Philosophy Post #5A: What Is Scholasticism? And Why It Might Be Holding Us Back
If you’ve spent any time reading medieval philosophy—or even just certain corners of Catholic intellectual writing—you’ve likely run into the term Scholasticism. But what exactly is Scholasticism? And why does it matter?
Let’s take a moment to unpack the tradition… and then ask some hard questions about what it actually achieved—and where it may have gone off the rails.
What Is Scholasticism?
Scholasticism was the dominant method of learning and philosophy in medieval Europe, roughly from the 11th to the 17th century. It wasn’t a single school of thought, but rather a method—a way of doing philosophy and theology within the institutional context of the Christian university.
The method is marked by a few key features:
-
Systematic reasoning: Scholastics loved structure. They organized knowledge meticulously, laying out arguments in precise, almost legalistic formats.
-
Dialectical approach: The classic Scholastic text follows a pattern—pose a question, present objections, state a thesis, then respond to the objections. It’s debate in slow motion.
-
Reconciliation of authorities: The goal wasn’t just to think independently—it was to harmonize reason with revealed theology. This meant resolving tensions between thinkers like Aristotle and Church Fathers like Augustine.
-
Centrality of theology: Scholasticism wasn’t secular. At its core, it was about clarifying and defending Christian doctrine using the tools of philosophy.
The high point of Scholasticism came with figures like Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus, and William of Ockham. Their work, especially Aquinas’s synthesis of Aristotelian philosophy with Christian theology, became foundational for Catholic thought even to this day.
What’s Impressive About It
Let’s be fair: Scholasticism was no intellectual lightweight.
It preserved and advanced logical analysis during a time when Europe could have easily descended into anti-intellectualism. It gave us early forms of legal reasoning, formal disputation, and systematic metaphysics. Without Scholastic methods, the Renaissance and early scientific thought may not have had the intellectual scaffolding they needed to emerge.
So yes, Scholasticism was brilliant—in its own way.
But brilliance doesn’t mean infallibility.
Where Scholasticism Falls Short
Despite its intellectual rigor, Scholasticism comes with serious limitations—especially if we view it as a guide for philosophical inquiry today.
-
Dogmatic Foundations
Scholastic reasoning starts with the assumption that Christian doctrine is true. The Trinity, the immortality of the soul, divine omnipotence—these aren’t up for debate. They’re premises, not conclusions. That means the entire intellectual system is constrained from the outset. You can reason within the faith, but not about the faith. And that’s not real philosophical freedom. -
Overemphasis on Authority
Scholastics weren’t trying to overthrow Aristotle or Augustine. They were trying to fit them together. The aim was synthesis, not critique. But what if some authorities are simply wrong? What if Aristotle’s metaphysics can’t be squared with Christian theology? Too bad—you’re expected to find a way. -
Abstract Detachment from Experience
Scholastic debates often became labyrinthine. Discussions about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin weren’t jokes—they were serious metaphysical puzzles. But that kind of intellectualism can become self-referential, detached from the actual human condition. Scholasticism became, in many cases, brilliant but irrelevant. -
Resistance to Modernity
Perhaps the biggest issue is that many neo-Scholastics today treat this medieval tradition as timeless. But philosophy moves. It evolves. To ignore modern developments—like existentialism, phenomenology, analytic philosophy, or even non-Western thought—is to close yourself off from the richness of philosophical diversity.
So Why Are Some People Still Obsessed With It?
Part of the appeal is emotional: Scholasticism offers structure, clarity, and the comforting sense that the universe is ultimately rational and ordered. For those who feel adrift in modernity, it’s a way back to certainty.
But that same comfort can become a cage.
Philosophy shouldn’t be about defending what you already believe. It should be about risking your beliefs—pushing them, testing them, breaking them if needed. And that’s something Scholasticism, for all its brilliance, has a very hard time doing.
Conclusion: Learn From It, But Don’t Stay Trapped
Study Aquinas. Read Scotus. Appreciate the intellectual achievement of the Scholastic tradition. But don’t confuse a beautiful structure with a living, breathing philosophy.
We owe the Scholastics our respect. But we don’t owe them our loyalty.