Talk:School of Salamanca
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Whig history?
I'm the person responsible for translating nearly all of this (with a little help from Mpolo. I'm wondering: as I go through this, the School of Salamanca are presented as so uniformly modern in their thinking that I suspect a bit of "Whig history". That is, I suspect that there are some characteristic (but less modern) aspects of their thinking that are left out and perhaps there are even ideas attributed to them here that are not correct descriptions of their own ideas, but instead are extrapolations of the later developments of those ideas. Does anyone know the subject matter well enough to comment? -- Jmabel|Talk 18:23, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
- Here's some info from "Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche" (as a translation of copyrighted material, it can't be just quoted, obviously): While the two first generations (of the Salmanticenses) were very creative, B. de Medina and D. Báñez (third generation from F. de Vitoria) received the mission from their religious superiours to collect the unprinted material of their predecessors. Their commentaries to the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas show a notable advance in the formulation of the theological problems. In Báñez, who no longer had the intellectual gifts of F. de Vitoria, there is a notable scholastic spirit (see "dispute over grace"). This was probably the beginning of the fall of the school, although P. de Herrera, F. Araujo, and P. de Godoy remained on a notable high point.
- On the Coimbricenses (or Conimbricenses) LTK has: These are the editors of the "Commentarii Collegii Conimbricensis SJ" on Aristotle in 5 volumes.... The course contains no commentary on the Metaphysics, because this was provided by P. da Fonseca's Metaphysics I-IV. The printing "Colegii Conimbricensis commentarii in universam Logicam" is a private publication of Fonseca's Logic, which was not recognized by the Conimbricenses. Mpolo 13:47, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Merge proposal
There appears to be a duplicate article Salamanca school that is written mostly from an economics perspective. It should clearly be merged here, but since this article is already quite long, I propose the following:
- Split the section "Economics" into its own article with title Economic thought of the Salamanca School or something similar.
- Merge everything from Salamanca school to that article.
- Keep Salamanca school as a redirect to this page.
Any ideas/objections? jni 11:29, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I'd have no problem with that. And then have a section in this article saying See main article: Economic thought of the Salamanca School or some such and giving a one-paragraph summary. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:23, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
-
- Argh, I started merging this and was almost finished before I noticed this discussion on the talk page. I figure that rolling back what I already did would be pointless, so I went ahead and finished the merge up. Since I merged the bulk of the other article into the "Economics" section, I'm hoping this won't pose a problem for splitting that section off into its own article as indicated. I apologize for any inconvience and I'm sorry that I didn't read the Talk page first. :\ -- Zawersh 06:09, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Questionable Statement
I find this statement problematic, especially since its scope is unclear: "The School of Salamanca distinguished two realms of power, the natural or civil realm and the realm of the supernatural, which were not differentiated in the Middle Ages." While this may be true as a general rule, it also seems to stretch to Medival thought. Dante in The Divine Comedy expresses a similar need for the seperation of the natural and spiritual, at least until the return of Christ. --chemica 01:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- How about "…which were often conflated in the Middle Ages through doctrines such as the Divine Right of Kings and the temporal powers of the pope"? - Jmabel | Talk 23:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think that is more accurate statement. Thank you. --chemica 01:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)