 | This is the sandbox page where you will draft your initial Wikipedia contribution.
If you're starting a new article, you can develop it here until it's ready to go live. If you're working on improvements to an existing article, copy only one section at a time of the article to this sandbox to work on, and be sure to use an edit summary linking to the article you copied from. Do not copy over the entire article. You can find additional instructions here. Remember to save your work regularly using the "Publish page" button. (It just means 'save'; it will still be in the sandbox.) You can add bold formatting to your additions to differentiate them from existing content. |
Response to Peer Review
editThe shared point for improvement from both peer reviews was that I needed more sources. I acknowledge this, two of my sources just came in rather late and I am still working with them. Secondly, finding sources that talk about the same thing for John of Salisbury, especially the medical perspective, is unfortunately difficult. The sources I have been able to get a hold of primarily talk about different things, but I will either add new sections or try my best to find any relevant content to corroborate what I have written.
There was some confusion about what I wrote vs. someone else, I apologize. I thought I made it clear. I have already added a section to "Secretary to the Archbishop of Canterbury" about the Metalogicon, and someone else in the actual article has already added content related to the Policraticus. I do like the name change suggestion on my section about medical science, and I will be changing it.
Article Draft
editSmall Edit
editSecretary to the Archbishop of Canterbury
The idea of contemporaries "standing on the shoulders of giants" of Antiquity, attributed by him to Bernard of Chartres, first appears in written form in the Metalogicon. The Metalogicon consists of four books starting with defending the trivium and extending further to comments on other areas of logic. John defends the trivium by stating socialization is a critical part of human nature and well-being, while in the past Cornificius and his followers argued verbal arts should not be included in logic as they are nearly "useless".[1][2] After the death of Theobald in 1161, John continued as secretary to his successor, Thomas Becket, and took an active part in the long disputes between that primate and his sovereign, Henry II, who looked upon John as a papal agent.[3]
Scholarship and Influences
editIt is important to note that many of John's works were not valued during his time. Many of these works only survived because they were copied into manuscripts that contained more popular works. It is still being disputed whether certain works were authored by John of Salisbury.[4]
Medical Views
edit
John of Salisbury was fairly vocal about his criticisms of the medical system during his time, writing about it in both the Policraticus and the Metalogicon. He expressed his belief that medical science should have more balance between theory and practice[5][6]—and his concern the medical system had become corrupt. John of Salisbury believed medical science was important, however, he criticized the physicians practicing medicine for being seemingly more focused on personal gain than helping patients. Physicians who relied too much on inquiry began speculating about how the soul relates to health, which John believed impractical because it could not be tested and trespassed on religious belief. John believed, as a result, that theoretical physicians often ignored natural, tangible causes of illness in the body. On the other hand, he stated practical physicians chose to ignore their potential faults and chance for inquiry; making the claim that there is nothing they could have done better or differently if their patient succumbed to their illness.[5] John argued instead there should be an equal balance between seeking out new truths and practicing/pursuing those new truths.[6] Due to the progressing division between the two types of physicians, John of Salisbury also argued they had begun diversifying the medical language used to a point where it was becoming more confusing than beneficial to clients. John posed the argument that physicians should focus more on a balance of both inquiry and practice while using a set of steps for treatment he coined as the "regularum compendium": find the source of the illness, focus on healing the illness, and then perform aftercare to restore the health of the patient and prevent future illnesses from surfacing in the first place. [5]
Philosophical Views (wip, done by Gage)
editJohn of Salisbury was a follower of the Ciceronian perspective. Followers of this perspective believed that things could be definitively proven, but still left open to be challenged. John emphasized this belief in both the Policraticus and the Metalogicon. Following the worldview of Cicero, John of Salisbury dissociated himself from the extreme skepticism some of his fellow academics held. John instead held the view of moderate skepticism. In this worldview, there are three bases for which knowledge can be based in certainty. These bases are: Faith, reason, and the senses. This structure allowed for philosophers to to think and discuss without having to question the existence of God or question other structures which were to not be questioned in their time. [7]
