THE THEOLOGICAL ORIGINS OF MODERNITY Free

The Theological Origins of Modernity | University of Chicago Press. The Theological Origins of Modernity by Michael Allen Gillespie. The
Theological Origins of Modernity - Michael Allen Gillespie - Google книги.

Michael Allen Gillespie

368 pages
The University of Chicago Press
9780226293462
English
Chicago, IL, United States
The Theological Origins of Modernity
 Yet while he brings the reader to such spectacular views, when we use the binoculars he stations for us verbally, we find these sights are still quite
obscure. This book definitely rewarded the serious brainpower it required of me! I have read a great deal by and about Descartes and Hobbes but
have never felt that I had such a clear understanding. Aug 16, Stefani rated it it was amazing Shelves: , philosophy , religion. Gillespie presupposes
an intelligent, diligent reader who is willing to put the effort into understanding. My memory may be failing me, or my intelligence had, but I re-read
those two pages at least four times closely and re-checked it against later parts of the book, and I think it's more likely that the central concept was
just not sufficiently clarified. Friend Reviews. The title is thus somewhat misleading in that Gillespie is focusing on philosophers who were alive
during times of religious strife. We aren't all humans because of sharing in that nature, to the nominalist, we merely all resemble each other and
'human' is a name nomen - nominal we use to mark out that family of resemblence. Gillespie's got a tour-de-force of Western culture's canons of
philosophy and theology, and sometimes literature as well. So these cumulative descriptors can begin to coalesce into an idea of what "nominalism"
might come to, but a medieval philosopher could not but find Gillespie's description of the crucial contrast term, the "world which nominalism
turned on its head," to be flat-footed: Scholastics in the High Middle Ages were ontologically realist, that is to say, they believed in the real
existence of universals, or to put the matter in another way, they experienced the world as the instantiation of the categories of divine reason. At the
end of his current book we are more than assured that Gillespie is up to the task. University of Chicago Press: E. On his side, he comes through
with detailed, well developed explanations of complicated ideas. Overall I was happy enough that all these things were pointed out, even with the
above mentioned flaws and even if they weren't all tied together in a clear, logical way. A welcome shifting of perspective to make sense of the
philosophical developments of the past millennium and their impact on our world today. Chicago Blog : Philosophy. During the early fourteenth
century, William of Ockham became one of the most outspoken opponents against realism and for a position known as nominalism. Certainly not
Thomas Aquinas, who has long been accepted as paradigmatic of the group named. While frequently mentioned as a source of patronage for
intellectuals, the papal court provides the cultural backdrop for the urbane Christian humanism of the Mediterranean, yet that very urbanity proved
a stumbling block to the church's claim to presage the coming of the Kingdom, triggering a northern reaction of righteous reform: "Luther and the
storm of faith. Jan 12, Ryan rated it really liked it. Improvising Improvisation Gary Peters. Modernity … originates out of a series of attempts to
construct a coherent metaphysic specialis on a nominalist foundation, to reconstitute something like the comprehensive summalogical account of
scholastic realism. Read with discernment as a good second companion to Gregory's Unintended Reformation. Gillespie does exactly the kind of
history I want to read, since I assume history's course and our wellness is decided predominantly by the truths we hold. They experienced,
believed in, and asserted the ultimate reality not of particular things but of universals, and they articulated this experience in a syllogistic logic that
was perceived to correspond to or reflect divine reason. Michael Allen Gillespie is the Jerry G. The "central question" plaguing Christianity is never
adequately identified, though divinity is clearly identified with power. Let me suggest, finally, Gillespie's inability to distinguish 'reason' from
'intelligence' not only weakens his presentation of medieval reflection on divinity, but itself betrays a characteristically "modern" mindset; again,
placing human beings as the apex of creation. English Deutsch. Exposing the religious roots of our ostensibly godless age, Michael Allen Gillespie
reveals in this landmark study that modernity is much less secular than conventional wisdom suggests. To see what your friends thought of this
book, please sign up. Protestantism was represented almost exclusively by Luther's Bondage of the Will, one of the less careful works of the
Reformation. This is no Philosophy for Dummies. If a jejune contrast between 'scholastic' and 'nominalist' cannot do the work the author intends it
