Skip to main content

A word about Abelard





In QUORA, I found this question, 

What's the historical significance of Peter Abelard’s treatise "Sic et Non," and why is it often translated as "Yes and No"?

It is an odd question, worth the expressive tilt of a yorkie's head, since there is nothing ambiguous or difficult about the translation.  "Yes and No" is simply what "Sic et Non" means.

I wrote a brief reply while under the impression that the querant who has asked was a confused human being.  I there acknowledged another possible translation, "Thus and Not Thus," but said that was awkward as a matter of idiomatic English.

I have since realized that this silly question was from an algorithm, not a confused person.  QUORA relies ever more on unintelligent algorithmically generated "questions" designed to spark controversy and hits.   

I will note here, dear human readers, that I was influenced in this answer by the common use of "sic" as a way of acknowledging an error in source material.

If a newspaper prints a letter from an irate reader, and the irate reader uses "their" to mean "there," the editor may decide to put the word "sic" in brackets after the error, as a way of telling readers --- the writer made this mistake, we are only passing it along. In that instance "sic" might be translated "thus".  The letter came to us thus. 
 

My response on QUORA also said:

"At any rate, the historical significance of Sic et Non is that Abelard was there a powerful champion of the use of reason in the defining and elaboration of a tradition of faith. Further, he was a Latin theologian who sought to combine reason and faith BEFORE the texts of Aristotle had become widespread in the Latin world. After Aristotle did become available, the whole faith-reason issue was redefined, and the battle had to be fought again under new colors."

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak...
25 comments
Read more

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a maj...
11 comments
Read more

The Growing Block Theory of Time

My own disposition, in regard to the philosophy of time, is toward the "growing block" theory. This is the view that past events remain realities, that present-moment events are also realities, but that future events are not yet real. The image is of the universe as a block with an edge on (say) the right-hand side. The block is expanding because that edge is moving ever further right, and that edge is what we call the present, or, simply, "now." Everything to the left of that edge is both static (the past is complete) and, still and forever, real. Think of the phrase "the moving finger writes." The chief alternatives to the growing-block theory are "presentism" (only the now-edge itself is real) and "eternalism" (past, present, and future are all real." I believe that time is a growing block because (1) that's what it feels like, (2) we should stick with the introspective phenomenon unless we have good reason to abandon ...
8 comments
Read more