In this blog post, we will look at why Pierre Abelard, a philosopher of the Middle Ages, was called a “heretic” through his eventful life and his challenging thoughts.

 

Introduction

Born in France in 1079, Pierre Abélard is better known for his love affair with his lover Eloise and the letters they exchanged than for his identity as a philosopher and theologian. They fell in love at the age of 22, despite the difference in their social status, and he became a medieval priest who lived a tragic life because of that love. However, his philosophical reasoning and thoughts go beyond a simple love story and have deep values. I wanted to know more about Abelard, whom we did not know well.
Since he was young, his mind was brilliant, and he seemed to have felt a gap in understanding with others due to his outstanding intelligence. It is said that he was a person who would ignore the feelings of others and push his own opinions to the end, focusing on logic and reason. Like the so-called “unlucky person,” many people probably harbored the wish that Abelard be praised for his talent in public but be harmed in private.
Abelard gained fame by defeating his teacher in a philosophical debate with his outstanding talent, but he was then retaliated against by his teacher, which reduced his status. “If you don’t have the ability, you should at least be humble!” comes to mind. He made his student suffer because of his petty political tricks, and he was no different from today’s cyber-haters. This anecdote symbolizes Abellard’s life. His personality, which questioned reason and logic, did not fit in with the medieval world, where authority was highly valued, and he was treated endlessly because he was considered abnormal, as the saying goes, “a round stone is hit by a square stone.”
Abellard’s honest and logical personality was keen to expose the hypocrisy and lies around him. Even when he was living as a priest, he tried to expose the corruption and contradictions around him, and was even threatened with assassination. Theology is a discipline that requires absolute faith, but for Abellard, logic and faith were inseparable. He constantly tried to apply logic to theology, and in the process, he was the first to separate ethics from theology. He also influenced the methodology of scholastic philosophy.
History is the record of the victors. The words and actions that were recognized at the time would have been recorded. But what happened to the words that were wrong in the past but correct in the present? People in the past would have ignored or intentionally erased such words. The thoughts and philosophies of Abelard, a medieval rebel, would have been buried until the French Revolution, which is why he was chosen over Aquinas, Augustine, and Occam. Now, let’s take a look at the ideas of the heretic Abelard.

 

The Universal Debate

Let’s take a look at Abelard’s position and opinions on the universals debate (the conflict between realism and nominalism), which was one of the most intense debates of the Middle Ages.
The period when the universals debate was in full swing was the era of scholastic philosophy. Abelard studied under nominalist Roscelinus and realist Guillaume. Realism claims that universal concepts exist before objects (individuals), while nominalism claims that universal concepts exist after objects (individuals). Abellard accepted Aristotle’s theory of substance and explained that universal concepts exist as essences within objects (individuals).
Guillaume argued that a common entity, a universal, exists regardless of the differences between objects, which bind different objects into a single concept. For example, the concepts of species and genera, such as “human,” exist as a single “entity” independently of “Chul-soo” or “Young-hee.” Abelard rejected the position of the famous theory that general concepts such as “species” or “being” are merely the products of language. If universal concepts are just empty symbols, he argued, then sentences containing such concepts would be meaningless or, if they were meaningful, they would not be understood. He partially accepted Guillaume’s realism, but argued that the universality of concepts is not physical but rather conceptual, refuting Guillaume. The universals can only be universal and general through human thought, and they do not exist.
According to Abellard, the universal concept is the result of human reason extracting similar attributes from concrete objects based on experience. The concept of “human” is established through common attributes found in all people, including “Chul-soo” and “Young-hee.” Averroes sought to overcome the limitations of the medieval universal debate by placing emphasis on both the empirical and abstract aspects of human thought, transcending the dichotomous logic of realism and nominalism. His position is also known as conceptualism.
It is necessary to know how the medieval universal debate was received by others. It is said that this debate is one of the reasons why philosophy feels boring. Concepts precede reality, and concepts belong to things. These two are similar, so why are they fighting over them? For a long time, philosophical debates were not topics of interest.
We cannot know what Abellard was thinking, but I think he probably had similar thoughts. His teacher also learned from both the nominalists and the realists, and his argument is a concept located in between. It seems to be a clear reflection of his idea that “if it makes sense this way and that way, isn’t there enough room to accept both?”
I thought that the universal debate was not very meaningful to me, but I mentioned it because it occupies an important place in the history of philosophy. Abelard’s concept of the concept is not perfect, but I felt that it is in line with my thoughts.

 

