I reject the notion that given the "option" of freedom, people abandoned settled cultures and ways of life with the alacrity of rats from a sinking boat. One must see a vaster and even more nefarious story of concerted and ferocious efforts to weaken and undermine persistent forms of local culture, whether by dint of official policies that promoted mobility and encouraged indebtedness and gluttony, or more often by the subtle and nearly irresistible seductions of commerce that ultimately demolished every persistence of virtue in its path. We should note, too, that it was not easy - the battle was hard-fought and not-easily won - but being now won in most places, it is deeply and firmly entrenched and is highly satisfied that, having destroyed the necessary connection of a culture based in virtue that requires continuity between past and future, that the field has been captured and only some isolated immolation of a few injured opponents remains. Yet, even as it congratulates itself upon its victory, envisioning a globalized future of infinite prosperity, limitless growth, unchallenged mastery of nature and unending self-creation, the ancient premonitions daily assert themselves and doubt crosses the visage of the apparent victor.
As Fr. Pinckaers just passed away this week, it might be a good time to recall the distinction he makes between freedom for excellence and freedom of indifference. This is ably summarized by George Weigel in "A Better Concept of Freedom" (CatholicEducation.org archived copy). Though I do appreciate the work that Fr. Pinckaers has done in revitalizing the Thomistic moral theology, I wonder if he is correct in tracing the origins of the problems that arose in Catholic moral theology to the voluntarists and William of Ockham. Is Ockham being made the scapegoat for something else?
How are we to explain the decline of Christendom and Western civilization? Modernity, or specifically, some intellectual system or -ism? Or the effects of sin and unrestrained appetite?
Alas, what one scholar can study the whole of medieval thought, much less the whole of 'Western' thought since Christ? And yet the encyclopaedic project of having specialists work on different areas of intellectual history can lead to an over-reliance on authority to point out continuities and discontinuities. This is especially true when looking at the transition from the medieval to the Renaissnace to the modern period, when the biases of scholars can influence them to 'discover' breaks or transformations or continuations. And here I am just talking about moral theology and the moral sciences (which includes political science or 'theory'). Things get even more tenuous when one tries to link what was being taught in the universities or written in the privacy of one's study or published in books to what was happening in society at large.
I still think that one must look primarily at what those who had power over others, the political and economic elites, were doing in order to understand how society and culture was being shaped. Ideas, popular or esoteric, may have had some influence on members of those groups, but one must be careful of giving a premature conclusion as to how those ideas impacted legislation. Is it any wonder that given the difficulty of knowing all of the historical causes and effects that some seek a simple reductionistic answer, such as some conspiracy theory or other? Then again, perhaps their intuition may be shown to have been correct one day.
Publications of the Franciscan Institute (catalog)
iirc, CUA took over the publication of the Ockham critical editions? But I could be wrong, I should check the catalog.
From Dr. Freddoso: Ockham's Ethics
The Political Thought of William of Ockham - Google Books Result
The Cambridge Companion to Ockham - Google Books Result
Passions in William Ockham's Philosophical Psychology - Google Books Result
hrm...The Physics of William of Ockham - Google Books Result
No comments:
Post a Comment