Often
we
speak
of
the
Medieval
period
as
an
age
where
Roman
Catholicism
was
in
dominion.
From
the
philosophy
of
St.
Thomas
Aquinas
to
the
writings
of
Dante
and
the
architecture
of
churches,
almost
every
achievement
we
can
idenitify
from
this
period
involves
the
prevailing religion because
of
our
notion
that
it was the Church who controlled culture, philosophy, and state
affairs. In other words, culture and development were stagnant.
But the talk of Prof. Jovi Miroy
of the Ateneo de Manila University, dubbed as “Cultural Change and
Dissent in Medieval Science”, shattered this presuppositions. He
claimed that medieval science actually delved into the intricacies of
“motus” or change. In analyzing this concept of change, it was as
important before as it is today to look at power relations in
knowledge. Professor noted that during the medieval period, authority
was very crucial, but it was never singular or univocal. Inventions,
philosophies, education and culture that most of us know of during
this time were spearheaded by church leaders and members of the
monarch. If Prof. Argument is true, then this could be because of the
misrepresentation of history; the monopoly of thought being an effect
of manipulation in distribution rather than in production. After all,
medieval science proved that controlling the production of knowledge
was no easy feat especially when truth is based on credibility, which
is at the very foundation of their authority.
In medieval science, it could be
hard to establish and defend credibility through faith alone.
Professor Miroy claimed that medieval science relied heavily on logic
to supersede opinion. People back then were looking for something
beyond faith, something that will help then understand not only the
descriptive aspects of phenomena but the casual reasons for their
occurrence.
With the advent of technology and
electronic devices, pluralism today is as inevitable as it is needed.
We call any systemized and organized knowledge as part of hegemony, a
tool of capitalism. In the medieval times, the systematic and
organized knowledge is not specifically of the dominant ideology
(Roman Catholicism) but of ancient Greek learning which is hardly
monolithic and not coherent. The goal was to develop a system of
abstraction which was different to that of authority.
The
diversity
of
knowledge
amidst
Christendom
and
monarchy
means
dissent
is
possible,
but
again
we
only
talk
about
this
centuries
later
because
there
was
a
manipulation
of
history.
However,
if
it
wasn't
for
this
dissenting
opinions/thoughts,
cultural
change,
and
most
especially
the
age
of
Renaissance,
wouldn't
have
been
possible.
The
same
is
true
in
our
present
society.
Because
dissent
comes
from
those
living
at
the
fringes
of
society,
it
is
possible
that
cultural
change
will
come
from
them,
too.
Professor
Miroy's
lecture
on
medieval
science
opened
some
very
interesting
take-off
points
from
which
we
could
explain
this
perennial
desire
for
cultural
and
societial
change.
His discussion, however, were only half-baked for he failed to
contextualize his concepts, give concrete examples and connect them
to the present, which could have been an effective method in
analyzing the history he's presenting.
Walang komento:
Mag-post ng isang Komento