Talk:Medieval philosophy

List

I think this list is worth having, if added to! But what order should it be in?

Much more imporantly, what's it's geographic and cultural scope? Do you mean Medieval European philosophy, or Early Christian philosophy, or Medieval Christian philosophy, or what? BTW no philosophers coudl be non-Christians in this era in Europe or they would have been burned at the stake. ;-0)

Then please do explain Maimonides (Jewish) and Averroes (Muslim).

Islamic influences!

It is too Europe-centric to claim ownership of an entire era - there was much interaction between people like Aquinas and the important Muslims like the Mutazilite - but also the Asharite and the disciplines of isnah and fiqh. For this history see Early Muslim philosophy (historical and political perspective) and Islamic philosophy (the actual arguments mostly re: Aristotle, discussing the chain of influences from ancient Greek and Rome via Islam to medieval Islam and Europe). Having two such treatments for Early Christian philosophy and Christian theology <-- what Christians did was not 'philosophy' by The Renaissance - philosophy itself had to be revived by inputs from Islam, mostly methodological. Then of course as Christianity woke up and got scientific, Islam went to sleep and forgot that it invented science... Is it really correct to talk about these strains geographically or within faiths? Or is it just that all "Western" Judeo-Christian-Islamic thought is one thing? In which case the Islamics must be in the 'medieval' list too.

---

Yes, of course. I have no bias against Islamic influences but European medieval philosophy is a reasonably defied area. I am happy to move the list down a level and link it from this page, allowing futre links to Islamic and other areas.

My only reservation is that "medieval" makes sense in a European context and, to some extent, Islamic. But makes little sense in Indian or Chinese contexts.

---

Garsonides: Only Christians, or others too?

I don't think that Garsonides should be in this list, which is of chritian philosophers. He should be start of another list of Jewish philosophers. UNless a strong case is made to merge these two categoroes, I should like to remove him.

I don't understand why this entry is titled medieval philosophy, if it means to exclude all Jewish and Islamic medieval philosophers. I thoguht that the idea of a medieval era includes not only Christian Europe, but also Muslim Europe, and Europe-influenced North Africa. This would include many Jewish and Islamic philsophers, including Gersonides and Maimonides. I agree with the above unsigned statement, "It is too Europe-centric to claim ownership of an entire era - there was much interaction between people like Aquinas and the important Muslims like the Mutazilite - but also the Asharite and the disciplines of isnah and fiqh." Perhaps this article (given its title) should deal with the topic in general, and include Christian, Jewish amd Muslim medieval philosphers, and mention the interlectual cross-fertilization between them. If someone wants to focus exclusively on Christian, Jewish or Muslim medieval philosophy, they could then follow the links to the appropriare more specialized articles. RK

---

You don't seem to have read the opening disclaimer above the list. I know that there are important names outside the scholastic tradition and would be only too happy to see them listed. Would you be satisfied if I push this whole page down a level and leave a niche for someone to deal with other medieval philosophies? BevRowe

I, for one, disagree. Citing only Christian philosophers is misleading and exclusionary. How can we discuss the philosophy of the time without mentioning Avicenna, Averroes, and Maimondides? Yet, they were Muslims and Jews. Danny

The opening disclaimer means little. If you want an exclusive list for Christian medieval philosophy it is very easy.make a page. User:Two16

In agreement with Two16 and Danny, I note that many U.S. College courses on medieval philosophy mention both Islamic and Jewish philosophers, as well as Christian ones. Consider this book: "Readings in Medieval Philosophy" Edited by Andrew B. Schoedinger. "The most comprehensive collection of its kind, this unique anthology presents fifty-four readings--many of them not widely available--by the most important and influential Christian, Jewish, and Muslim philosophers of the Middle Ages." RK Readings in Medieval Philosophy

I don't believe any of you are bothering to read what I am actually writing. YES, YES, YES, Islamic and Jewish philosophers of this period are immensely important and had a huge affect on philosophy in NW Europe. But that's not the point. Medieval is esentially a term relating to Western Europe. It doesn't make a lot of sense for other culture areas as it is not between anything significant. However, I have offered to move this whole list down a level. The scholastic philosophers form a relatively coherent group and it is worth keeping them together. Let us by all means have lists of philosophers from other cultural areas but there is some point in keeping them separate.BevRowe

