Looking at Xiao Yingying, who was happily fiddling with the gemstone necklace on the side, Wu Ling's mood couldn't help but be slightly heavier. That gem is considered a treasure no matter where it is, and even if it is placed in the ability world, it will be sought after by many people.

But in Wu Ling's eyes, that gem didn't have so much beauty, only endless danger.

That's right, in addition to the fact that the gem itself carries a huge amount of energy, and even after all of it bursts out, it can reach the level of D-level attack power, and it is not the concealment of this gem, but because of the trace of white energy that Wu Ling got from the beginning.

This is the energy emanating from the church, that is, the energy carried by the church itself, and this pure energy is so dangerous in Wu Ling's eyes now. It's not because of its attack power, if you want to talk about it, this energy is not as strong as the attack power of those sword qi, thunder system, and fire system, nor does it have the kind of defensive power of the earth system, but in Wu Ling's eyes, this energy is even more dangerous than them. It's just that because of the purity of this mass of energy, it can't be integrated with any energy.

Just like the situation just now, if the energy intensity is too small, it will be absorbed by the white light cluster, and if the energy is too large, it will directly become other energy, but it is impossible to reduce the mass of this energy at all. That is, the energy of the church represents an absolute purity. And this is a rare thing in the entire ability world, take Wu Ling as an example, even his energy can be integrated into other energy, but the intensity will be reduced.

And looking at this kind of energy, Wu Ling kind of understood why the church would regard other supernatural people as heretics, just because they were insoluble in foreign objects. Their purity. And it's like a philosophy in much older times.

At the beginning of the Common Era, when the philosophy of late ancient Greece was like an old man in his old age, he was staggering towards his end. A new philosophical form has lost no time in appearing in this land, which has long been infiltrated by the spirit of Greek rational culture, and it is showing vigorous vitality. It soon became a competitor to the former, eventually replacing it. This new form of philosophy is the philosophy of the Holy See.

The so-called papal philosophy refers to a philosophical form constructed by churchgoers with firm beliefs, consciously guided by the beliefs of the Holy See, but also based on the natural reason of man to prove its principles. Since the birth of the Holy See, countless churchgoers have been actively dedicated to this cause, thus forming a continuous tradition of papal philosophy. However, the concept of papal philosophy in the sense of this book does not refer to the entire tradition of papal philosophy, but specifically to the period of history in which papal philosophy was born, grew, became the dominant philosophical form, and then declined. To put it simply, this period of history can be divided into two phases, the patristic philosophy of the Roman era and the scholasticism of the Middle Ages.

Early 1st century AD. Among the Jewish people, who had suffered much in history and were at that time under Roman rule, there was a small sect of Judaism, which consisted mainly of people from the lower strata of society. They claimed that the leader of their sacrifice on the cross, Jesus, was the long-awaited Church of the Savior of the Jews. The congregation is also called the Holy See. They believed that Jesus had risen again after his death and ascended into heaven and would soon come again to hold the Last Judgment, and that the kingdom of God would soon come but it would not be in this world. They thus abandoned an active confrontation with the Roman Empire. Starting from God's belief that he loves the world universally, he advocates loving his neighbor as himself, and even loving his enemies, so as to break down national boundaries and only regard faith as a condition for being chosen by God. Furthermore. In economic and other aspects of social life, they also advocate mutual help and cooperation among their followers. Although the Holy See was brutally suppressed by the rulers of the Roman Empire several times due to its belief in the One True God, its rejection of the Emperor's worship of the Roman Empire, and various other social reasons, it won the support of the lower classes of society, who made up the vast majority of the population. Thus quickly spread throughout the Roman Empire. The long-term turmoil in Roman society also made people feel sorry for the old protector gods and sects of the Roman nation. The church lost faith and turned to the faith of the Holy See for spiritual sustenance. 2nd-3rd century AD. A large number of the upper echelons of society and the educated classes converted to the Holy See, and the Holy See became a force to be reckoned with in Roman social life.

