From Scholasticism to Simplicity: Can a New Language Help Us Think Differently?
For centuries, Western philosophy was dominated by a tradition known as Scholasticism—a dense, elaborate method of reasoning rooted in medieval theology and often written in heavily technical Latin. At its height, Scholasticism sought to harmonize Christian doctrine with Aristotelian logic. It was rigorous, yes—but also rigid, buried in layers of assumption and inaccessible language.
Reading Scholastic texts today can feel like wandering through a maze of syllogisms, where every turn is guarded by an angel or a demon. The premises are theological, the arguments circular, and the language anything but welcoming. Thinkers like Peter Abelard were doing intellectual gymnastics, not because the questions were purely philosophical, but because the answers had already been decided by dogma. The task wasn’t to explore, but to justify.
And that’s where the problem lies: Scholasticism often confuses cleverness with clarity. The tradition rewards intricate arguments but rarely asks whether the foundations themselves deserve scrutiny. As a result, it can become a philosophical echo chamber—brilliant in form, hollow in spirit.
Now contrast that with Esperanto.
Esperanto is a constructed language, designed not by theologians but by a 19th-century ophthalmologist who believed in mutual understanding across cultures. Its grammar is logical, its vocabulary simple, and its politics—if any—lean toward peace and openness rather than orthodoxy.
Where Scholasticism thrives on inherited assumptions, Esperanto invites you to start fresh. It doesn't ask what Thomas Aquinas thought about metaphysics; it asks whether you can express your ideas in a way that another person—anywhere in the world—can understand. It’s the linguistic opposite of Scholasticism: not hierarchical, not cryptic, but designed for clarity and collaboration.
So, can a new language help us think differently? I believe it can.
Not because Esperanto is perfect. But because it liberates us from inherited jargon and offers us a chance to rethink not only what we say—but how we say it. Where Scholasticism binds us, Esperanto frees us. (However, it may also be said that Philosophies such as Buddhism and Post-Vedantic Hinduism also offer the tools to draw a new map, since they are not belief based.) Language is not just a vessel for thought; it shapes the very architecture of our thinking. And sometimes, the best way to escape the labyrinth is not to argue our way through it—but to draw a new map.
To that end, I’ve recorded a short talk introducing Esperanto. It’s available here:
🎥 Watch my talk on Esperanto
If you’ve ever felt trapped by academic language, if you’ve ever wished that ideas could travel faster than institutions—this might be for you. (Please note that I am still a beginner at Esperanto and am not confident enough to deliver a whole talk in that language. In fact, I was using teleprompter software and other software downloaded onto my computer for the whole thing.) This sort of stuff is worth doing in the area of philosophy. Because, after all, the future of philosophy may not lie in deeper footnotes—but in better conversations.
Update: below is the video on Esperanto once again.