Why were Greek and Roman thinkers considered authoritative?

[Lorizael]

I'm currently reading God's Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science, which is part of an effort to dispel the myth that nothing scientifically/technologically/intellectually significant happened between 500 and 1500 AD. One of the overarching themes of the book is how medieval scholars wrestled with the works of Aristotle, Ptolemy, and other ancient thinkers. Over a few hundred years, these scholars managed to produce noteworthy commentary on and criticism of classical Greek and Roman authors. And doing so paved the way for the Scientific Revolution.

But what I don't understand is why Greek and Roman works were seen as authoritative in the first place. Before all that commentary and criticism, medieval scholars seemed taken in by recently uncovered/translated ancient texts, to the extent that Aristotle and Galen and others were considered (almost) gospel. But from my oh so enlightened modern perspective, I don't understand why they became so enthralled. I've read Plato, Aristotle, and other bits of Greek and Roman philosophy. A lot of it is brilliant and insightful stuff, but much of it is specious and plainly wrong (even not considering contradictory scientific facts we know now).

So why weren't medieval scholars of the past initially capable of nuanced analysis of ancient wisdom? Why did they allow these random texts from long dead pagans come to dominate their thinking for centuries?

[Dinner]

A lot of them aren't taken seriously. They were some of the oldest written accounts we had on many subjects so they get noticed a lot for that.

[Buster Crabbe's Uncle]

My answer is close to Oerdin's - because they were there. What else was there at the time? The Romans incorporated the parts of the Greek thinkers they liked as the foundation of their own for the better part of a thousand years - what else was there in 500 AD? We still know little about Greek philosophy and plays and science they didn't deem worth copying and spreading all over creation. Monks, as scholarly as they got, were predisposed to follow authority -CoughBibleCough- -CoughHolyWritCough- when they showed up, and this stuff was the established scholarly authority already when they got there.

Keep in mind, too, that most of them were of "barbarian" extraction -with very few exceptions, peoples who had been part of the Empire already for generations when it was breaking up and considered themselves Roman- w/o any other scholarly tradition to speak of outside straight theology to lean on. The Romans were crap for independent research/verification, and their monastic scholarly successors -many of who still considered themselves Roman for another 300 years- were no better.

Seems open-and-shut to me.

[Lorizael]

Keep in mind, too, that most of them were of "barbarian" extraction -with very few exceptions, peoples who had been part of the Empire already for generations when it was breaking up and considered themselves Roman- w/o any other scholarly tradition to speak of outside straight theology to lean on. The Romans were crap for independent research/verification, and their monastic scholarly successors -many of who still considered themselves Roman for another 300 years- were no better.

My understanding is that a lot of ancient texts quickly became unreadable after Rome fell because these barbarians weren't literate in Latin. So it was a few hundred years before they became accessible again, after translations wound their way through Byzantine and Islamic scholars. For a long time, all Europe had access to was mention of the greats. Like, they knew about Plato, but didn't have copies of his most important work that they could read until almost the Renaissance.

And again, some stuff was just plainly untrue. Like, Aristotle drew this distinction between "natural" (heavy rocks falling straight down) and "violent" (some dude throwing a rock) motion and said the two didn't happen at the same time. So if you throw a rock, it stays in the air and doesn't start to drop until it runs out of the ~force~ producing the violent motion, a la Wiley Coyote running off a cliff. But this is clearly nonsense to anyone who has ever, like, tossed a ball around. But instead of just going, "wtf was this Aristotle guy thinking?", for a long time medieval scholars just attempted to rescue Aristotelian physics from its apparent inaccuracies. But why bother?

[BlackCat]

Mindset. You look it with a 20ieth mindset and can see the fallacies, but people back then had a totally different mindset.

They lived in a feudal society and religion was unquestionable in a way that is unfathomable for someone from the 20'th century.

You say that you try to ignore whatever science has told is wrong, but your problem is that your mindset still is 20'th century, not 900-1500 mindset.

That is why you fail to understand.

[I AM I AM I AM MOBIUS]

So why weren't medieval scholars of the past initially capable of nuanced analysis of ancient wisdom? Why did they allow these random texts from long dead pagans come to dominate their thinking for centuries?

Anyone capable of such nuance lived in a social environment smaller than the crowd at a minor league baseball game in xxxxvilleton america on any given night
these are not large scale societies or networks
imagine your high school

apply the dynamics

all the pettiness and stupidity



better to keep your head down unless you want to wear all mother ****ing white, poper

[Lorizael]

...religion was unquestionable in a way that is unfathomable for someone from the 20'th century.