311 year. Roman politics. The right was published to allow the church apostolic sect. The Edict on Freedom of Religion and Freedom. In 312, the struggle for supremacy of the Roman Empire reached a fever pitch. Constantine, one of the contenders for imperial power, suddenly changed his banner before the crucial battle, played the banner of the Holy See, and won the victory with the support of the papal see, becoming the future Constantine the Great and the first papal emperor in history. The Holy See has since gained legal status in the Roman Empire. In 325 AD, Constantine the Great summoned more than 300 bishops from all over the Roman Empire to convene the first all-church council in the history of the Holy See in Nicaea, and established a mandatory unified dogma. In 392, Emperor Theodosius officially declared the Holy See the state religion and vigorously suppressed heresy and heresy. The Holy See has finally achieved the status of deposing the hundred schools of thought and exalting the church.

The Holy See was not a theoretical system, not a philosophy, but rather a sect. Teach the practice movement. However, various unique social and historical conditions prompted the Holy See to finally adopt the form of theory, creating the unique theoretical form of the Holy See philosophy.

The most profound reason is undoubtedly the nascent sect. Teach the need for self-theoretical construction. At the beginning of the emergence of the Holy See, there was neither a unified canon nor a unified organization. Although the Holy See accepted the Old Testament, the canon of Judaism, and parts of the New Testament, such as the Epistles of Paul and several Gospels, were widely circulated at the time, the understanding of them varied in the churches everywhere. The first few centuries of the Common Era were a century of factions within the Holy See. Reality requires the Holy See to reflect theoretically on its own teachings, to promote the unity of practice with the unity of theory, and this reflection can of course only take the form of philosophy. Or, in other words, it is through philosophical reflection that the Holy See truly achieves self-awareness.

In addition to the internal reasons mentioned above, a series of external reasons have forced the Holy See to embark on the path of theorization.

First, in the years of the birth of the Holy See, philosophy was still the ideology favored by the upper echelons of society in the Roman Empire. The Holy See sought the understanding, understanding, support, and even conversion of these elites. Strive to proclaim your own philosophical alignment. The early Church Fathers put forward the concept of "true philosophy is true Buddhism. Teaching, True Sect. Teaching is true philosophy". is a case in point. In this situation, the Holy See took over some of the terms, phrases and doctrines of ancient Greek philosophy to justify and expound its beliefs. It's inevitable.

Secondly, the long-term social turmoil of the Roman Empire led to the transformation of philosophy from theory to practice, making ethics the center of philosophical attention, the peace of the soul becoming the highest goal of philosophy, and the communion with God becoming a favorite theme of many philosophers. In a sense, ancient Greek philosophy is also a sect in these areas. The discussion of issues of concern to the Church has also prepared theoretical preparations for dialogue and integration between the Holy See and philosophy.

Again, at the beginning of the emergence of the Holy See. Immediately encountered the powerful Greco-Roman culture represented by philosophical reason. Late Greek philosophy, whether from a traditional polytheistic or philosophical rational standpoint, was inevitably criticized for the beliefs of the Holy See, and the Holy See also felt that it was one of the contenders of the current of thought, and therefore actively defended and fought for its right to exist. It is evident that in this struggle against philosophy, the words of philosophy itself are undoubtedly the best weapon at the disposal of the Holy See.

Finally, the era of the formation of the Holy See was also the emergence of various new sects in the Roman Empire. The era of the emergence of the teaching competition. Gnosticism, Manichaeism, and Mothianism were all powerful competitors of the Holy See at one time, and there were various heresies within the Holy See. It can also be said that the history of the first centuries of the Holy See is a history of polemics against paganism and heresy, and the need for such polemics also contributed to the philosophizing of the Holy See.

Under the interweaving of these internal and external factors. A group of more or less philosophically educated believers in the Holy See came forward to borrow Greek philosophy, especially the philosophy of Neo-Platonism and the Stoics. Theoretically justify and defend the faith of the Holy See. These people either run away on a mission or write books and preach. Efforts were made to reconcile the faith of the Holy See with the rationality of philosophy. Through their activities, for the first time, the Holy See had a relatively unified and complete doctrine. Thus they were revered by the Church as "godfathers", that is, fathers of the church, and their ideas became known as "patristic philosophy". Patristic philosophy is the first historical form of papal philosophy.