I agree with you. However, it was my understanding that the term medieval does not always restrict itself to northwest Europe. My understanding was that it includes those thinkers in North Africa who were part of the same intellectual exchange and dynamic. Given the title of this entry, I think we are just saying that it makes sense to redefine the content of this article to include the intellectual cross-fertilization that was centered in, but not exclusive to, NW Europe, during the medieval era. I agree with you that the scholastic philosophers form a relatively coherent group and it is worth keeping them together! As such, it is appropriate that the current entry on scholastic philosophy has this list! However, it needs some content, an introduction at least! RK

I am not a medieval historian, so I grant from the outset I may be wrong, but Like RK I diagree with BevRow when s/he claims that "Medieval is esentially a term relating to Western Europe. It doesn't make a lot of sense for other culture areas as it is not between anything significant," for two reasons. The first reason has to do with Jewish history. When I was in college and studied Jewish history, it was broken into four segments: Biblical, Rabbinic (meaning really Amoraim and Tanaim), Medieval, and Modern. In one sense, "medieval" was "inbetween" the period that ended with the codification of the Talmud, and the period that began with the Haskala. But I do not believe it is just a coincidence that both Jews and Christians had a "middle" period -- Jews lived within both Alexander's empire and the Roman Empire, and the collapse of the Roman Empire and the decline of Hellenic or Classical civilization (as it were) was as important event for Jews as it was for Christians -- and as important for non-Europeans as for Europeans. Similarly, the Enlightenment (and its antecedents in the Baroque period) was also a turning point in Jewish history and culture. My second point is that in many ways the notion of "European" anything is a Eurocentric construction. Greek civilization and the Roman empire were as oriented towards Africa Persia, and India as they were towards Western Europe, and those empires created commercial and intellectual routes that do not easily correspond to Cold War boundaries.

I think that "medieval" may not be appropriate to Mongol and Islamic civilizations, although I think even this is arguable. But certainly, the term is meaningful to Jewish history and not because of some parallel history or coincidence. Jews were in Europe long before the Visigoths; Maimonides lived in Europe, as did Spinoza and Mendlesohn. It is a mistake to say that Jews had an impact, even a tremendous impact, on Western European history as if "Jews" were somehow outside of or separate from Europe. There is no European history without Jews; Jews were also Europeans and if the fact that Jews (and Arabs) kept links between Western Europe, Africa, and Asia alive after the fall of Rome, then what we need is an expanded notion of European culture and history. A thoughtful study of this history does not reveal that Jews had their "own" culture area; it reveals that the "culture area" of "Western Europe" was bigger, more fluid, and not quite as European, as some might have thoughtSlrubenstein

I am abit of an entry level Medieval Historian. It is inaccurate to separate Islamic (or the Middle East) from the Medieval period. However, even if you define Medieval as being limited to Europe (which by the way is just Western Asia) then it is ridiculous to remove Jews who lived in and participated in Europe. Further, as other users have pointed out, there was such a great deal of interaction between Europe and the Middle East in the field of Philosophy that they should be considered together.

In general scholarly use of the term Medieval, it is often applied to the same period of time in the Middle east as well as parts of Central Asia. In Central Asian scholarship Latin is still one of the main languages of use.

The Roman Empire was, by and large, a Mediterranean Empire. It contained much of Europe, Northern Africa, and the Middle East. The Medieval Period follows from the fall of Rome and the end of the "Classical period" in which they all participated. The Byzantine Empire (or the Eastern Roman Empire) existed in both Europe and the Middle East. During the Crusades, the Crusaders set up states (referred to some as European Colonies) in the Middle East. Surely you would not maintain that the Crusades are not proper medieval history whenever they cross into the Middle East.

The Medieval period of history intertwines Europe, the Mid-East, and much of Central Asia. It is impossible to study if you attempt to construe Medieval History as being solely European, and even more ridiculous to say it is only Christian.

