Editing John of Salisbury (section)

==Scholarship and influences==
It is important to note that many of John's works were not valued during his time. Many of these works survived only because they were copied into manuscripts that contained more popular works. It is still being disputed whether certain works were authored by John of Salisbury.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Linder |first=Amnon |date=1977 |title=The Knowledge of John of Salisbury in the Late Middle Ages |journal=Studi Medievali |volume=3 |issue=2 |pages=315–355}}</ref> John's writings are excellent at clarifying the literary and scientific position of [[Renaissance of the 12th century|12th-century Western Europe]]. Though he was well versed in the new logic and dialectical rhetoric of the university, John's views also imply a cultivated intelligence well versed in practical affairs, opposing to the extremes of both [[nominalism]] and [[Philosophical realism|realism]] a practical [[common sense]]. His doctrine draws on the literary skepticism of [[Cicero]], for whom he had unbounded admiration and on whose style he based his own.{{sfn|Chisholm|1911|p=450}} His view that the end of education was moral, rather than merely intellectual, became one of the prime educational doctrines of Western civilization. This moral vision of education shares more in common with the tradition of monastic education which preceded his own [[Scholasticism|Scholastic]] age, and with the vision of education which re-emerges in the worldview of [[Renaissance humanism]].<ref>Cantor 1993:325f.</ref>

Of Greek writers he appears to have known nothing at first hand, and very little in translations, but he was one of the best Latinists of his age. The ''[[Timaeus (dialogue)|Timaeus]]'' of [[Plato]] in the Latin version of [[Chalcidius]] was known to him as to his contemporaries and predecessors, and probably he had access to translations of the ''[[Phaedo]]'' and ''[[Meno]]''. Of [[Aristotle]] he possessed the whole of the ''[[Organon]]'' in Latin; he is, indeed, the first of the medieval writers of note to whom the whole was known.{{sfn|Chisholm|1911|p=450}}

He first coined the term ''[[Theatrum Mundi|theatrum mundi]]'', a notion that influences the theater several centuries later. In several chapters of the third book of his ''[[Policraticus]]'', he meditates on the fact that "the life of man on earth is a comedy, where each forgetting his own plays another's role".<ref>John Gillies, ''Shakespeare and the Geography of Difference'', Volume 4 of Cambridge Studies in Renaissance Literature and Culture, Cambridge University Press, 1994. {{ISBN|9780521458535}}. [https://books.google.com/books?id=HoKybxnJLVMC&pg=PA76 Pages 76-77].</ref>

=== Philosophical views ===
John of Salisbury was a follower of the Ciceronian perspective. Followers of this perspective believed that things could be definitively proven, but still left open to be challenged. John emphasized this belief in both the ''Policraticus'' and the ''Metalogicon''. Following the worldview of Cicero, John of Salisbury dissociated himself from the extreme skepticism some of his fellow academics held. John instead held the view of moderate skepticism. In this worldview, there are three bases for which knowledge can be based in certainty. These bases are: Faith, reason, and the senses. This structure allowed for philosophers to think and discuss without having to question the existence of God or question other structures which were to not be questioned in their time.<ref name=":0">{{Citation |last1=Bollermann |first1=Karen |title=John of Salisbury |date=2022 |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2022/entries/john-salisbury/ |encyclopedia=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |editor-last=Zalta |editor-first=Edward N. |edition=Summer 2022 |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |access-date=2022-11-11 |last2=Nederman |first2=Cary}}</ref>

John of Salisbury's belief of moderate skepticism carried over into his other views of life. John detested the philosophy of [[Epicureanism]], deeming it to be the opposite of moderation. John found some values in the teaching of [[Epicurus]], but his criticisms were more directed to the followers of Epicureanism. He believed that Epicureans didn't correctly follow Epicurus's original philosophy and used it to indulge in unbridled hedonism. John argued that this form of Epicureanism would not allow its followers to achieve true happiness. John of Salisbury also criticized Epicureans who did not identify themselves as such. This pertained to individuals who were overly hedonistic and only ever served their own needs. Having not had wide access to ancient philosophers who challenged Epicurus's ideas, it is most likely that John of Salisbury came to his conclusions based on his own life experiences and observations.<ref name=":0" /> Similarly to the Epicureans, John also detested the philosophies of Cornificius and his followers. However, he detested their philosophies because they attempted to reject the ''[[trivium]]''.<ref name=":2" />

However, John viewed the presence of any philosophical thought in humans as critical, despite his criticisms of certain philosophies. John believed that the capacity for logic was a natural dividing line between humans and lesser-sentient creatures.<ref name=":2" /> He stated that philosophy was essential to human health and mental well-being, while humans lacking philosophical thought were akin to feral creatures incapable of rationalization.<ref name=":33">{{Cite book |url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/820167664 |title=Logic and language in the Middle Ages : a volume in honour of Sten Ebbesen |date=2013 |others=Sten Ebbesen, Jakob L. Fink, Heine Hansen, Ana María Mora-Márquez |isbn=978-90-04-24213-5 |location=Leiden |oclc=820167664}}</ref> This is also why John argued so strongly for the ''trivium'', viewing socialization as an important aspect of sharing and enhancing philosophical thought—also contributing to well-being.<ref name=":3" />

=== Medical views ===
[[File:Metalogicon.jpg|left|thumb|238x238px|A page from the Metalogicon]]
John of Salisbury was fairly vocal about his criticisms of the medical system during his time, writing about it in both the ''[[Policraticus]]'' and the ''Metalogicon.'' He expressed his belief that medical science should have more balance between theory and practice;<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal |last1=Shogimen |first1=Takashi |last2=Nederman |first2=Cary J. |date=2011-01-01 |title=The Best Medicine? Medical Education, Practice, and Metaphor in John of Salisbury's Policraticus and Metalogicon |url=https://www.brepolsonline.net/doi/10.1484/J.VIATOR.1.102004 |journal=Viator |volume=42 |issue=1 |pages=55–73 |doi=10.1484/J.VIATOR.1.102004 |issn=0083-5897}}</ref><ref name=":33" /> and his concern that the medical system had become corrupt. John of Salisbury believed medical science was important; however, he criticized the physicians practicing medicine for being seemingly more focused on personal gain than helping patients. Physicians who relied too much on inquiry began speculating about how the soul relates to health, which John believed impractical because it could not be tested and trespassed on religious belief. John believed, as a result, that theoretical physicians often ignored natural, tangible causes of illness in the body. On the other hand, he stated practical physicians chose to ignore their potential faults and chance for inquiry; making the claim that there is nothing they could have done better or differently if their patient succumbed to their illness.<ref name=":1" /> John argued instead that there should be an equal balance between seeking out new truths and practicing or pursuing those new truths.<ref name=":33" /> Due to the progressing division between the two types of physicians, John of Salisbury also argued they had begun diversifying the medical language used to a point where it was becoming more confusing than beneficial to clients. John posed the argument that physicians should focus more on a balance of both inquiry and practice while using a set of steps for treatment he coined as the "regularum compendium": find the source of the illness, focus on healing the illness, and then perform aftercare to restore the health of the patient and prevent future illnesses from surfacing in the first place.<ref name=":1" />