At the end of the 4th century, the Roman Empire gradually split into two parts, east and west. At the end of the 5th century, the Western Roman Empire was replaced by a series of barbarian states. The Frankish kingdom, the most powerful of the barbarian states, was united with the support of the Holy See Church, imposing a new feudal system in Western Europe. European feudal society "developed from a brutal primitive state. It swept away ancient civilizations, ancient philosophies, politics, and laws so that everything was started from scratch. The only things it had inherited from the decaying ancient world were the Holy See and a few ruined and uncivilized cities. "As the last remaining fruit of the Old World and the only representative of the culture of the New World, the Holy See objectively undertakes the mission of perpetuating Western civilization. Thus, in the various schools founded by the Holy See, the second historical form of papal philosophy was formed, scholasticism.

Different from patristic philosophy, scholasticism is no longer responsible for creating doctrines and formulating theological contents, but is to theoretically demonstrate and explain doctrines, dissolve some incongruous factors contained in the Bible or patristic philosophy, and further systematize and theorize theology. Dialectics, as the art of rational thinking, was introduced into theological thinking, and rationalism began to revive, culminating in the 12th-13th centuries. In the 12th century, the ancient Greek civilization, preserved by the Arabs, was introduced back to Western Europe, leading to a struggle between Platonism and Aristotelianism within scholasticism. Thomas. Aquinas adapted to the development of the situation, strongly demonstrated the positive role of reason in arguing and defending faith, and resolutely adopted Aristotelian philosophy to argue for the faith of the Holy See, thus pushing scholasticism to its heyday. However, Thomas's alliance of reason and faith was met with staunch opposition from British nominalism. Nominalism rejected the rational way of thinking about faith, thus dissolving the basis on which scholasticism depended, and scholasticism inevitably went into decline.

After the 11th century, there was a marked increase in the productivity of Western Europe through slow accumulation. A large number of industrial and commercial cities developed as representatives of new modes of production. The revival of humanistic culture in the 13th and 14th centuries, based on the emerging burgher class, had a more fatal impact on scholasticism. With the "discovery of nature" and the "discovery of man" in the Renaissance, God was no longer the center of people's thinking. Scholasticism of the Holy See fulfilled its historical mission and eventually withdrew from the stage of history.

The philosophy of the Holy See has always been in contradiction between reason and faith. It was a time when the Holy See was in power. Philosophy is the handmaiden of theology. Appeal to the sect of faith. Pedagogical theology has absolute authority, but philosophical speculation requires the power of reason. Therefore, the basic problem of the papal philosophy of this period was the question of the relationship between reason and faith. As a special philosophical form. Papal philosophy tries to reconcile the two, using reason to prove faith. But because the two are fundamentally contradictory, they end up damaging not only faith, but also reason. The anti-rational tendencies of the Renaissance were so related to this that it was not until Descartes re-established the authority of reason.

In a sense, the spirit of Greek philosophy is a tragic spirit of optimism, and its theme is fate, necessity and law, but the Greeks are not passive in the face of fate. They maintain an optimistic attitude towards real life, and form a rationalism and humanistic spirit that advocates knowledge. Papal philosophy is the opposite. Under the specific social and historical background, people in the Middle Ages escaped, abandoned and denied real life, sought the salvation of the soul by denying reality, regarded the world as a "heavenly journey" to heaven, and tried to make the soul immortal through faith in God. Obviously, as a way to transcend finitude, the Holy See is deeply rooted in the hearts of the people from the perspective of faith and emotion, and indeed has its meaning and value.

So. What problems did papal philosophy bring to philosophy that differed from that of Greek philosophy?

