Dear Kathryn!
Thank you for your answer! You liked to get a short summary about John
Marenbons Philosophy of Peter Abelard! Here it is:
The book is divided into three parts: The first describes life and work ,
the second the logic, the third the ethics of Peter Abelard! Marenbon ends
with a short summary, containing his conclusions!
The book reports in a well comprehensible manner the main topics of
Abelard's theories about dialectic, morality, theology. As it describes the
most important terms of dialectic and ethics within the contemporary
context, the book may be suitable to get an overview of Abelard's
Philosophy. The general conclusion of Marenbon is: Abelard was sometimes an
innovating, sometimes a critical, but first of all a constructive thinker.
I will not conceal, that I was a little bit disappointed of Marenbons work:
He reported most of the dates of Abelard's life accurately - except the date
of the council of Sens. In 1995 a German scholar named Jürgen Strothmann
demonstrated, that, most probably, the council took place in 1138 and not in
1140. So the last period of Abelard's life must be reinterprated including
his relations to Arnold of Brescia. It's absolutely incomprehensible, that
most scholars in the world - including Marenbon, Mews, Clanchy - ignore the
well-done and profound study of Strothmann!
In the bibliography I missed some manuscripts and other important works
about Abelard.
The report about Peter Abelard's thinking is generally correct, but don't
enlarge the spectrum of known interpretations. Most of the conclusions are
commonplaces, well-known from other works about Abelard. Marenbon had the
problem, that he intended to write about philosophy, but he often had to
refer to theology. There is too less place for the really new ideas, which
Abelard developped in his dialogue with Heloise, for his thoughts about
female theology, for his theology of tolerance against other religions, for
his innovating method of working, for the consequences, that Abelard -at his
life - could only interpret a part of Aristotle's work. The conclusion, that
Abelard was an constructive philosopher more than a critical, was not
surprising.
So I read the book, but at the end, my opinion about Peter Abelard was the
same as before. The book stands in my library since one and a half year, but
I didn't ever use it - in opposite to many other works!
What shall I say more?
I'm interested, what's your opinion about "the tome". Please let me know!
Best wishes
Palatinus
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|