Also, it is not just the Scholastic period. Not all medieval Philosophers (as others have pointed out) were scholastic. Further, scholasticism continued outside of the medieval period.

I hope this is helpful. (I am a longtime user, but a new editor to Wikipedia)Catholic Crypt

Medieval and Islamic thought

I'd say that the scope of medieval extends only to Christian-ruled Europe, and so thinkers like Maimonides are not Medieval thinkers, but it is impossible to understand medieval philosophy without the impact of thinkers within Muslim-ruled areas. I suggest that we have a section Influences from outside Christian Europe, and include a list of the key contemporary figures; I guess I would have:

• Al-Kindi
• Al-Farabi
• Avicenna
• Averroes
• Maimonides
• Al-Ghazali

Thoughts? While I'm on the subject, I know of Al-Ghazali's influence on medieval thought, but almost nothing of what it consists of. Who read him? --- Charles Stewart 18:35, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Eeek, what have I stumbled into here  :). In my understanding of it, you are complete correct. Far from being burned at the stake, there was some good academic discussion between Christians and Jews (Solomon Ibn Gabirol for instance, who was apparently supported by Duns Scotus). And there was definitely interaction between Christians and Muslims. For instance, how could Thomas Aquinas write the Summa Contra Gentiles if there were no Gentiles (i.e. Arabic philosophers primarily) to write Contra?? Sorry for my bad philosophy humor :P FranksValli 06:31, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Medieval Philosophy template

It seems that there has already been some attempt to bridge the gap in Medieval philosophy (Christian-Jewish-Muslim/Arabic philosphy) on Wikipedia. I think what we need is a Medieval philosophy template. This, or something similar, can be added to the template: Christian philosophy, early Muslim philosophy, Jewish philosophy, Scholastic philosophy Someone put those links at the bottom of the "list of philosophers", which IMHO should be turned into "notable philosophers" and perhaps divided into "Christian scholastics", "Jewish philosophers", and "Arabic/Muslim philosophers" just for that short list that appears on the "Medival philsophy" main page ("complete" lists like List of scholastic philosophers can be added for the latter two at a later date). Sorry for the vagueness and lack of clarity in writing - it is late and I somehow got myself into Medieval Philosophy on a Friday night... And now that I think of it, there is always the inevitable Western/Eastern philosophy contract. Since Wikipedia is supposed to be a compendium of everything worldwide, Eastern philosophy during the Middle Ages should at least be linked to from this page. FranksValli 06:31, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article needs some love! The tone just seems off, the section on trends and concepts seems only tangentally related to trends and concepts, and there's almost no detail on what, aside from a focus on theology, distinguished medieval philosophy. Mostly, I think, it just needs content, but the content that is here needs to be cleaned up a little, too. -Seth Mahoney 21:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Scholasticism

I'm still pondering the wisdom of having a medieval philosophy page distinct from a scholastic philosophy page.

A technique of arguing, a style of writing, and a world view (Catholic and Aristotelian), and lots of Latin.

Is there any medieval philosophy which is not also scholastic?

Early and middle periods of scholasticism are of course medieval. The late or "second Scholasticism" of the 16C, which still awaits an article, is not. There is also "Baroque Scholasticism" which was German. There are also the Paduan and Iberian scholasticism. Then there is neo-scholasticism and neo-Thomism. Dean.

There is also the question of whether scholastic logic is any different from scholastic philosophy. I'll pass on that one. Dbuckner 17:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

There is also medieval philosophy which is pre-scholastic. Dsmdgold 17:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Which? What medieval philosophy is pre-scholastic? Define "scholastic". dbuckner

Scholastic is an adjective meaning having to do with Scholasticism. Scholasticism was a school of philosophy which attemptd to reconcile ancient Greek philosophy with Christian revelation. Its earliest practicioner was Anselm of Canterbury. Philosophy prior to Anselm is pre-scholastic. The most prominent pre-scholastic philosopher was Johannes Scotus Eriugena, who was clearly medieval and equally clearly not a scholastic philosopher. There are also several notable philosophers that fall in the grey area between Classical and Medieval, but very influential in the early Middle Ages. These include Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius, Augustine of Hippo, and Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite. Dsmdgold 21:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