This is a very complex issue. To put it simply, what the philosophy of the Papacy contributes to philosophy is, first of all, its transcendentality. Although there is no shortage of transcendent ideas in Greek thought, such as Plato's theory of ideas, it is seen from the dominant aspect. Greek philosophy was realistic, while papal philosophy showed people an infinite supersensual world in a way that renounced the world, thus opening up and enriching the spiritual world of mankind to a certain extent. The second is immanence. The Holy See concretizes the infinite spirit (substance) in the individual psyche. Unlike the Greek philosophical understanding of nature, it appeals to the inner beliefs of the individual. Claiming the salvation of souls requires the presence of each soul. Again, it's a matter of freedom. Freedom was not a problem with the Greeks, and it was the idea of necessity that prevailed. The Holy See is different. In a sense. The question of free will has always been a difficult problem in the minds of the Holy See. Finally, there is the idea of supernaturalism. In the Greeks, nature was a living and divine being, while in the minds of the Holy See there was not only no divinity, but that God had created for mankind to be a dead thing that could be used at his own will. Although the papal denigration of nature is not conducive to the development of science, on the other hand, it has opened the way for the modern mechanistic view of nature, and enabled later generations to establish the concept of transforming the world in addition to understanding the world.

For a long period of time, the evaluation of medieval philosophy was unfair, and the mention of the Middle Ages conjured up the "dark ages". However, the dark ages of the Middle Ages (around 400-1000) were not the fault of the Holy See, mainly due to the invasion of barbarians, the fall of the Roman Empire, and the sweeping away of civilization. In fact, although the church has had an increasingly negative impact on society with secularization, it has initially played a positive role in preserving the flame of civilization. Without the church's influence on the barbarian leaders, without the church's protection of Greek literature, civilization would well have gone down the drain. Under the circumstances, perhaps only Zong. Teach to be able to do that. Because at that time, the Germanic peoples were still in a primitive state that was not very civilized, not to mention writing and reading, and even some peoples had not yet formed a written language. As a result, the philosophical, artistic, scientific, and speculative spirit of Greek civilization was difficult to accept, yet evangelism emotionally touched their heartstrings with its sublime and simple power. Not only that, but it is also Congzong. It was only after the influence of religion that the various peoples of Europe began to absorb ancient civilizations, including philosophy and science. It is through the Church that the New World has the possible way to enter the gates of the Old World. Of course, the blending of the old and the new worlds was mediated by the Holy See, which inevitably led to the fact that only those of the ancient civilizations were able to be incorporated into the sect. The part of the church can be preserved and propagated, because the church is naturally to reject what is considered pagan or heretical. However, even this limitation had a certain positive significance at the time: it prevented the infantile minds of these uncivilized peoples from getting lost in all sorts of theories and doctrines, which were spiritual nourishment that they could not yet comprehend and digest. So. It is true that the Church has hindered the spread of philosophical and scientific ideas, causing immeasurable damage. But it also played a gradual role in the indoctrination of the peoples of Europe.

After the fall of the Western Roman Empire, after hundreds of years of conquest. On the ruins of the former Roman Empire, the Frankish kingdom established by the barbarians was relatively unified. In 800, King Charles of the Franks was crowned "Emperor of the Romans" by the Pope, known as "Charlemagne". The brilliant barbarian emperor and his heirs were deeply aware of the importance of cultural construction to feudal rule, and began to encourage education, schools, scholars, and the teaching of the "seven arts" (grammar, rhetoric, logic, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and music) throughout the empire. Since the Holy See actually played the role of a cultural continuator at that time, most of the schools were held near churches or monasteries, and the teachers were mostly clergy. Theology remains the subject of their greatest interest. It was in this context that the scholasticism of the Holy See gradually developed.

The so-called "scholasticism" was originally developed in the court schools of Charlemagne's empire, as well as in the convents of the Holy See and the affiliated schools of the diocese. These schools were centers for the study of theology and philosophy, and the teachers and scholars of the schools were called scholasticists, so their philosophy was called scholasticism. In a sense, although patristic philosophy was an integral part of medieval papal philosophy, it actually belonged to the old civilization to a large extent, and scholasticism was the philosophical form of the Germanic peoples that really belonged to the new world. In general, we can divide scholasticism into three stages: early, middle, and late. Early scholasticism was still the dominant period of Augustine and Neo-Platonism, and the middle period was a period of scholasticism flourishing, with Aristotle gradually becoming the greatest authority on philosophy. The late period was a time when nominalism, which was regarded as heretical, flourished, and scholastic-style rationalism fell into decline.