to do, he has nonetheless illustrated how pervasively theological are the travails of modernity. Indeed, this is the meaning of the freedom, power,
and progress that we all prize. So we all need to learn better to appreciate the inner dynamic of Islamic philosophical theology, even if a brief
epilogue will not be the place to carry that out. As the thesis develops, it is variously described as "the nominalist ontology of radical individualism" ,
more specifically as "the recognition that the three traditional realms of metaphysica specialis , God, man, and nature, were ontologically the same,
though they remained ontically separate from one another" , which should prepare us for his central contention that. Michael Allen Gillespie. This is
especially true of our ignorance of the theological provenance of our own liberalism…. Gillespie's chapter on the debate between Erasmus-Luther
was among the most interesting in bringing this out. Highly recommended. The infelicitous generalizations happen to turn on areas where I have
been able to show how much Jews and Christians profited from Islamic reflections, like free creation. I find it perhaps not flatly wrong, but at least
odd, to suggest that much of the above thought is explicitly answering theological questions. Highly recommended. Read more The author envisions
modernity in terms of a turn toward the natural to explain the tensions of the divine and human relationship according to a nominalist foundation.
Taking as his starting point the collapse of the medieval world, Gillespie argues that from the very beginning moderns sought not to eliminate
religion but to support a new view of religion and its place in human life. As he puts it, it was "the omnipotent and transrational God of nominalism
… that so terrified the young Luther" For his purposes, Gillespie does an excellent job. Enlarge cover. Showing But how can these observations be
more than scholarly quibbles? Religion: Philosophy of Religion, Theology, and Ethics. I have suggested how a comparison with the cognate efforts
of Charles Taylor or of John Milbank might help clarify this central thesis. Yet while acknowledging that "this story explicates some very important
truths and draws some crucial connections," Taylor demurs: "I don't think this can suffice as the main story behind secularity" This is probably
because he does not explicate the subject of his thesis, scholastic realism, for more than two pages when you compress it together. The nominalists
denied those fixed natures, in attempt to better honor God's sovereignty. This was written by a non-Christian philosopher at Duke, but it seems the
evidence points to Protestantism via nominalism as a major influence and contributor to modernity and its many problems. This belief, however,
leaves us in a precarious situation. This is probably because he does not explicate the subject of his thesis, scholastic Gillespie does exactly the
kind of history I want to read, since I assume history's course and our wellness is decided predominantly by the truths we hold.

2008.11.09
Lucky for us, Gillespie's done the hard work of charting a path back to them, and while it can be a real mountaineer's climb to follow him, the view
from the top is breathtaking. Plus, it argues that Western political science can't understand the theological commitments of religious extremists b
This book definitely rewarded the serious brainpower it required of me! Just a moment while we sign you in to your Goodreads account. Can
summarize Gillespie primary points thusly: First, nominalism haunts the western theological and philosophic thought. The book traces the way in
which theological ideas about what God must be like became hidden in scientific and philosophical commitments after the challenge of nominalism
to scholasticism. It takes time and effort but is well worth it. This is ironic since modernity claims to have no need for the past and has, in its own
mind, disabused itself of its religiosity. Erickson Review of Politics. Thomas rated it it was amazing Jan 05, However, Taylor's writing is not as
understandable, although it is pretty good. University Bookman Fall offers a more detailed summary of the path of Gillespie's argument. While
himself a philosopher, Charles Taylor assiduously avoids attributing the seismic shift to 'modernity' or its clone, 'secularity' to a single factor like
 'nominalism', however one may attempt to characterize it. The clearest I can summarize the book is like this. Th e successful completion of this
project was rendered problematic by the real ontological differences between an infinite and radically omnipotent God and his finite creation
including both man and nature. Brief summary: Gillespie turns the conventional reading of the Enlightenment as reason overcoming religion on its
head by explaining how the humanism of Petrarch, the free-will debate between Luther and Erasmus, the scientific forays of Francis Bacon, the
