This blog post examines why the medieval philosopher Pierre Abélard was labeled a ‘heretic’ through his eventful life and his challenging thought.

Introduction

Born in France in 1079, Pierre Abélard is more famous for his love affair with his lover Héloïse and their exchanged letters than for his identity as a philosopher and theologian. He was a medieval priest who, despite loving beyond the age gap and social differences at 22, ended up living a tragic life because of that love. Yet his philosophical thought and ideas transcend a simple love story, holding profound value. I found myself wanting to know more about the Abelard we rarely hear about.
From childhood, his intellect was exceptional, and his outstanding intelligence likely made him feel a gap in understanding with others. He was said to be a character who, centered on reason and logic, would push his own opinions through to the end, disregarding the feelings of others. Like what we often call an “unlucky person,” many likely praised his talents to his face while secretly wishing him harm behind his back.
Abélard gained fame by outshining his teacher in philosophical debates with his exceptional talent, but this led to political retaliation from his teacher, narrowing his standing. The saying “If you lack ability, at least have humility!” comes to mind. To torment a disciple with such petty political maneuvering—this master was no different from today’s trolls. This anecdote symbolizes Abelard’s life. His rational, logic-driven nature clashed with the authority-driven medieval world. Like the proverbial nail that sticks out gets hammered down, he was deemed abnormal and suffered relentlessly.
Abélard’s honest and logical nature was zealous in exposing the hypocrisy and falsehoods around him. Even during his time as a priest, he sought to expose the corruption and contradictions of those around him, which led to him even receiving assassination threats. Theology is a discipline premised on absolute faith, yet for Abelard, logic and faith were inseparable. He persistently applied logic to theology, and in doing so, he was the first to separate ethics from theology. He also influenced the methodology of Scholastic philosophy.
History is written by the victors. The words and actions recognized at the time would have been recorded. But what became of words that were wrong in the past yet true today? People of the time likely dismissed or deliberately erased such words. Abelard’s rebellious ideas and philosophy, as a medieval maverick, would have remained buried until the French Revolution. This is why he was chosen over Aquinas, Augustine, Ockham, and others. Now, let us examine the thought of the heretic Abelard.

The Universal Controversy

Let us examine Abélard’s position and views in the Universal Controversy (the clash between Realism and Nominalism), one of the most intense debates of the Middle Ages.
The period when the Universal Controversy was at its height was, in the history of philosophy, the era of Scholasticism. Abélard studied under Roscelinus, a Nominalist, and Guillaume, a Realist. Realism asserts that universal concepts exist prior to particular things (individuals), while nominalism holds that universal concepts come into being after particular things (individuals). Abelard adopted Aristotle’s theory of substance, explaining that universal concepts exist as essences within particular things (individuals).
Guillaume argued that common entities—universals that bind different things under a single concept—exist independently of the differences between things. For example, concepts like ‘human’ (species and genus) exist as a single ‘substance’ independent of individuals like ‘Chul-soo’ or ‘Young-hee’. Abélard rejected nominalism’s position that general concepts like ‘species’ or ‘genus’ are merely linguistic constructs. He argued that if universal concepts were merely empty signs, then sentences containing such concepts would either be meaningless or, even if meaningful, incomprehensible. While partially accepting Guillaume’s realism, Abelard countered by asserting that the reality of universal concepts is conceptual rather than physical. The reason universals can be universal and general is solely due to human thought; they do not exist in reality.
According to Abelard, universal concepts are the result of human reason extracting similar attributes from experiences with concrete objects. The concept ‘human’ is constituted through the common attributes found in all people, including ‘Chul-soo’ and ‘Young-hee’. Abelard sought to overcome the limitations of the medieval universal controversy by transcending the dichotomous logic of realism and nominalism, emphasizing both the empirical and abstract aspects of human thought. This position is also called conceptualism.
It would be necessary to understand how the medieval dispute over universals was received by others. This dispute is said to be one reason philosophy feels tedious. Concepts precede substance; concepts are inherent within things. These two positions are similar, so why fight over them? For a long time, philosophical disputes were uninteresting topics.
We cannot know Abelard’s thoughts, but perhaps he held similar views. His teacher had studied under both nominalists and realists, and his position is a conceptualism situated between the two. His thinking seems to be clearly reflected in the idea: “If it makes sense this way and it makes sense that way, isn’t there ample room to accept both?”
I considered the universal debate to hold little significance for me, but I mentioned it because it occupies an important place in the history of philosophy. Abelard’s conceptualism, while not perfect, resonated with my own thinking in many ways.

