Itinerarium Mentis in Deum
by St. Bonaventure
I am now back from the Scotus Congress which was at St. Bonaventure's. It was a bit of a change in pace. At Trinity, I'm pretty much the resident scholastic. At the congress, though, I felt like an infant in the world of medieval studies. It was cool though to meet some other people with similar interests and to get some tips on how to proceed. The papers which I heard seemed to fall into three camps: the ones which were great, though I couldn't quite catch everything; the ones which were decent, but mostly rehash of stuff I know; and the ones which were pretty much a waste of time (either they weren't very good, or I couldn't follow them at all, or both).
I've regained some motivation, but the usual question of breadth vs. depth still plagues me. I want to learn everything, but I want to learn it all well. To really do medieval philosophy would require steeping in it for a good amount of time, it seems. So to do comparative work with, say, Madhyamaka and Yogacara Buddhism would be fascinating, but I couldn't really get all of the good stuff out of either then.
Also, if I were to go along a more purely medievalist route, would I want to do more with philosophy and theology, in which case I would continue with some training in modern philosophy in which case I could work with the thinkers as relevant to today, or would I continue in a more historical vein, understanding the context better and perhaps unearthing some less-studied (but nonetheless astute) thinker? Practical calculations also seem to play a role. I think I would prefer going with a straight-up medieval studies degree more (at least during the studies, I don't know about the subsequent career path), as I could dabble in other areas more easily (bored with philosophy? let's look at the historical context. Bored with history? What literature could be influenced by these thinkers?). However, it would be a fair bit easier to get a philosophy job (not that that would be a guarantee itself). In addition, there is the issue of where I could benefit the community the best. With my talents & interests and the current historical circumstances of American intellectual culture, would I better serve the community by bringing the thought of these guys into contemporary discussion (building conceptual bridges), or by working on critical editions, translations, and the like (building practical bridges)?
4 comments:
Some people do both--translate, do historical commentary, and do independent work. I've seen it with Kant and Aristotle scholars among others. All scholarship takes time.
I probably would do all of the above at some point, but I would have to specialize I think. Also, I think that medieval philosophy occupies a different place than, say, Kant. For Kant, I can research thinkers like Leibniz, Hume, and Berkeley in order to understand his references - all of whom would further help my teaching position. For Scotus, on the other hand, I'd need to work with Henry of Ghent, William of Ware, and Gonsalvus of Spain; most of these wouldn't help me with a philosophy job, though they would be good for a medieval studies/history position. Also, I think that the scholastics reference each other more throughout more scattered and less researched works (most of them don't even have critical editions out yet, and that's an issue considering the nature of manuscript transmission at the time), so to do historical work with them would take up more time than simply trying to get some philosophy out of one or two.
There are Ph.D. in Philosophy programs that emphasize or allow for emphasis in Medieval / Scholastic thought, aren't there? I know there's practically no concern with Medieval philosophy here in Toledo, but I would think some of the Catholic schools would offer more. Probably it wouldn't make a difference to your hirability in either a philosophy department that wants a medieval philosophy specialist or a medieval studies department that wants a medieval philosophy and theology specialist which program you get a doctorate at. Although I suppose the hypothetical philosophy department would be happier with someone who could teach other philosophy courses as well.
True, I may be making it a bigger deal than it needs to be. At the same time, I already notice myself living in a different world when I'm focusing on medieval work. As you've probably noticed, I'm not really up on most of the topics you're talking about. At the same time, I want to explain everything in a Platonic/Aristotelian framework, and use that in most of my philosophical thought now (when I've been able to sort through all of the conflicting pulls to put some precision to it). So, in order to get back into the contemporary philosophical world, I would need to do some extra work. But then the question becomes whether I would rather get back into that world, or be more cross-disciplinary within one time period?
Post a Comment