The factual question is as follows:
Who is the most noteworthy figure of the early Scholastic period?
The answer is Anselm.
The discussion question is as follows:
Do you think that reason and revelation have their own separate realms like Thomas Aquinas believed or do think that reason and revelation are interconnected?
Well... I don't have a dog in this hunt, but I think some fans of Aquinas or Abelard or whoever might challenge the factual status of the claim that Anselm's the most noteworthy figure of his epoch. I do find him most noteworthy, personally, because I'm alternately intrigued and annoyed by his ontological argument.
ReplyDeleteI like your other discussion question a lot. My view: everything is interconnected, but in places very loosely. For what it's worth.
I agree with Dr. Oliver in the idea that everything is interconnected. With this question specifically, I feel as though revelation and religion cause us to question and seek out reason. And vice versa as well. Our reasons help us to decide on revelation.
ReplyDeleteI hold the same view that reason and revelation are interconnected. Going along the lines of what Lacey said, I think it's hard to always explain revelation with reason, and it's also sometimes hard to stick with a spiritual idea when reason seems to disprove it, but I think in a lot of cases they go hand in hand for me.
ReplyDeleteI would go the route that they're separate if only for the reason that Revelation, as described in Passion, seems so far removed from any sort of "Reasonable" explanations. The only way they can work inter-connectedly is when you either let some of reason fall wayward in favor of the unexplainable revelation, or to make the revelation seem less divine - if that's the correct word - by rationalizing what it revealed. On the same note, that may be where the previous posters fall in the "loosely connected" category. In my view, though, I would place them separately merely on the thought that you don't have to reason out your revelations.
ReplyDelete