Scholasticism

1. What was the scolastic way of doing philosophy, how was it different from how we do philosophy today, and what effect would this difference have on the general progress of philosophy and science? (To put it another way, could we have developed our present world if we had all remained scholastics?) (Read Scholastic method and Scholastic instruction in Scholasticism )
Scholasticism was the main form of theology and philosophy during the Middle Ages, especially in the 12th, 13th and 14th centuries. All this philosophy tried to reconcile the Christian faith with the Greek philosophy. Representatives were peter Abelard, Albertus Magnus, Duns Scotus, William of Ockham, Bonaventure and the most important one, Thomas Aquinas. The way the scholastics had the philosophical debate, was very simple. They would choose one book (most of the times the Bible) as a subject for investigation. The disciples learnt to estimate the theories thru reading and criticizing the ideas of the author. They would start with philological analysis, followed by the logical analysis. The compromise that they often made in their attempt to reconcile the church and the Greek philosophy, lead little by little to the collapse of scholasticism. During the 14th and 15th centuries some of the philosophers realized that their efforts to mold or shape their philosophical reasoning to the Christian doctrine has failed and it has no finality. In the modern era, the philosophers debate on different doctrines or themes in their attempt to eliminate the barriers between philosophy and conceptual ideas on one hand and sciences on the other hand (especially Mathematics). It is a fact that scholasticism won’t lead the society to the new modern era due to the fact that their concern was to conserve the Christian doctrine but not to develop the society.
4. What exactly is the Problem of Universals, and how does it demonstrate an important difference between the way scholatics thought, and the way we think now? What are "realism" and "nominalism" in this context, and what are the arguments for and against both? What is the modern answer to this question? (Read The Problem of Universals in Scholasticism, and Wikipedia on realism and nominalism.)
The problem of the universals was a real one and started in Ancient Times and it sparkled long discussions weather universals existed. According to the materials on Wikipedia that were provided to us, universals represent abstract properties, characteristic s, qualities or relations. Some examples include male/female, solid/liquid/gas or different colors. In an article about nominalism, Gonzalo Rodriguez-Pereira presented in 2008 some very practical examples. In the first one, Meena, John and Poppy are all human beings or the humanity is the universal that they have in common. The problems of the universals are sparkled by their status and it is caused by the uncertainty of universals existing independently of individuals or modalities of discussing or finding similarities among particular things that are radically different. According to Loux, a good example of this debate is the living grass and some apples that are similar, having in common the attribute of greenness. The philosophers are divided usually in two categories when talking about universals: realists and nominalists. According to the realists, the universals are real even though there are many forms of realism. Among them there are the platonic realism (universalia ante rem) and Aristotelian realism (universalia in rebus). The platonic realism believes that universals are real entities and they exist independent of particulars. Aristotelian realism believes that universals are real entities but their existence is dependent on the object or notions that are described. Representative philosophers for this current are Plato, Aristotle and Russell.
Nominalism is a current that believes that the universals are not real even thought the individuals, notions or particulars are. People that supported this theory were William of Ockham, D. C. Luis, and W. V. O. Quine . During the Medieval Times, one common tendency was for philosophers to attack the opponent’s view instead of defending their own. In an effort to eliminate those extremes, that were not very constructive, the French philosopher Peter Abelar developed a third theory called conceptualism. This new theory states that universals are not real as separate entities. The individual things are the only ones really existing even though in our minds we use them as universals. The conceptualism is a compromise between realism and nominalism attempting to eliminate the sterile discussions on both extremes. In the modern era, nominalism was supported by Berkeley, Mill, Peirce and James. The last two developed the pragmatism. A new current that brings Berkeley’s study one step further. Contemporary realism is represented by Richard Weaver, Roger Penrose and Mino Cocchiarella. Most used their studies to combine Philosophy and Mathematics.