Abstract

“Scholasticism” has not always been a term of opprobrium. Strictly speaking, the word simply targets a “school of thought,” and schools, like thoughts, can be good, bad, or indifferent. Francis Bacon did much to foster common derision of scholasticism. As he observed, “it is scarcely possible at once to admire authors and to surpass them, knowledge being like water, which will not rise above the level from which it fell.” Insofar as great thinkers do not reliably engender their equals, much less set the cause of truth in motion by logarithmic progression, Bacon has a point. Yet the premise of the best schools of philosophy has always been the modest one that by standing on a giant’s shoulders one is sometimes able to see what would otherwise have lain hidden in the distance. In any case, Bacon did little to stem the scholastic tide. Despite all the antischolastic vitriol of the last several centuries, philosophical schools have multiplied profusely. Neo-Kantianism, logical positivism, existentialism, structuralism, feminism, and postmodernism represent only a small sample of recent possibilities. One can safely conclude from this list that as long as there is thinking, there will be schools of thought. A corollary suggests itself: the most antischolastic forms of thinking usually engender the most rigidly scholastic forms of thought.