Day One Comments and Observations

A quick word about format: I’m going to post one blog per day (that is Eco’s days not mine). Ya’ll can do it however you want of course, but let’s keep interaction with each other’s blogs in the comments section and keep the blog portion reserved for our own observations. That will make things easier to keep up with.

What do you make of Brother William’s (henceforth BW) statement to Adso towards the beginning of Day 1 Terce? BW is describing how he arrived at the conclusions he did about the horse and he says that he found himself “halfway between the perception of the concept ‘horse’ and the knowledge of the individual horse.” He goes on to say concerning his conclusions that, “…the ideas… I was using… were pure signs, as the hoofprints in the snow were signs of the idea of ‘horse’; and signs and the signs of signs are used only when we are lacking things.” He seems to critically reference Platonic philosophy with the ‘idea of horse’ language. It is not the universal ideal of ‘horse’ that is important but the individual horse. The signs of ‘horseness’ are only used as an inferior substitution for the actual individual horse. Universals are insufficient in understanding the individual, which may vary much from the universal. So it will be with truth. Universal concepts of truth are inferior to the knowledge of the individual. You only use them when you do not have the real thing.

I found the conversation between the Abbot and Brother William to be quite interesting. I'm not sure exactly where all of the threads are going to go but Eco is setting us with philosophical foundations already.
- BW is presumptively the more 'enlightened' of the two (so far anyway... ). He seems to 'understand' the complexities involved in arriving at truth and has the powers of observation that remind one of Sherlock Holmes (and 'coincidentally' both are English?!). His only fault so far is arrogance for which he can hardly be blamed (as he is seemingly quite superior in intelligence). Time will tell, but I think he'll represent the more virtuous philosophy (postmodernism I presume). According to my dustcover, his tools are the “logic of Aristotle, the theology of Aquinas, and the empirical insights of Roger Bacon.” It will be interesting to see if these are ultimately viewed as sufficient or insufficient to discover truth (represented by the mystery).
- It is interesting that the Abbot blames everything on the devil, whereas BW is less sure about the underlying causes to a man's deeds. The Abbot is more virtuous than he could be. He does recognize 'second causes'. Not everyone who is accused is necessarily guilty, the devil could be attempting to have the innocent burned, one must watch out for the devil. The abbot is comforted by the fact that BW sometimes finds the accused innocent, but he is reluctant to admit that an inquisitor can be impelled by the Devil. Oddly, the abbot has a more positive view of human beings than does BW. Guilty sentences are only to be handed down when the Devil is present. It is the classic ‘the devil made 9him) do it’. Evil is not human but diabolical influence. BW will neither confirm or deny this influence. The abbot seems to be opposed to the idea that the devil could be working through the judges. He is convinced about the rightness of the Church. BW is not and seems to have more positive feelings towards heretical movements. The truth is not necessarily found in the teachings of the RCC.

-BW consistently breaks down the traditional ideas of right/wrong, good-guys/bad-guys, truth/error. The inquisitor might be the one impelled by the devil. It might not be the devil. (later) The Pope might be the bad guy and King Louis the good guy. Science/magic is not inherently good or evil it can be used for both. BW introduces the idea that one might be an inquisitor for his own personal profit and that fighting heresy may in fact encourage heresy.

-The abbot is, as the Catholic church was, very afraid of the revelation of knowledge. They hide truth that may threaten their authority (the library), effectively brainwashing their people. They seek out and burn heretics, yet they are also quite hypocritical… More on hypocrisy later. One of the most interesting statements in the abbot conversation was the ‘not all truths are for all ears speal. Truth belongs to the few- two librarians. This goes back to epistemology: Who determines truth? The few, the powerful etc…? Or the individual?

-The abbot makes the interesting statement that, ‘If a shepherd errs he must be isolated from other shepherds but woe unto us if the sheep begin to distrust shepherds.’ The chief concern of the church (and authority in general, nonreligious as well) is to hold onto their power and authority.

The church is consistently portrayed as hypocritical. They burn some heretics, but let the more influential ones (of whom they are somewhat afraid) escape. They break their own rules about silence during meals, reinterpreting them for their own convenience. They condemn as heresy the idea that Jesus and the apostles were poor to defend their own wealth. They are willing to lie and deceive in order to trap heretics (‘ends justifies the means’). They have their own ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ policy for the homosexual monks in the abbey. One monk opposes study and academics by writing books against it. There is holy pornography everywhere. The nude sculptures are ‘okay’ because they are in the church, outside they would be considered obscene. The best descriptions of sin are found in the pages of ‘virtuous men’ who have ‘never’ done such evil. The blind monk is the only one who seems to be consistent and he is seen as somewhat crazy. The rules of the order and of the church are applied arbitrarily by those in power.