Conclusion

Summary

Though this book has studied only a limited set of authors and texts in considerable detail, some general conclusions may be drawn. First, we may note the historical continuity of the critique of scholastic language from the early days of humanism to the end of the seventeenth century. When Leibniz, for instance, praised Nizolio for his rejection of abstract terminology, he quoted an old dictum that had been made popular by his humanist sources: “Der Gebrauch ist der Meister”, endorsing the humanistic point that philosophical language should follow the common language of the people: the “passion for devising abstract words has almost obfuscated philosophy for us entirely.” Similarly, Gassendi was quite explicit about his debt to humanists, mentioning Vives, Charron, Ramus, and Gianfrancesco Pico, and referring to Valla’s program of ontological reduction in his own rejection of what he considered to be the useless superstructure of the scholastic conceptual armory: scholars should use “the common and accepted manner of speaking (communis et protritus loquendi usus).”