Ethics

As mentioned earlier, Abelard’s philosophical significance lies in the distinction between ethics and theology. Abelard valued intention in the realm of morality. God does not evaluate us based on what we have done, but on what we have done with our hearts. Blame and praise for an act depend not on the act itself, but on the intention behind it.
The intention here refers to the state of mind closely related to knowledge. God knows everything, but we can do forbidden things without knowing anything, so he argued that the act itself is not evil, but only the intention behind it is evil.
For example, in a society where incest is considered a sin, if a man and a woman fall in love and get married with everyone’s blessing, but it is later revealed that they are brother and sister, can they be considered evil? Abella points out that even if the intention to marry a brother and sister is not there, the sin is committed regardless, and the act itself is value-neutral.
In addition, he believed that evil intentions can ruin good deeds. If a judge performs a good deed that leads a criminal to execution, but then tries to punish the criminal out of personal resentment and hatred, the judge’s evil intentions can be seen as committing a sin by ruining the good deed.
And he argued that good intentions can justify evil acts. Lying is clearly an evil act. If a independence fighter is captured by the Japanese and forced to name all the independence movement figures, then, following Abellard’s argument, the independence fighter can justify the evil act of lying. If one has good intentions for the independence of one’s country and the safety of one’s colleagues, then even a lie can be justified, even if it is an evil act.
Abelar also found evidence in the Bible to support his claim. There is an anecdote in which God commanded Abraham to kill Isaac. God’s command to Abraham to kill Isaac was a command to commit an evil act. Commanding an evil act is evil in itself. However, God’s intention was good, to test Abraham’s faith, so God’s good intention made the evil act right. Therefore, it was argued that good intentions are as commendable as good deeds, even if they are not carried out in action.
We have now examined Abelard’s argument. According to Abelard, evil intentions should be punished and condemned. But why do we punish crimes by looking at the intention and not the act? Why should an act alone be punished even if there is no intention to commit a crime? This leaves us with questions.
Abelar had previously supported the theory of strict liability, which states that in order to constitute a crime, it is not necessary to know that the act is a crime and to intend to commit the act. When the mother of a baby sleeps next to her baby and accidentally kills the baby in her sleep, the mother is punished even though she acted with good intentions to sleep with her baby without the intention of killing. The reason why such punishment is justified is to warn others even though they have not committed a crime.
Accordingly, Abelard saw this as the limit of human beings. We cannot see intentions, so evil intentions are hidden within, and we can only recognize evil acts that are clearly visible. Pointing out this point, Abelard argued that judgment in the heavenly world will be carried out without punishment based solely on actions.
Abelard’s argument has several limitations. First, can evil means be justified if the intention is good? Can the act of dropping the atomic bomb on Japan during World War II or the act of the scientists who developed it be justified? Second, can doing evil things out of a bad conscience be justified? If a lunatic takes pleasure in the suffering of others and causes them to suffer with the intention of making many people happy, is that act right? Third, there may be some cases where the intention justifies the act. For example, is it right for a vegetarian to go into a meat restaurant and prevent people from eating meat by paying the right price?
Abélard’s ethics can be seen as having been advanced by about eight to nine centuries. Later, the slogan “If you do it with all your heart, you can do anything” of the hippies in the 1960s and the view that killing a Christian with good intentions was not a sin at the Council of Trent were derived from Abélard’s arguments.
I have identified three limitations. The first limitation is the bad deeds committed in the name of good intentions. This occurs in terrorism, indiscriminate proselytizing, and unnecessary meddling. To solve this, we must prioritize freedom above all else. Of course, it is sad that someone has to commit an evil act because of their good intentions, but they should act after asking themselves, “Is this an act that greatly infringes on the freedom and rights of others?” The scope of freedom and rights that are now legislated and human rights are to protect this point. No one should die because of terrorism, and they have the right to freedom of religion. Now that there are various ways to express good intentions, if the only way to realize one’s intention is through evil acts, one should consider whether one’s intention is wrong or whether the current law is wrong, and the problem can be solved by fully considering the opinions of various classes and fields, rather than the individual or group’s own opinion.
The second limitation is evil acts stemming from a wrong conscience. First, it is necessary to determine whether the defendant is mentally or physically weak. Various medical and scientific findings can sufficiently determine whether the defendant suffers from mental or physical illness, and this will allow for lenient punishment, such as reducing the sentence. However, crimes committed while under the influence of drugs or alcohol should not be considered as being committed while mentally or physically weak. If you know that you cannot control yourself and still neglect it, it is tantamount to acting with the expectation that it will lead to a crime, and therefore, it is necessary to punish it accordingly. The ambiguity of the concept of a false conscience is that, as previously argued by Abelard, the theory of strict liability requires that punishment be imposed on the act first, and then correction through a correctional institution is necessary. If it is judged that such a false conscience is the responsibility of society, then society will be required to take educational responsibility to teach the criminal a universal conscience and reduce the punishment for the act.
The third limitation is the issue of intention justifying an act. Intention always exists to justify an act. In the past, justification was also important to justify an act. However, it is necessary to check whether such justification is also justified for others. If the justification is limited to the individual, the act is wrong. If the justification is acceptable to others, it can be considered, and if it is acceptable to all, it becomes the most justifiable act. On the other hand, the justification of an act that is rejected even by the person himself will require aggravated punishment.

 

Conclusion

We have looked at Abelard’s philosophical ideas so far. What I felt while researching various materials is that Abellard’s ideas are not very different from our lives today. Is this similar to my feelings in his life? Today, when it is considered a virtue to stand up for one’s opinions, fight against evil authority, and pursue justice and reason, Abellard’s life can be seen as very similar to the virtues of our time.
Philosophy is something that humans do, and as it reflects the person’s daily behavior and thoughts, Abelard’s life, which was in line with virtue today, can be accepted by us beyond the temporal limit of a thousand years, just as his philosophical thoughts can.
One regret is that his ideas have not been widely publicized. His achievements have been greatly belittled by his detractors, as has his life of much silence and his miserable end, and his records have sometimes been hidden or distorted. Even the punishments he received at the time and the actions that left him disabled have given him much distortion. I have many regrets that he should be treated as valuable as Aquinas, Augustine, and Ockham.
He must have received a lot of criticism for his 22-year age difference in love and for his legitimate behavior that made others uncomfortable. Nevertheless, I would like to send my praise to him for not hiding his true nature and for living according to his principles, and I hope that society will become a place where it is natural to live according to justice.