It is well known that the main problem in the study of scholasticism is the question of the relationship between the common and the different, the general and the individual. The controversy over this issue has divided philosophers into two main factions: some philosophers argue that universal co-existence is the real reality. Particulars or individual things are merely phenomena, while other philosophers believe that individual things are real beings, and that phenomena are mere concepts and words. There is no real point in existing. The former is called "realism" and the latter is called "nominalism".

Why the relationship between the common and the special seems to be related to the sect. Teach irrelevant logical or philosophical questions. became the main problem of scholasticism? The issue is very complex and difficult to fully explain. We thought there might be a number of reasons: First. Scholasticism used Greek philosophy for philosophical reflection, and thus inherited the problems of Greek philosophy, and the question of the relationship between the general and the individual was one of the main problems of Greek philosophy, and the dispute between Plato and Aristotle also originated from this. Second, in the early Middle Ages, when the Germanic peoples began their intellectual activities, they had to first be trained in formal logic, which was not only instrumental, but also constituted the object of study in itself. This is because when the Greeks asked this question, they had already accumulated a wealth of knowledge, and medieval philosophy was different. When they think about it, it's just that the specifics are missing. This leads them to fall into empty and abstract arguments. Again, due to the Zong. The question of the relationship between the general and the individual has become the main question that scholars are likely to think about and discuss, and it is in this narrow field that philosophy tenaciously expresses its existence and vitality. Finally, the solution to the question of the relationship between the general and the individual is also the fundamental way to reconcile reason and faith, and philosophers have tried to prove the existence of God philosophically and logically.

In a sense, medieval philosophy was a peculiar mixture of Platonism and Aristotelian thought. From patristic philosophy to early scholasticism, it has always been the world of Platonism. It was only through Aquinas's efforts that Aristotle finally became the supreme authority on medieval scholasticism. Aristotle's metaphysics not only provided philosophers with a profound field of thought, but his logical syllogism also provided philosophers with a method of reasoning. Of course, the ideas of Platonism and Augustine have not left the stage of history. They always play an important role.

It follows that the nature of scholasticism is both platonic. Again, Aristotelian: God is the highest transcendent entity, while the whole system is highly abstract and formalized. Thus creating an abstract and cumbersome approach from concept to concept. On features. Generally speaking, realism belongs to the orthodox school, while nominalism is regarded as heresy; Realism is rationalism, whereas nominalism is irrationalist, if not anti-rationalist. Of course, nominalism is heretical not because it denies the existence of God, but on the contrary, it is to defend faith in God and oppose the rational justification of God's existence. Realism's view of nominalism as a "heretic" is indeed far-sighted, because it is not only opposed to realism that defends clerical power (universality) but also upholds the status of kingship (individuality). And its prevalence means that the work of reconciling reason and faith has finally failed.

Chronologically, the first important philosopher of scholasticism was undoubtedly Elieugena. Under the influence of Neo-Platonism, he established the first complete philosophical system in the European Middle Ages. In the 11th century, some scholars began to introduce dialectics into the study of theology, which led to great debates around the question of dialectics. In the controversy, Anselmo affirmed the role of reason in theology on the premise that faith dominates reason, thus establishing the basic position of scholasticism. The controversy over the question of co-existence also led to the formation of two major schools of thought within scholasticism: realism and nominalism. Realism insists that co-existence is the true reality, the spiritual entity that exists in or before things. Nominalism, on the other hand, holds that co-existence is nothing more than a noun or a concept, and that only individual things are truly real. Arguments must be based on reason, and arguments promote the development of reason. So, within the framework of the faith of the Holy See. Rationalism in Europe has reared its ugly head.

