Aquinas IN PHILOSOPHY FOR PHILOSOPHERS''(Gabriel Zanotti), UFM / Union Editorial Guatemala / Madrid, 2003.
CHAPTER 4: THE HEIGHT OF THE MEDIEVAL PHILOSOPHY AND THOMAS AQUINAS.
Imagine a movie. Imagine that the U.S. runs through s. XXIV, and finally into the midst of an absolute wear their domestic and foreign policy. With the U.S. drop, the earth was plunged into anarchy, chaos in all types of small armed groups in permanent war. All kinds of violent cultural groups, hitherto controlled by the "Pax Americana" advance on all that we consider civilized. Universities in Europe and whatever U.S. begins to disappear (more or less like Argentina from 40). From
the s. XXIV to XXIX, about the elements of philosophy, science and religion are "preserved" by small groups that manage, somehow isolated from the chaos. Some groups of Christians, Jews, Islamic, Hindu and Buddhist, and independent thinkers able to gather their materials work their way around your PC and CD are destroyed. The preserved as a treasure and are passed from generation to generation, in the midst of a world beyond this, in permanent strife. Finally, to the s. XXIX, some more political capacity achieved organize a stable political unit, capable of self-defense, and that had retained all begin to disclose publicly, being born around institutions like the universities of yore. There is a cultural renaissance.
If you go to any book on Western history, or history of philosophy, see that the movie I thought no more than an analogy with what happens in Europe since the fall of the Roman Empire to what the s. IX called the Carolingian Renaissance. Literacy, classical languages, ancient philosophy, and the meeting of ancient and Christian, which we discussed in the previous class had been preserved in the monasteries, until around the court of Charlemagne, various "masters" begin to cluster around "schools" that spontaneously form the basis of the birth of the first universities in the early s. XIII, being the first in Paris and Oxford.
Amid all this happens in the Church something special come early mendicant orders (Franciscan and Dominican), who, drawing on existing monastic traditions (Augustinians, Benedictines) call for a renewal of morals and life most authentic of the gospel. But not fully replicate the world because from the beginning decided to form part of the fledgling university life.
In this cultural environment was created in 1224, Thomas the powerful and influential family of the Counts of Aquino. He had big plans for him. The boy is smart. His family will decide which member of the clergy and perhaps can become pope. But the little boy Thomas has other plans. Become a member of the Dominicans, order founded by St. Dominic in the s. XII. The Dominicans studying, preaching, begging, lived austerely and wanted nothing to do with the powers of this world. Oh, no! How could it happen to go with "those people"?
But there was. Against all and yet, Aquinas is Dominican. There
made contact with San Alberto Magno. St. Albert was at the time representative a very revolutionary school of thought within the Church: Aristotelianism.
In the theology of the Church, Aristotle was not an easy figure. Not until the s. XIII. Until XII, they are only studied in logic and physics. His anthropology and metaphysics were considered contrary to the Neoplatonic tradition of St. Augustine. To make matters worse, those who studied anthropology and metaphysics of Aristotle were those of free competition: Scholastic mostly Jewish and Arab, arriving at conclusions "Aristotelian" not at all compatible with Christian dogma, such as the eternity of the world, denial of personal immortality soul ....
The introduction of Aristotle in Christian intellectual circles was not, therefore, not easy. Had several trying, not only St. Albert (also I was trying to St. Bonaventure, a Franciscan famous in the history of philosophy that was after a friend of St. Thomas). But St. Albert has a particular comparative advantage. Thomas Aquinas has a disciple.
Amid all his pastoral duties as a priest, in the midst of all its obligations as a friar convent in the midst of all his teaching duties as a university teacher in Naples and Paris (say it's not that he had nothing to do ... .) Tomás de Aquino "comments" , Widely, almost all the works of Aristotle (these comments are only twelve of ninety works, written in only thirty years) (1)
But Thomas did not read Greek. And the translations that had at that time were from Greek into Persian, Arabic Persian ..... Thomas then asked another Dominican, Greek scholar, William of Moerbeke, who traduza completely and back to Aristotle's original Greek into Latin of s. XIII. With this stuff works Thomas Aquinas.