"The word "Scholastic" is often used also, to designate a chronological division intervening between the end of the Patristic era in the fifth century and the beginning of the modern era, about 1450. " (Catholic Encyclopedia) Much disagreement about this, obviously. Other sources agree more closely with what you are saying. user:dbuckner

I've also checked with Costelloe, who is an authority on the period, who locates the beginning of s. around 800 AD user:dbuckner

Weinberg: A Short History of Medieval Philosophy uses Anselm as a the beginning of Scholasticism, as does Knowles The Evolution of Medieval Thought. To me, the term Scholasticism implies, among other things, methods which just are not present in John Scotus, much less Pseudo-Dionysius. Dsmdgold 01:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Scope of article

Is this article specifically about European philosophy? deeptrivia (talk) 04:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

That's generally what Medieval means. --Stbalbach 13:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you mean Dark age, or Middle age. Medieval is quite a general term. It's just related to feudalism, isn't it? deeptrivia (talk) 13:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Not really, but feudalism, so far as it exists, is also European. Both of them have been applied to other locations and eras (you can talk about "medieval China" or "Japanese feudalism") but both terms are specific to European developments. Adam Bishop 16:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

From Middle Ages:

The term "medieval" (traditionally spelled "mediaeval") was first contracted from the Latin medium ævum, or more precisely "middle epoch", by Enlightenment thinkers as a pejorative descriptor of the Middle Ages.

As Adam says it's been applied in some specific cases elsewhere, but usually informally or analogy. -- Stbalbach 03:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Francisco Suárez

Shouldn't Francisco Suárez (1548–1617) be added to the list? Admittedly if he's considered Medieval at all, he's one of the last of the Medievals. However, he's not a Modernist... he predates Descartes (or rather, overlaps Descartes), however I think he can be very much considered a Medieval, especially since his writings are in the scholastic method. But if he's not a Medievalist, where does he fit in our History of Western philosophy? Surely he's not to be considered a part of Renaissance philosophy, even though he's writing in the same time period? I think this is somewhat important - Suarez should at least be mentioned in History of Western philosophy or some sub-page like this one (Medieval philosophy). I think he's underrated but important. For instance, before reading Descartes, it's useful to read Suarez to understand the Medieval view of types of distinctions, likes modes. Descartes's "I think, therefore I am" relies on this understanding of modes (see Instantiation principle)... FranksValli 08:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Oops.. maybe I spoke too soon. I found Suarez listed in the Scholasticism article. That's probably the most appropriate place for him to be listed anyhow. FranksValli 08:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

That Many ?

Many medieval thinkers such as Spinoza, Leibniz...

That's not many, that is a lot !

(Lunarian 11:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC))

That's "none" since neither of them are medieval thinkers! Adam Bishop 15:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Bull's-eye ! :-D !

(Lunarian 10:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC))

Thanks for the notes. It was quite the opposite and don't know how that could happen. I remember that the article didn't mention any link between the medieval philosophy and the new thoughts that appeared later. It was a mistake made in good faith. Again thanks for noting it. -- Szvest 20:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Early Christian Philosophy

What to put in this section? Assume it ends before Anselm, who is the first scholastic. Then that gives about the same as the length of the Islamic section to develop all of the period 400 – 1050.

Augustine over Boethius, probably, but perhaps space for both, given there aren't that many philosophers in between. Then

• What to say about Augustine?
  • That he is the most quoted of all medieval writers?
  • That he is not in fact medieval, being at the end of the classical period?
  • Phrases like 'casts a long shadow', 'dominates all medieval thought', "He shaped medieval thought as no one else did" bla bla.
  • As well as one of most influential philosophers of any time (Wittgenstein and Heidegger)
  • The influence of Plato, whose writings were lost during early middle ages, was mainly through Augustine
  • His approach to the problem of evil & human free will was of great importance in the middle ages, and his doctrine of grace underpinned the Reformation
• About Boethius
  • His importance in translations and commentaries – one of the main sources of the transmission of Greek philosophy in the Early Middle Ages
  • He translated Aristotle's Categories and On Interpretation, plus two commentaries each on 'On Interpretation' and Porphry's Isagoge, and one on the Categories. Everything that was known about logic in the early Middle Ages is contained in these books. In his commentary on the Isagoge he formulates the Problem of universals in the way that it was widely discussed in the later Middle Ages.