The pace of cultural and rationalist recovery has been slow, but unstoppable. Although the rationalism of Eleugena's philosophy is only a lonely candle in the long night, the cultural spirit advocated by the "Carolingian Cultural Revival" has taken root in the barren land of the Middle Ages. In the "Seven Arts" of the Carolingian era. Logic was also called dialectics in the Middle Ages, the art of argumentation. The intensified study of dialectics highlights the place of rational thinking. Early 11th century. In northern Italy, a group of dialectics scholars who called themselves the "Wandering School" emerged, who saw dialectics as a means of finding a more credible conclusion in opposing opinions. However. When Berengar de Tours (1010-1088) applied dialectics to theological studies, it finally sparked a dialectic versus anti-dialectic debate within the scholasticism of the Holy See.

Berengar inherited the rationalist line of Eleugener. In the relationship between faith and reason, he regarded reason as the decisive factor. Faith should be subordinated to knowledge, authority should be subordinated to reason, and the Bible should be subordinated to dialectics. In all fields, dialectics should ultimately be traced, because to dialectics is to trace to reason. Those who cannot use reason can be satisfied with authority and faith, but those who try to use their reason to know the truth stand on a higher level. Berengar applied his principles to theological discussions about the nature of the Eucharist, using dialectics as a weapon to criticize the doctrine of the Holy See regarding the substantive transformation of bread and wine in the Eucharist, arguing that this doctrine contained insoluble logical contradictions.

Because of its theological conclusions, dialectics inevitably drew rebuke from some conservative theophilosophers. These theolophilosophers emphasized the unshakable status of faith, demanded the subordination of reason to faith, and spared no effort to point out the dangers posed by the use of dialectics to discuss theological issues, so they were called anti-dialectical scholars by later generations.

The most prominent exponent of the anti-dialectic of early scholasticism was Petrus Daminiani (1007-1072). As a hermit, Damien, like the extreme Tertullian, was imbued with distrust of secular learning, especially dialectics. He asserted that the discipline of dialectics was built on a very weak foundation. The supreme law of thinking, which is regarded as the golden rule by dialectical scholars, is the law of contradiction, and has no absolute effect. The law of contradiction applies only to finite things, but not to infinite beings like God. Therefore, it is inappropriate to use dialectics to discuss theological issues. Damian even said. Pure philosophy is the invention of the devil, and the first teacher of dialectics is Satan. If only there had never been such a thing as philosophy. But since philosophy already exists, faith can capture it. But you can only use it as your own handmaiden. "Philosophy is to serve the faith as a handmaid serves her master." [5]

In contrast to the radical attitudes of Berengar and Damian, Lanfrank (1010-108.9), the rector of Baker Abbey School and later Archbishop of Canterbury, took a middle ground between dialectics and counter-dialectics.

When Lanfrance opposed Berengar, he did not object to the dialectic itself, but to the exaggeration of the dialectic, that is, to the dialectic which denies all authority and is based solely on reason. In his view, the restrained use of dialectics for the sake of theology is not only possible, but also desirable. As long as it is used correctly, dialectics can play a role in establishing and consolidating faith. Lanfrance also made frequent use of dialectics in his theological writings. This moderate inclination of Lanfrance provided an effective model for the development of scholasticism in later generations.

Starting from the principle of "faith seeks understanding". Anselm tried to philosophically argue for the existence of God as he believed in it. Hegel once noted: "In this respect, Anselm can be regarded as the founder of scholastic theology." For the very thought of proving what he believes in by simple deductions, that is, the existence of God, keeps him at rest day and night." [8] Anselmu, after all, lived up to expectations and worked hard to devise a variety of ways to prove it. For example, in the book "Monologue", Anselmo deduces the existence of absolute goodness from the existence of good things in the world, the absolute greatness from the existence of great things in reality, the absolute existence from the existence of real things, and the highest essence from the hierarchy of the essence of things, and directly equates these conclusions with God. However, due to these methods of proof, there is not much innovation compared with the ideas of predecessors. Therefore, it was gradually ignored by later generations. What really established Anselmusel's place in the history of papal theology and philosophy was the so-called "ontological" proof that he put forward in his book "Preaching".