Yeah, but their religion was Catholicism, not Greek and Roman paganism. Aristotelian and Ptolemaic thought didn't really get fused with Christianity until Thomas Aquinas, at which point medieval scholars had been commenting on and critiquing the work for quite awhile.

[Jon Miller]

There is an argument that Christianity is a fusion of early Christianity (a form of Judaism) and classic theism which was based in part on greek philosophy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_theism

JM

[Jon Miller]

Early Christianity focused on knowing God through Jesus. This made God a lot more personal than Judaism. It was experential.

Classic theism was more the basis of theology, and was begun by Paul (in the NT).

JM

[Aeson]

Proximity. If they’d been in Asia they’d almost surely have been more familiar with and interested in Indian/Chinese/other thinkers.

[Buster Crabbe's Uncle]

My understanding is that a lot of ancient texts quickly became unreadable after Rome fell because these barbarians weren't literate in Latin. So it was a few hundred years before they became accessible again, after translations wound their way through Byzantine and Islamic scholars. For a long time, all Europe had access to was mention of the greats. Like, they knew about Plato, but didn't have copies of his most important work that they could read until almost the Renaissance.

And again, some stuff was just plainly untrue. Like, Aristotle drew this distinction between "natural" (heavy rocks falling straight down) and "violent" (some dude throwing a rock) motion and said the two didn't happen at the same time. So if you throw a rock, it stays in the air and doesn't start to drop until it runs out of the ~force~ producing the violent motion, a la Wiley Coyote running off a cliff. But this is clearly nonsense to anyone who has ever, like, tossed a ball around. But instead of just going, "wtf was this Aristotle guy thinking?", for a long time medieval scholars just attempted to rescue Aristotelian physics from its apparent inaccuracies. But why bother?

I believe you exaggerate the case -much, not anything like all, was lost, and less to illiteracy than the chaos of the times- and some of what later filtered back in as you mention had gained mystique, when know to be missing, as Lost Treasures of Transcendent Wisdom.

There was some special case to Aristotle that I can't remember, something like some powerful church opinion leader had found something in his work that anticipated Jesus somehow or I just don't remember, but he was considered the greatest and special and especially okay to study because of, despite all the Zeus.

As to the rest, I refer you to my previous, which I believe already covered that, along with Black Cat's correct point. Aristotle was Authority, not to be questioned, even moreso than Galen's anatomy texts based on apes that gave the wrong number of ribs for a human. Any five year-old could count ribs, needing no more than a few skinny people to stand still, but they hadn't had Nixon then, and Blessed Galen had been proclaimed Authority. Look upon the Emperor's Lovely Clothes, o' group mind, and adore.

[BeBMan]

In case of Aristoteles the sheer scale of his work played a role - he wrote about nearly every field, basically was - and in some cases still is - seen as the "the founder" of a number of disciplines. He was considered an (if not the) authority in both the islamic world, and - only few centuries later (hehe), after a wave of additional translations - in medieval Europe.

That those ancient guys were often wrong or held silly views on stuff (slaves, women for example) is not something I'd hold against them per se given from where they came and also because prominent thinkers of all times were wrong about things - debunking wrong stuff is part of progress.

[BeBMan]

My understanding is that a lot of ancient texts quickly became unreadable after Rome fell because these barbarians weren't literate in Latin. So it was a few hundred years before they became accessible again, after translations wound their way through Byzantine and Islamic scholars. For a long time, all Europe had access to was mention of the greats. Like, they knew about Plato, but didn't have copies of his most important work that they could read until almost the Renaissance.

The Renaissance usually means the one spreading from Italy in the later stages of the middle ages. But there were several smaller developments before:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_renaissances

The mentioned 12th century renaissance is related (not only) to the "re-discovery" of Aristoteles. But the two earlier dev's meant that the link between ancient and medieval world was never fully broken, even if there's certainly loss, esp. in the early middle ages.

[BlackCat]

Yeah, but their religion was Catholicism, not Greek and Roman paganism.

You get me wrong. I wasn't talking about the specific religion, just that it was a very religious society. Together with feudalism, you have a very rigid society where starting to question dogma is very big nono.

[I AM I AM I AM MOBIUS]

Stimpy but Mal *** laude