![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article contains a translation of Escuela de Salamanca from es.wikipedia. ( 6537732 et seq.) |
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)
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:
Any ideas/objections? jni 11:29, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
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)
Another passage is, "The mendicant orders considered the possession of goods and private property as, at least, morally objectionable. In contrast, the Dominicans in general and Thomas Aquinas in particular, defended private property as a morally neutral human institution." The Dominican's ARE mendicants, thus one cannot contrast the mendicants and the Dominicans. The mendicants, at least in general, didn't have a moral problem with private property, but freely gave it up.
I don't understand the comment about the "onslaught of secular humanism." In the Renaissance, humanism was an intellectual practice geared towards, inter alia, the redaction and translation of classical texts. Can someone give me an example of a secular humanist before the sixteenth century? Even if one can be named (Machiavelli?), this is not the best way to frame this problem. It is better to note that the scholastic method (as a method) was criticized for its barbaric language and scholastic content was criticized with a lack of attention to ethical matters, etc.
The whole statement is still quite questionable. As the reference to divine right theory makes clear, the confusions between and confusions of the secular and temporal were actually worse in early modernity than in the mediaeval ages. Vexilloid ( talk) 20:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
The first paragraph of this passage is self-contradictory: "The growth of the mendicant orders in the 13th century began a movement that, with ever more force, insisted on poverty and the brotherhood of man, deploring the accumulation of wealth in the Church. The mendicant orders considered the possession of goods and private property as, at least, morally objectionable. In contrast, the Dominicans in general and Thomas Aquinas in particular, defended private property as a morally neutral human institution." The Dominicans (including Aquinas)were mendicants, thus contrasting mendicant teaching as a whole with Thomistic/Dominican teaching is implicitly contradictory. While the mendicants did take a vow of poverty it was not because poperty was viewed as evil, but becasue they wanted to remove the temptaions to greed and arrogance, as well as to generally free them from the concerns of maintaining property to more fully concentrate their efforts on their work. 69.138.210.176 22:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
That sounds like a technicality. Kylenielsen ( talk) 22:54, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
It may well be a matter of taste and style, but I think the late Murray Rothbard could have found more modest ways to express his admiration for the insights of the Salamanca School than labelling them proto-Austrians, which is essentially anachronistic and a strange thing to do for an historian of economic thought. Any opinions? Robertsch55 13:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
So, there is this "Francisco de Vitoria was perhaps the first to develop a theory of ius gentium (the rights of peoples), and thus is an important figure in the transition to modernity." This is not even close. I in no way want to discount the legacy of Vitoria. His influence on Grotius was immense and any work on natural law, international law or Thomas Aquinas should reference him. He might be the "founder" of international law, as Grotius is considered its "father", but Vitoria did not develop jus gentium. the jus gentium or "law of nations" (not the rights of peoples) was Roman customary law, as opposed to jus civile, which was Roman civil law. In addition, modern international law is not just positive law. The number one source of international law are jus cogens norms. Even among the problematic (See Alvarez:IOs as law-makers) sources of international law listed in Article 38 of the ICJ statute only one of the sources is really positive law. The other two principle sources customary law and the general principles of law are generally not codified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.92.76.114 ( talk) 03:09, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
School of Salamanca§The conquest of America is not only entirely unsourced, but contains dubious claims such as:
In this period, in which European colonialism began, Spain was the only western European nation in which a group of intellectuals questioned the legitimacy of conquest rather than simply trying to justify it by traditional means.
That is a HUGE claim, and one I'm not sure is backed up by the facts. Not even one Western European intellectual outside of Spain questioned colonial imperialism? Are you sure? It is also unclear as to when specifically this period
refers to. This whole page needs serious
rewriting, frankly. —
Mr. Guye (
talk) (
contribs)
05:08, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article contains a translation of Escuela de Salamanca from es.wikipedia. ( 6537732 et seq.) |
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)
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:
Any ideas/objections? jni 11:29, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
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)
Another passage is, "The mendicant orders considered the possession of goods and private property as, at least, morally objectionable. In contrast, the Dominicans in general and Thomas Aquinas in particular, defended private property as a morally neutral human institution." The Dominican's ARE mendicants, thus one cannot contrast the mendicants and the Dominicans. The mendicants, at least in general, didn't have a moral problem with private property, but freely gave it up.
I don't understand the comment about the "onslaught of secular humanism." In the Renaissance, humanism was an intellectual practice geared towards, inter alia, the redaction and translation of classical texts. Can someone give me an example of a secular humanist before the sixteenth century? Even if one can be named (Machiavelli?), this is not the best way to frame this problem. It is better to note that the scholastic method (as a method) was criticized for its barbaric language and scholastic content was criticized with a lack of attention to ethical matters, etc.
The whole statement is still quite questionable. As the reference to divine right theory makes clear, the confusions between and confusions of the secular and temporal were actually worse in early modernity than in the mediaeval ages. Vexilloid ( talk) 20:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
The first paragraph of this passage is self-contradictory: "The growth of the mendicant orders in the 13th century began a movement that, with ever more force, insisted on poverty and the brotherhood of man, deploring the accumulation of wealth in the Church. The mendicant orders considered the possession of goods and private property as, at least, morally objectionable. In contrast, the Dominicans in general and Thomas Aquinas in particular, defended private property as a morally neutral human institution." The Dominicans (including Aquinas)were mendicants, thus contrasting mendicant teaching as a whole with Thomistic/Dominican teaching is implicitly contradictory. While the mendicants did take a vow of poverty it was not because poperty was viewed as evil, but becasue they wanted to remove the temptaions to greed and arrogance, as well as to generally free them from the concerns of maintaining property to more fully concentrate their efforts on their work. 69.138.210.176 22:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
That sounds like a technicality. Kylenielsen ( talk) 22:54, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
It may well be a matter of taste and style, but I think the late Murray Rothbard could have found more modest ways to express his admiration for the insights of the Salamanca School than labelling them proto-Austrians, which is essentially anachronistic and a strange thing to do for an historian of economic thought. Any opinions? Robertsch55 13:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
So, there is this "Francisco de Vitoria was perhaps the first to develop a theory of ius gentium (the rights of peoples), and thus is an important figure in the transition to modernity." This is not even close. I in no way want to discount the legacy of Vitoria. His influence on Grotius was immense and any work on natural law, international law or Thomas Aquinas should reference him. He might be the "founder" of international law, as Grotius is considered its "father", but Vitoria did not develop jus gentium. the jus gentium or "law of nations" (not the rights of peoples) was Roman customary law, as opposed to jus civile, which was Roman civil law. In addition, modern international law is not just positive law. The number one source of international law are jus cogens norms. Even among the problematic (See Alvarez:IOs as law-makers) sources of international law listed in Article 38 of the ICJ statute only one of the sources is really positive law. The other two principle sources customary law and the general principles of law are generally not codified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.92.76.114 ( talk) 03:09, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
School of Salamanca§The conquest of America is not only entirely unsourced, but contains dubious claims such as:
In this period, in which European colonialism began, Spain was the only western European nation in which a group of intellectuals questioned the legitimacy of conquest rather than simply trying to justify it by traditional means.
That is a HUGE claim, and one I'm not sure is backed up by the facts. Not even one Western European intellectual outside of Spain questioned colonial imperialism? Are you sure? It is also unclear as to when specifically this period
refers to. This whole page needs serious
rewriting, frankly. —
Mr. Guye (
talk) (
contribs)
05:08, 21 October 2022 (UTC)