What do you mean by theory of two swords in western thought?
Answers
From the standpoint of political thought, the medieval period has certain special features about political thought which need specific consideration. It is said that this period was un-political. Neither political theory nor any ideology developed in the middle Ages. Of course, various institutions and organizations were set up. But all these centred around religious dogmas and beliefs.
The church was the most dominating institution. All other institutions remained under its control. As a result, independent thinking in the political arena could not flourish at all.
Hearnshaw holds different view so far as the unproductiveness in political thought of the Middle Ages. He says that although in this period there was no political theory, worthy of its name there was political thought. What is the difference between the two? In the words of Hearnshaw “Political theory is the speculation of particular thinkers which may be remote from the actual facts of the time. Political thought is the immanent philosophy of a whole age which determines its actions and shapes its life.” There was abundant political thought in the middle Ages.
The conflict between the church and the state; the relation of church to common people, learned persons, feudal landlords and students of educational institutions provided sufficient live materials for political thought.
Moreover, in the middle Ages, feudalism became one of the dominant forces and this was treated as part of political thought. So it cannot be said that the medieval period was barren or dead.
Rather, it was live and fresh. It was full of events and numerous institutions grew. All these moulded the nature of political thought.
Universalism is another feature of medieval political thought. Both in political and spiritual field’s universalism were strongly emphasized. The Romans inherited the Stoic philosophy of cosmopolitanism and the medieval period again inherited it from the Romans. The medieval thought assumed of a universal society in political matters and a universal ecclesiastical system.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The society was universal and one. On the one side there was the emperor for things temporal, and on the other side there was the Pope for things spiritual. The emperor was supposed to deal with the political issues.
Ultimately, he came under the full control of the church. Charlemagne worked hard to revive universalism in the temporal side and Hildebrand worked hard for the sake of universalism in ecclesiastical matters.
In the middle Ages there was no organized state, not even a state in any loose sense. Hildebrand and his followers advocated an ecclesiastical authority with supreme power. It meant that the emperor would act under the authority of the church.
“The state is subordinated to the church as an instrument under the control of the church for the governance of the temporal things and for bringing of temporal relations and values under the absolute spiritual purpose of which the hierarchy is guardian.”
hope it's helpful for you!!!
mark it's brainliest answer