John of Salisbury's belief of moderate skepticism carried over into his other views of life. John detested the philosophy of Epicureanism, deeming it to be the opposite of moderation. John found some values in the teaching of Epicurus, but his criticisms were more directed to the followers of Epicureanism. He believed that Epicureans didn't correctly follow Epicurus's original philosophy and used it to indulge in unbridled hedonism. John argued that this form of Epicureanism would not allow its followers to achieve true happiness. John of Salisbury also criticized Epicureans who did not identify themselves as such. This pertained to individuals who were overly hedonistic and only ever served their own needs. Having not had wide access to ancient philosophers who challenged Epicurus's ideas, it is most likely that John of Salisbury came to his conclusions based on his own life experiences and observations.[7] Similarly to the Epicureans, John also detested the philosophies of Cornificius and his followers. However, he detested their philosophies because they attempted to reject the trivium.[1]
However, John viewed the presence of any philosophical thought in humans as critical, despite his criticisms of certain philosophies. John believed that the capacity for logic was a natural dividing line between humans and lesser-sentient creatures.[1] He stated that philosophy was essential to human health and mental well-being, while humans lacking philosophical thought were akin to feral creatures incapable of rationalization.[6] This is also why John argued so strongly for the trivium, viewing socialization as an important aspect of sharing and enhancing philosophical thought—also contributing to well-being.[2]
Notes
edit- Metalogicon focuses primarily on the trivium of verbal arts: grammar, rhetoric, and dialectic, wanting it to be studied correctly
- believes nature needs influence by humans, rejecting Cornificius's claim that verbal arts reason can't be altered by education
- also rejects focusing too much on the trivium and losing focus on how it can shape nature and life
- believes socialization is a critical part of human nature and wellbeing
- Policratus and Metalogicon both talked about his views on medicine
- practice and intellectual inquiry needed to go hand in hand, one was in vain without the other
- theoretical physicians focused too much on inquiry and content like the soul, trespassing on religious belief and ignoring actual bodily issues
- practical physicians pretend when they fail they could have done absolutely nothing better, not intellectually contemplating their ignorance
- believes medical physicians are focused more on their own benefit than actually helping people and expanding the medical field
- medical language had become too complicated, causing more harm than benefit to some patients - both
- still believes the medical field is important and diagnosises often correct, but worries about the corruption in it
- believes in determining cause of illness, healing the illness, and then doing follow up care to restore health and prevent future issues (regularum compendium) - metalogicon
- believed James of Venice translated poorly and with low grammar skills, and argued his Posterior Analytics was unreadable (not relevant atm to anything i'm adding)
- argued against Cornificius on the trivium (useless vs. practical)
- Metalogicon was comprised of 4 books, starting with arguments against Cornificius and then leading into comments on current educational theory
-
- abelard's pupil
- theoretical and practical are interconnected, but practical is more centered, balance between seeking and pursuing truth
- philosophy leads to virtue which allows us to be happy
- without philosophical thought, a creature is basically a monster incapable of rationality
- three kinds of people working with philosophy: those enjoy it in full, those who are close to enjoying it in full, and those who haven't but want to so they imitate those who do
References
edit- ^ a b c d Bloch, David (2012). John of Salisbury on Aristotelian science. Turnhout: Brepols. ISBN 978-2-503-54099-3. OCLC 786442692.
- ^ a b c FitzGerald, Brian D. (2010). "Medieval theories of education: Hugh of St Victor and John of Salisbury". Oxford Review of Education. 36 (5): 575–588. ISSN 0305-4985.
- ^ Norman F. Cantor, 1993. The Civilization of the Middle Ages, 324–326.
- ^ Linder, Amnon (1977). "The Knowledge of John of Salisbury in the Late Middle Ages". Studi Medievali. 3 (2): 315–355.
- ^ a b c d Shogimen, Takashi; Nederman, Cary J. (2011-01-01). "The Best Medicine? Medical Education, Practice, and Metaphor in John of Salisbury's Policraticus and Metalogicon". Viator. 42 (1): 55–73. doi:10.1484/J.VIATOR.1.102004. ISSN 0083-5897.
- ^ a b c d Logic and language in the Middle Ages : a volume in honour of Sten Ebbesen. Sten Ebbesen, Jakob L. Fink, Heine Hansen, Ana María Mora-Márquez. Leiden. 2013. ISBN 978-90-04-24213-5. OCLC 820167664.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) CS1 maint: others (link) - ^ a b Bollermann, Karen; Nederman, Cary (2022), Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), "John of Salisbury", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2022 ed.), Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, retrieved 2022-10-21
- ^ The Cambridge history of science. David C. Lindberg, Ronald L. Numbers, Roy Porter. Cambridge. 2003–2020. ISBN 978-0-521-57162-3. OCLC 45958057.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: date format (link) CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) CS1 maint: others (link)