معالم هذه الفترة هو محاولة الابآء لشرح العقيدة المسيحية بطريقة فلسفية.
يعتقد وهؤلاء الآباء بأن أفلاطون وبعض الفلاسفة الآخرين قد اقتبسوا بعض الأفكار من العهد القديم، وأن الفكر البشري لن يؤدي إلى الوصول للحقيقة بدون إلهام سماوي.

نظراً لكون كوبلستون كان كاهناً يسوعياً فقد عرض هذه الفترة باهتمام شديد وبكثير من التفصيل، وقد جعل لبعض الفلاسفة المسيحين في هذه الحقبة حظاً كبيراً، حيث خصص لهم عدة فصول، وهم، أغسطينوس (6 فصل)، جون سكوتوس أروجينا (2 فصل)، بونافنتورا (5 فصل)، توما الأكويني(11 فصل)، دانز سكوت (6 فصل).

من الأمور الأخرى التي يمكن ملاحظتها في هذه الفترة من الزمن،هي هيمنة الفلسفة الافلاطونية و الافلاطونية المحدثة طيلة العصور الوسطى، إلى أن تم اكتشاف ارسطو في منتصف القرن الثاني عشر.

كذلك نجد أن كوبلستون قام باختزال كبير للفلاسفة المسلمين، فقد عرضهم ببضع صفحات وبشكل سطحي جدا لا يفي حقهم ولا اسهاماتهم الفكرية في هذه الحقبة.

ركزت فلسفة العصور على اللاهوت بشكل كبير، بينما الأفكار التي جائت بها اليونان (التي كانت وثنيه بنظرهم) فهي كما قال تاتيان، ضلال وانحراف وأما ما كان منها صائباً فهي مو الكتاب المقدس، ومع ذلك فقد استخدموا فلسفتهم لمعالجة الأسئلة اللاهوتية.

أحد أكثر المواضيع التي تم مناقشتها في هذه الفترة هي الإيمان مقابل العقل، ذهب البعض إلى تقديم العقل على الإيمان مثل ابن سينا، وذهب البعض الآخر إلى تقديم الإيمان على العقل مثل كلمنت الاسكندري الذي يقول " إني أؤمن لكي اتعقل".
كذلك تم مناقشة العديد من المواضيع مثل الصفات الإلهية، مشكلة الشر، الوجود، المنطق، الأخلاق،...الخ.

[Aaron Crofut · Rating 4 out of 5]

In fairness, I read the first half of the book; St. Thomas Aquinas will have to wait until I can properly devote time to him. I picked this book up for its section on Sts. Augustine and Bonaventure. Copleston presents these historical thinkers in a clear and lucid manner, and his books make decent references for their philosophy. It is unfortunate that St. Bonaventure's philosophical material is so difficult to find in English.

[Nikolay Korablev · Rating 3 out of 5]

Lots of untranslated Latin - caveat lector. For a nonbeliever, the author's priorities can be frustrating (obviously God, soul, metaphysics most of all) but his Thomism was the reason I undertook to read this series - to get a glimpse of an alien mind, and in this respect, the book does not disappoint. Beginners might want some supplementary encyclopedia-style reading.

[⋆ ˚｡⋆౨ৎ˚Malena · Rating 4 out of 5]

A comprehensive overview of the most important thinkers of medieval philosophy. Very much enjoyed the structure of his thinking and his writing style.
However, you better know your Latin (or have your dictionary handy) if you want to come far with this book - which I am thankful for because I would‘ve probably just skipped the originals to read the translations.

[Austin Hoffman · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very good introduction and summary of philosophy from this time period.

Read sections on Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas.

[Kevin Carson · Rating 5 out of 5]

I'm fairly impressed with Copleston's entire history. But he's a neo-scholastic and an expert on 13th century philosophy, so he's probably one of the best introductions to medieval philosophy.

[Patrick]

n.b. I should learn latin before I read this.

[Josh Goldman · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very informative series. Thanks FC