epistemological debate between Descarte and Hobbes, were all motivated by an underlying wrestling with the questions pos Finished reading The
Theological Origins of Modernity , by Michael Alan Gillespie. Here one might usefully contrast his treatment with that of Charles Taylor in his
recent A Secular Age , or with John Milbank's characteristic way of decrying Scotus' malevolent influence, which this treatment superficially
resembles; or even compare it with Josef Ratzinger at Regensburg, identifying authentic Christian tradition with using human intelligence to discern
traces of the creator's activity. This belief, however, leaves us in a precarious situation. A wonderful topic and intriguing premise ruined by poor
execution. In that case, we can't Canards like "Islam has never known the enlightenment" are a stock part of our rhetorical quiver. This has become
one of the major works for defining my orientation to a lot of the history of Christian and philosophical thought in the West, as well as that shape-
shifting topic: "modernity. Sep 05, Simon rated it it was ok Shelves: history , philosophy , phd-reading. Gillespie presupposes an intelligent, diligent
reader who is willing to put the effort into understanding. It takes a much broader view of the development of our western world and is much more
informative. Welcome back. About Michael Allen Gillespie. Massimo Fagioli University of St. As the thesis develops, it is variously described as
"the nominalist ontology of radical individualism" , more specifically as "the recognition that the three traditional realms of metaphysica specialis ,
God, man, and nature, were ontologically the same, though they remained ontically separate from one another" , which should prepare us for his
central contention that. And even there he says many things about it, but not precisely what it is. However, this in turn culminated in an ambivalence
about salvation. This eventually led to the Nihilism of the modern world. Yet the author's use of "nominalism" turns essentially on contrasting it with
this caricature. Brief summary: Gillespie turns the conventional reading of the Enlightenment as reason overcoming religion on its head by explaining
how the humanism of Petrarch, the free-will debate between Luther and Erasmus, the scientific forays of Francis Bacon, the epistemological
debate between Descarte and Hobbes, were all motivated by an underlying wrestling with the questions pos. The problem remains: progressivism
vs. Nominalism was more dismissed than dealt with. From the nominalist perspective, however, such an order is untenable not only because each
being is radically individual but also and perhaps more importantly because God himself is not a being in the same sense as all created beings. Who
knows. Return to Book Page. Benzion Chinn rated it really liked it Aug 16, He makes his point. Table of Contents. This is probably because he
does not explicate the subject of his thesis, scholastic Gillespie does exactly the kind of history I want to read, since I assume history's course and
our wellness is decided predominantly by the truths we hold. It was disambiguated in all sorts of ways throughout the text possibly, which may
have accounted for the book's fluctuation between clarity and obscurity. Now such a "transference" would be impossible unless the entities or
"realms of being" in question were on a par. Readers also enjoyed. The latter is usually depicted as an atheist or his religiosity dubious at best and
his philosophy as chiefly political but Gillespie believes him sincerely religious if not exactly orthodox and reveals the underlying metaphysical
concerns behind his thought. Original Title. It will be difficult to remain Protestant after reading this book. Yet the concerns parents have when it
comes to rearing children in a thoroughly permissive environment, as well as the query of political theorists whether "liberal society" can even be
called a "society" at all, all bespeak a malaise regarding the fruits of "modernity" as it has become embodied in western social dis order. For all its
obvious advantages, this scholastic view of the supremacy of reason seemed to many to call into question God's divinity, since it subordinated
divine power to reason. Though Gillespie only reaches our contemporary situation in his last chapter, we might hope that, incomplete as it
unavoidably is, that chapter might form the nucleus of a successor work. Moreover, Taylor shows himself to be aware of John Milbank's more
focused account, even noting how he could find it persuasive, yet prefers a more dialectical and genealogical account. Lists with This Book. I'm
addicted to this type of book, one which sets out to show us the religious roots of our modern thinking, our mores, our most basic thinking.
Gillespie does a wonderful job of making the ideas of these writers clear. Gillespie's chapter on the debate between Erasmus-Luther was among
the most interesting in bringing this out. Jude rated it it was amazing Jul 13, As with any book of this type, The Theological Origins of Modernity is
limited by size.