The essence of this proof is to believe that the existence of God is a necessary truth, and that denying the existence of God necessarily leads to logical contradictions, so that the proof of God's existence does not need to rely on limited empirical facts. It is only by the power of a priori logic that the existence of God can be deduced from concepts alone. Anselmo believed that faith gives us a kind of truth. A definition of God that God is "an incomparably great being." Nothing greater can be conceived on top of it. But as a truth of faith, this principle is not self-evident. Otherwise we wouldn't need to prove it anymore. This definition alone cannot convince those who deny God. According to the Bible, "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'" [9] Anselmus, however, argues that if a fool understands the expression God, then the expression exists in his intellect, that is, a "great being incomparably great," that is, God, exists in his heart. At this time, he did not know or understand that this kind of thing also exists; Because there is still a big difference between "existence in the mind" and "existence in reality". But that which is incomparably great cannot exist only in thought, for if it exists only in thought, it can also be conceived that it also exists in reality, and then it will be greater; Or one can imagine a great being who exists both in thought and in reality is greater than it. These are contradictory to the definition of "incomparably great being". So there is no doubt that something incomparably great, that is, God, exists both in the mind and in reality.

Anselmo first concluded that there is an idea of the Supreme Being in the human heart, and then declared that the Supreme One cannot exist in the human heart as an idea alone, but must also exist in reality, and God is such a supreme being, and finally deduces the conclusion that God must exist in reality. Hegel praised Anselmu's philosophical argument: "Anselm was a man who inspired the philosophy of the scholastic philosophers and combined philosophy with theology." [11] However, there are also many who disagree with Anselmusel's method of proof. When Anselmo was still alive, his method of proof was vehemently refuted by the French hermit Gaunilon, and later by Thomas. Aquinas abandoned it, and finally suffered a fatal blow in Kant's philosophy.

Anselm's proof of God's existence shows that he was an extreme realist. He believed that things are true or good because they have the highest truth or goodness (God), so that the concrete things known by the senses are not really existent, but only the common aspects known by the spirit, which are entities that exist independently before and apart from individual things. Anselmo even thought that there was a pure co-existence, which was not embodied in any single thing. On the contrary, individual things exist only as a result of the co-phase. Fourth, Abelard

Also in the method. The one who had a major influence on the formation and development of scholasticism in principle was the Frenchman Petrus Abaelardus (1079-1142). But before discussing Abelard's philosophy, it is necessary to discuss the ideas of his teacher and critic, Roscelinus (1050-1123).

Born in Corbyne, France, Loselin lectured and worked as a pastor. In 1092 his doctrine was spent. Accused of heresy, the Church began a career of fugitive, and it is unknown how his life ended. With the exception of a letter to Abelard discussing the Trinity, all other writings have been lost. It is almost only from the writings of his two main opponents, Anselmo and Abelard, that we learn of his doctrine. Accordingly, Loselin denied general truth, arguing that only individual things have objective truth. Co-phase is nothing more than "flatusvocis" or "noun". They are abstract creations of the human mind. For example, there are only individual people who can be felt, while people who are general concepts are not entities, but only signs, words, and names. Loselin further argues that only the parts are real, and that the whole made up of parts has no authenticity. The whole is essentially the sum of many independent entities, and hence the name of the whole is an empty word. According to Anselmo, Loselin, proceeding from the principle of nominalism, rejects the monotheism of the Holy See, arguing that the Triune God is only a name and is not real, and that only the individual existence of the three Fathers, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is truly real; Original sin is also only a false name, and only the specific sins of individual people and individual actions are real; The Holy Church of Rome is also a false name, and only the churches in various places are real. Whether or not Anselmo and others truly reflected Loselin's views, this nominalism did directly shake the foundations of the Roman Church, which was an important reason why his and later nominalism could not tolerate the orthodoxy of the Church. (To be continued......)