The Causes Which Induced the Decline of Scholasticism
The causes of the decline of Scholasticism in the fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries.
This article deals with the causes which induced the decline of Scholasticism and with the more important philosophies that replaced it in favour and influence during the fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries. Glenn traces the decay less to any external assault than to faults within the schools: the multiplication of subtle distinctions pursued for their own sake, the substitution of dialectical display for genuine inquiry, the appeal to authority in place of argument, and the bitterness of party division between the schools. To these he adds the neglect of the natural sciences and of the study of things in favour of the study of words. The result was that Scholasticism lost the confidence of thinking men and left the field open to the systems described in the article which follows.
Chapter IV — The Decline of Scholastic Philosophy
Article 1. The Causes Which Induced the Decline of Scholasticism
The present Chapter deals with the causes which induced the decline of Scholasticism and with the more important philosophies that replaced it in favor and influence during the 14 and early 15 centuries. The Chapter is, therefore, divided into two articles:
of Scholasticism
With St. Thomas Scholasticism reached completeness and perfection. There was no longer any opportunity for intrinsic development in this great System; for indefinite development is not possible in philosophy as it is in the arts. Philosophy— true philosophy—is a body of true principles; and is therefore stable, unchanging; and once perfected, it must remain so forever. The only development which can accrue to it is extrinsic, and consists in the extension and application of its principles in the interpretation of the findings of the physical sciences which go on developing indefinitely through every age. And just as true philosophy, once completed, cannot have further intrinsic development, so also it cannot suffer intrinsic retrogression or decline. It may decline extrinsically; it may cease to be valued at its true worth; it may be lost sight of among men. It is important to keep clearly in mind that the decline of Scholasticism was of this extrinsic or external character. Although the opinion of philosophers subsequent to those of the 13 century, and the opinion of non-Scholastic philosophers of the present day, is pretty generally at one in consigning Scholasticism to the philosophical scrap-heap as a thing outworn and forever useless, we who have compelling reason to regard it as the one true philosophy, are certain that it is neither outworn nor useless, although it has been so generally cast away. It is truth; and “Truth crushed to earth shall rise again”; Scholasticism will one day come into its own. But even if that day be far removed—and we have great and reasonable hope that the day is not far removed—it can make no change in our appreciation of that which is true and perfect in itself. Scholasticism has long been recognized as the true philosophy in Catholic colleges and universities, and among Catholic scientists and learned men generally. Unfortunately enough, such recognition has, in this day of prejudice and unbelief, only served to prevent or retard the recognition of Scholasticism as the true philosophy by the learned world at large. It is regarded as “Catholic Philosophy,” suited only to the needs of those who “force reason to accord with the dogmas of Catholic Faith.” This unfair judgment upon Scholasticism is being sturdily combated by the Neo-Scholastics of our day.
The Scholastics themselves were largely to blame for the decline and eclipse of Scholasticism. At the beginning of the 14 century they were divided into two camps, the Thomistic and the Scotistic. This division indirectly favored the protagonists of new doctrines. Again—largely because of the Thomist-Scotist division—quibbling in clever displays of dialectic skill came to be the favorite employment of Scholastics; and this meant time lost for the Schoolmen and time gained for their opponents. Besides, the world of thought and intellectual endeavor had had its fill of dialectic; the Scholastics not only lost time by their hair-splitting cleverness in debate; they lost sympathy and respect as well.
Two other causes, one remote and one proximate, concurred in the decline of Scholasticism in the 14 century. The remote cause was the diminution of the strong spirit of Faith among the Catholic peoples of Europe, and the relaxation of religious discipline among the regular clergy. The proximate cause or causes may be stated thus: (1) The inauguration of new universities in which a careless order of studies was observed, courses shortened, and degrees easily obtained. Even the great University of Paris failed to live up to its fine traditions in these matters. (2) The continued increase in the number of raw, ill-instructed pupils, who easily became estranged from Scholasticism which their slipshod preparatory studies had not prepared them to understand. (3) The lack of great constructive minds among the defenders of Scholasticism. (4) The relentless zeal of the anti-Scholastics in warring upon the decreasing number of true Scholastic philosophers.