• Would the patristic period be mentioned, given that this gives us many of the problems that later theologians struggled with?
• the dark ages were very dark.
• the monasteries and the preservation of learning
• that it was only some learning – few Aristotelian texts, e.g.
• The importance of Boethius and Porphyry, in giving them the problem of universals, and the Perihermaneias.
• John Scotus Eriugena – major figure of 500 year period, Irish, fused Christian and Neoplatonic thinking.
• The Carolongian renaissance
• Other influences such as Dionysus, St John Damascene, Philoponus

edward (buckner) 15:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Also wise to engage with some of the other articles that verge on this topic, e.g. Christian theology, History of Christianity esp. Church of the Early Middle Ages (476 – 800) section, and Carolingian Renaissance.

Already realised I've been using 'High Middle Ages' wrongly. It refers to the period beginning 800 AD, whereas it is the High Scholastic period of the 13th and 14th century I was thinking of.

Except the High Middle Ages article itself says it begins in 1000, which is what I thought. Contains the splendidly 1066 sentence "The High Middle Ages were preceded by the Early Middle Ages and followed by the Late Middle Ages".

OK a check on a few more reputable sites confirms that the high middle ages were 1000 to 1300. So History of Christianity has got it dead wrong. The trouble is now that if you Google anything these days, up pops Wiki like a bad penny. edward (buckner) 16:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Worldwide view and POV tag

Medieval is not a correct attribute for the middle east. As Henry Corbin describes in his book, History of Islamic Philosophy, philosophy in the Muslim worlds including Middle East, Central Asia, Indian sub-continent, North Africa and Andulusia have different stages. He says Needless to say, the epochs in the history of Islamic philosophy cannot, save by a verbal artifice, be subjected to our usual system of dividing the history of philosophy—and history in general—into three periods which we call Antiquity, the Middle Ages, and modern times. It would be equally inappropriate to say that the Middle Ages have continued down to our day, for the very notion of the Middle Ages presupposes a vision of history thematized according to a particular perspective... And we in our turn cannot impose upon them a chronological schema imported from a foreign world. Thus I suggest changing the lead and substituting Islamic philosophy in the Middle Ages with Early Islamic philosophy. Some part of the article does not fit to Mulim world at that age. For example it's written Medieval philosophy is characteristically theological: with the possible exceptions of Avicenna and Averroes, medieval thinkers did not consider themselves philosophers at all. While Corbin says The clear-cut distinction which exists in the West between 'philosophy' and 'theology' goes back to medieval scholasticism, and it presupposes a process of 'secularization' the idea of which could not exist in Islam, primarily because Islam has never experienced the phenomenon of the Church, with all its implications and consequences. There were several renowned philosophers at that time among Muslims and later philosophy overcome theology in the eastern part of Muslim world and both of them are affected by Sufism.--Seyyed(t-c) 11:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Well Kretzmann includes all the Middle Eastern philosophers in his magisterial work on Medieval Philosophy, so what's the problem? I worked very hard (after someone criticised a much earlier version of this for being Latin West-centric) to get a balanced version of this article. What's the problem? Suggest something. Peter Damian (talk) 20:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The sentence you cite "with the possible exceptions of Avicenna and Averroes, medieval thinkers did not consider themselves philosophers at all" is from Noone. Peter Damian (talk) 20:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

And didn't Al-Ghazali accept a 'clear-cut' distinction between philosophy and theology? Peter Damian (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the tag in the main article "History of Western Philosophy"? Of course the article is "biased": there is a warning in the very TOC. The chronological order is based in Western History, and Eastern philosophers related to the West are ordered according to that criterion. You may start another article on "Philosophy in Islam" and make a completely different arrangement, and that would be fine. There is no problem here, only creative misreading. Louie (talk) 18:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the tag. There were some other points made, such as there being no clear-cut distinction between philosophy and theology, but this has no basis in fact, as far as I can see. Peter Damian (talk) 20:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Development?

