Throughline: Possibility is framed by theological and scholastic orders, integrating inherited natural philosophy with divine law.
In the medieval period, the structuring of cosmic and natural potential became inseparable from theological frameworks. The Aristotelian cosmos, already hierarchically ordered and teleologically driven, was absorbed into Christian scholasticism, where God occupied the apex of relational order. Possibility was simultaneously expanded and constrained: the heavens and earth were intelligible through reason, but only insofar as they reflected divine harmony. Observation and experimentation existed, yet they were subordinate to the meta-frame of sacred causality.
Scholastic thinkers such as Thomas Aquinas systematically aligned the inherited Greek natural philosophy with scriptural authority. The cosmos was construed as a nested hierarchy, where each entity’s potential was relationally defined by both its nature and its place within divine order. Actualisation of potential was therefore not merely a material process but a reflection of a broader relational and symbolic structure: the cosmos as a field of constrained possibility, governed by principles both rational and theological.
Modulatory voices:
-
Aquinas: synthesis of Aristotle and Christian cosmology, showing potential actualisation within hierarchical divine order.
-
Maimonides: alternative theological structuring of possibility, emphasising rational harmony and divine intentionality.
In this phase, scientific construal is deeply intertwined with symbolic and theological systems. Knowledge and possibility are not neutral; they are mediated through relational hierarchies that define what can be intelligibly conceived, predicted, or acted upon. Observation alone cannot reveal the full spectrum of potential — it must be interpreted through the prevailing symbolic and rational frame.
No comments:
Post a Comment