Overlapping frameworks
The greatest minds and artists have always been those who are comfortable with a plurality of viewpoints, operating on multiple levels, and seeing things under a variety of viewpoints, aspects and angles. Reductionist thinking is the enemy of creativity, growth and progress, and our culture lives under the sign of some extremely deleterious forms of reductionism.
But every culture has had to deal with the spectre of blinkered thinking, perspectives that reduce visibility, offer simple answers and explain away the complexity of reality and humanity.
One reductionist culture I’m most familiar with given my research background is the Western medieval culture. As I argued elsewhere on this blog, the plurality of views available in the ancient world, which the cultures of the Mediterranean felt quite comfortable holding together and navigating alongside each other, gave rise, with the fall of the Roman state, to a worldview which tended to reduce the availability and credibility of diverse perspectives to single lines and unique points that would cut, on a Procrustrean bed, the complexities and ambiguities of people living and solving collective problems together.
The worldview of medieval Western culture, particularly during the Early and High Middle Ages (roughly 500-1200 AD), was profoundly shaped by a blend of Christian theology, late classical philosophy (particularly Neoplatonism) and the hierarchical social structures of feudalism. A convergence of all these systems was achieved more or less in the cultural space often referred to as Christendom.
But these systems were not without competition. As the West came into more direct contact with the East, and as political, social and economic developments gave rise to elective, republican and proto-capitalist ideas and ideals, as cities and citizenry mentalities developed and matured, Western medieval culture had to deal increasingly more with the idea of reconciling seemingly divergent perspectives. Aristotle’s works on logic, ethics and epistemology were ‘rediscovered’, scientific findings gained more and more traction, and heterodox points of view proliferated. Yet, very few leaders, thinkers and artists took up the new challenge of synthesizing the variety of traditions and perspectives they were faced with.
Some nevertheless did. Thomas Aquinas was one of them, and in his prolific life’s work he sought to bring theology, Aristotle, Neoplatonism, dialectic and science into deep and meaningful dialogue.
Inspired heavily by Aquinas, but not limited by him, Dante achieved the most radical convergence of all the perspectives that the medieval West had explored up to that point, in a way that no other writer, before or since, has been able to do in relation to the culture through which he or she lived.
In his culture-shattering and often-misunderstood epic poem “The Divine Comedy,”, Dante masterfully reconciles the diverse and often conflicting perspectives of the medieval world through a synthesis of theology, philosophy, politics, and personal experience. His comprehensive vision integrates these elements into a cohesive narrative that reflects the complexity of medieval thought. Most of Dante’s categories are uncategorisable, and scholarly debates are as hot as ever.
The Commedia is profoundly theological, portraying divine justice and order, culminating in the beatific vision of God, embodying the medieval Christian worldview, but not fully subscribing to it. Dante seamlessly weaves Aristotelian and Platonic philosophy into his narrative, using Aristotelian ethics to structure Hell and Neoplatonism to symbolize the soul’s ascent in Purgatory and Heaven, but never quite as simply as that. He also addresses the political and social dynamics of his time, critiquing contemporary corruption and exploring ideal governance in line with medieval aspirations for a unified Christendom, but in such original and radical ways that he has made enemies and friends on both sides of every divide. Dante’s personal experiences of exile and his engagement with universal themes of love, sin, redemption, and divine grace make his journey a microcosm of the human quest for understanding within the medieval Christian framework, but in ways that are perfectly readable by and engaging with cultures which no longer subscribe to medieval frameworks.
Dante was no friend of the status quo. His works reveal several heterodox views that challenge the established religious and political norms of his time. He criticized the corruption within the Church and the papacy, notably condemning specific popes for their moral failings. Politically, Dante advocated for a universal monarchy with a clear separation of church and state, opposing the papal claims of temporal authority. His nuanced views on predestination and free will emphasized human responsibility and the potential for salvation beyond strict orthodox confines, as seen in his sympathetic portrayal of virtuous non-Christians. His synthesis of classical philosophy with Christian theology, and his early humanist emphasis on individual virtue and intellect, positioned him as a forward-thinking critic of medieval orthodoxy. But most importantly, it made him one of the finest architects of overlapping frameworks of cultural thought, an encyclopedist, prophet and mediator, all at once, a figure for whom no challenge is too great, and no goal too lofty, as long as reductionisms are avoided and the commitment to difficult answers and provisional responses (he often corrected his own views) remains strong.