Ethics

As mentioned earlier, Abelard’s philosophical significance lies in his distinction between ethics and theology. Abelard emphasized intention within the realm of morality. What God judges is not what we do, but the state of mind with which we do it. Blame and praise for an agent depend not on their actions, but on their intentions.
Here, intention refers to a state of mind closely related to knowledge. God knows everything, but we can commit forbidden acts without knowing it. Therefore, he argued that the act itself is not evil; only the evil of the intention exists.
For example, in a society where incest is considered sinful, if a man and woman marry out of love with everyone’s blessing, only to later discover they are siblings, can they be called evil? Abelard pointed this out, emphasizing that since there was no intention to commit incest between siblings, the sin was committed unwittingly. He argued that the act itself is value-neutral, lacking any inherent evil in the intention.
Furthermore, he believed that an evil intention could corrupt a good act. If a judge, while performing the good act of leading a criminal to execution, seeks punishment out of personal grudge and hatred toward the criminal, the judge’s evil intention corrupts the good act, making it a sin.
He also argued that a good intention could justify an evil act. Lying appears to be an unambiguously evil act. If an independence fighter is captured by the Japanese and forced to reveal all figures involved in the independence movement, following Abelard’s argument, the fighter could justify the evil act of lying. If there is a good intention for the nation’s independence and the safety of comrades, then lying, though an evil act, could be justified.
Abélard also found evidence in the Bible to support his argument. There is the story of God commanding Abraham to kill Isaac. God’s command to Abraham to kill Isaac was an order to commit an evil act. Commanding an evil act is itself evil. However, God’s intention was a good one—to test Abraham’s faith—and thus God’s good intention made the evil act right. Therefore, he argued that a good intention, even if not carried out in action, is as praiseworthy as a good deed.
We have now examined Abelard’s argument. According to Abelard, an evil intention should rightly be punished and condemned. But why, then, do we punish the act itself rather than the intention when punishing crimes? Why should an act alone be justly punished even when there is no criminal intent? This question remains.
Abélard had previously supported the theory of strict liability, which holds that an act constitutes a crime even without the specific intent to commit it. For example, a mother sleeping next to her baby who accidentally smothers the child in her sleep is punished, despite having no murderous intent but only the good intention of sleeping with her child. The justification for such punishment is that, even though no crime was committed, it serves as a warning to others.
Abélard saw this as a limitation of human nature. Since we cannot see intentions, evil intentions remain hidden within, and we can only recognize the clearly observable evil acts. Pointing this out, Abélard argued that judgment in the heavenly realm would be a judgment where punishment is not based solely on actions.
Abélard’s argument has several limitations. First, if the intention is good, can evil means be justified? Can the act of dropping atomic bombs on Japan during World War II, or the actions of the scientists who developed them, be justified? Second, can evil acts committed with a mistaken conscience be justified? If a madman, taking pleasure in others’ suffering, inflicts pain on people with the intent of making many happy, is that action right? Third, there may be cases where intention justifies the act. For example, is it truly right for a vegetarian to enter a meat restaurant, pay the full price, and prevent people from eating meat in order to stop the killing?
Abélard’s ethics can be seen as about 8-9 centuries ahead of its time. Later, the hippies’ 1960s slogan “If you do it sincerely, it doesn’t matter what you do,” and the Council of Sens’ view that killing a Christian with good intentions was not a sin, both derive from Abélard’s argument.
We’ve identified three limitations mentioned earlier. The first limitation is the evil deeds committed under the guise of good intentions. Terrorism, reckless proselytizing, and unnecessary meddling are examples of this phenomenon. To resolve this, we must adopt a perspective that prioritizes freedom above all else. While it is tragic that one might commit evil acts due to their own good intentions, one must act only after carefully considering the question: ‘Does this act significantly infringe upon the freedom or rights of others?’ The scope of legally codified freedoms, rights, and human rights today exists to protect this principle. No one should die because of terrorism, and everyone has the right to religious freedom. Now that various methods exist to express good intentions, if achieving one’s purpose requires only evil acts, one must question whether their intention is flawed or if current laws are flawed. Solutions can be found by sufficiently considering opinions from diverse groups and fields, not through the unilateral decisions of individuals or organizations.
The second limitation stems from evil acts born of a flawed conscience. First, one must determine if the individual is mentally or physically impaired. Through various medical and scientific assessments, it is possible to sufficiently determine whether they suffer from mental or physical illness, allowing for lenient punishment such as reduced sentences. However, crimes committed while under the influence of drugs or alcohol should not be considered a state of diminished mental capacity. If one knowingly fails to control themselves, it is equivalent to acting with the expectation that it will lead to crime, and punishment is therefore necessary. The ambiguity of the concept of a flawed conscience necessitates punishment for the act first, followed by correction through correctional institutions, as argued by Abelard in his theory of strict liability. Furthermore, if such a flawed conscience is deemed society’s responsibility, punishment for the act should be mitigated, and society would bear the educational responsibility of teaching the criminal a universal conscience.
The third limitation concerns the issue of intent justifying actions. Intent always exists to justify actions. In the past, justifications were valued precisely to legitimize actions. However, we must verify whether this justification is also valid for others. If justification remains confined to the individual, the action is wrong. If the justification is acceptable to others, mitigating circumstances may apply; if accepted by all others, it becomes the most justifiable action. Conversely, justifying an act rejected even by oneself warrants harsher punishment.

Conclusion

We have explored Abelard’s philosophical thought thus far. Researching various materials, I felt his ideas are not vastly disconnected from our contemporary lives. Could this be similar to the emotions I felt regarding his life? Today, when refusing to compromise one’s opinions, fighting against wicked authority, and pursuing justice and reason are accepted as virtues, Abelard’s life can be seen as closely resembling the virtues of our era.
Since philosophy is a human endeavor, reflecting one’s everyday conduct and thoughts, Abelard’s philosophical ideas, like his life aligned with modern virtues, can transcend a thousand years and be embraced by us today.
One regret is that his ideas have not received significant attention. His achievements were greatly disparaged by his many enemies, as much as his life filled with adversaries and his tragic end, and records of them were likely concealed or distorted. Even the punishments of his time and the acts that crippled him would have caused much distortion of his legacy. Shouldn’t he be treated with as much value as Aquinas, Augustine, or Ockham? This regret lingers deeply.
He likely lived enduring countless criticisms—for a 22-year age gap in his romance, for actions that legitimately offended others. Nevertheless, I conclude this piece by applauding him for living true to his nature and in accordance with reason, hoping for a society where living justly is the norm.