I'm not an expert but I find the sentence "Yet this period of nearly a thousand years was the longest period of philosophical development in Europe, and possibly the richest." in the lead part of the article to be utterly unbelievable. Much of it wasn't development it was regress and apart from the final part the only contributions were in theology not philosophy.

It might have had some relevance a year ago when the article included a reasonable section on Islamic philosophy, which was about the only place where thinking was going on, but that's been removed. Could someone rephrase please. Chris55 (talk) 19:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead. However, by the time of Thomas Aquinas, medieval philosophy had clearly become creative, not merely imitative, again. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ma for your latest compromise. I don't know what is now recognized as the scope of the term. But all the recent additions have been made from a book (ed Garcia, Noone) which uses the word Middle Ages and which Amazon describes as "An unparalleled source of information on the lives and thought of no fewer than 138 medieval Christian, Islamic, and Jewish philosophers". The judgements made in the first paragraph reflected this perspective, not the narrower use of the term which has been traditional in western universities. Both of the latter cultures were making progress at a time when Christendom was forgetting most of what it knew. Chris55 (talk) 09:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I am thinking here more along Wikipedia-specific lines, from a horizontal perspective: Most articles of the Template:Middle Ages wide 2 only deal with medieval topics in the common, more narrow sense (that is [Western] Europe), so we should hold on this editorial line. Then, Islamic philosophy already has an article of its own, so if we start to go into depth on Muslim developments here, we only duplicate the material and end up with more than one full article for IP and less than one full for MP. Hardly ideal. Therefore, I believe we should stick here to WP:Scope. Finally, Latin translations of the 12th century and Transmission of the Classics already deal at length with the subject. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Formatting problem under "See also"

It took me a moment to realise that the bar chart under "See also" refers to lines of Jewish philosophy. Can someone perhaps move it to go under that bullet, or at least give it a caption? (I don't have the formatting skill.) Herbgold (talk) 09:50, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Medieval philosophy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080719105814/http://www2.bc.edu/~solere/siepm.html to http://www2.bc.edu/~solere/siepm.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130630101530/http://tcrnews2.com/vonbalthasarfathers.html to http://tcrnews2.com/vonbalthasarfathers.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:09, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Medieval philosophy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030301105108/http://radicalacademy.com/adiphiljewish1.htm to http://radicalacademy.com/adiphiljewish1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:36, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Add a "Popular Culture" section?

Thought of the Middle ages has a reputation. The term "dark ages" is already mentioned, but there is more to it than that. The word Gothic is used commonly to refer to dark things such as the poetry and stories of Edgar Allen Poe.

The only good example I can think of is from Robert Crumb, who introduced Zap Comix No. 1 (1967, Apex Novelties) by ridiculously claiming to be "one of the world's last great Medieval thinkers" along with "From the bedroom closet, I operate a huge network of radios, sending out incantations, curses voodoo hoodoo." There must be other examples that could be listed. That might even make this article a bit more comprehensible to a wider audience. David R. Ingham 02:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Ransford Ingham (talk • contribs) (Edited 3/14/20)

A, perhaps even better, example is the false but common statement that a subject of medieval philosophy was "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" David R. Ingham 04:06, 6 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Ransford Ingham (talk • contribs)

Needs coverage of non-european medieval philosophers

I'm marking this down from "B" to "C" due to the lack of coverage of Medieval philosophers in Islamic philosophy, Jewish philosophy, Byzantine philosophy etc. It looks like this has been mentioned on this talk page above, but the tradition is fairly continuous here between Avicenna, Averroes, Maimonides, etc. and Latin philosophers like Aquinas so it makes sense to cover them all on the same page. - car chasm (talk) 18:24, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Article issues and classification

I reassessed the Vital Articles assessment to C-class. The article fails the B-class criteria. Also, I am going to chop all but three of the "External links". A discussion may change this around but I am just picking all after the first three. Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for four. The problem is that none is needed for article promotion.

• ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
• LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
• WP:ELMIN: Minimize the number of links. -- Otr500 (talk) 07:05, 14 February 2023 (UTC)