Now let us consider a simple matter of hermeneutics, ie interpretation. Most of Aristotle's writings are known as historians say, transcripts of his disciples. All this in a world of life very different from ours. This, in turn, is read 17 centuries after a Christian mind, a Dominican monk, living in a world different from that of Aristotle. But we are not referring to Thomas, we refer to William of Moerbeke, a Dominican, who translates from Greek s. IV century BC to Latin Dc XIII That, in turn, is read by St. Thomas, from his own Christian mentality and the peculiar theological acumen of his genius.
The result of all this was great, obviously. We're just explaining something very simple. From the Greek word "substance" (for instance) that orally by Aristotle in the Greek world to the Latin word "substance" conceived and written by Thomas in his Christian world s. XIII, to what comes to mind when we read to St. Thomas, as in Latin or any modern language, there may be an approximation, a similar but not equal respect. And that's not a problem, except that ignore such thing or being considered a minor issue. Thus, Thomas is representative of Christian Aristotelianism, but that implies that interprets Aristotle, just as Plato, Augustine, Averroes, Avicenna, Maimonides ..... And that's to name just some of the main readings. With all that Thomas makes a personal contribution. If one wants to consider a commentator on Aristotle, well, I do not think that Thomas is just that. And even in that case, consider an Aristotelian Thomas will argue that Thomas is in the heart of what Aristotle actually said. It can be done, but referred to the hermeneutical problem is difficult.
The term "Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophy" must be therefore taken with care. Not only because Thomas did in his time just what we now call philosophy, but because it is so easy to be sure if what Aristotle says Thomas says he says (pardon the repetition). My intention when I explain to Thomas, is to explain what Thomas says. With Aristotle as one of his sources of inspiration. But Who is Aristotle? Say what? "What Thomas said he said? Averroes said "What he say? Does what Gadamer said he said? Fascinating problem, but leave it to the Aristotelians.
In what is certain is that, as we said in class two, there are "issues" Aristotelian, "styles" Aristotelian thinking that has marked Western philosophy, but that's not the same as speaking of "doctrines" Aristotle.
All this, to clarify that Thomas is an original thinker. Is Moreover, I would have no problem in saying that the core of his thinking is Augustinian, with the inclusion of "technical tools" of thought as Aristotle and the Arab and Jewish Scholastic (Averroes, Avicenna, Maimonides). That makes him a fearless and original thinker. It was very daring for its time, introduced in Christian circles authors suspected of heresy and "pagan" (and Aristotle was one of the principal authors suspected). That led to difficulties with the ecclesiastical authorities of Paris (2). But it was not easy to produce a coherent with the previous tradition. Produce a doctrine original philosophical where St. Augustine and Aristotle live together harmoniously, in a coherent, saying something new, and also in short form, and seemingly simple, was not easy. Thomas succeeded and so they go to find his name even mentioned in the histories of philosophy have nothing Christian.
To be consistent with this interpretation "Augustinian", while novel, Thomas, we're going to raise its main themes in the same order in which they were raised those of St. Augustine in Class 3. Suggest, in turn, re-read the problems that are posed by the encounter of the ancient world to Christianity, the beginning of class 3.
First, Thomas is model (3) of the relationship between reason and faith. But in his time there was no question of the relationship between philosophy and theology as two university departments working separately. He was simply a theologian who had a "budget irreducible" as Mises would say, or a pre-understanding, as Gadamer would say. This is a basic attitude, a vital and theoretical budget was the basis of all other claims. The harmony was based on reason / faith. Did not come from a faith that took him to a reasonable suspicion test, or a reason that it took him a suspicious faith review. No: they were simply the two legs of their walk, their understanding of the world. In reality his explanations were not for himself, nor to a Christianity that he already considered rational in terms not contrary to faith. Explanations were ad extra, as that would give any of us who asked him about the issue. A great example of this is in the Summa Contra Gentiles, whose first 9 chapters of the book I wondered what things can be said the unbeliever does not share the Christian scriptures. There must therefore resort to a language that is considered common sense: the language of reason. Which implies a hermeneutic optimism in my opinion is correct. That is, the "hope philosophical that believers and nonbelievers can be understood, based on the assumption of a common human nature is expressed through shared experiences. The "I think to understand" and "I mean to believe" St. Augustine in Thomas reaches one of its highest dimensions.
His conception of man is an example of that synthesis of Neoplatonic and Augustinian Aristotelianism. The man has two specific skills, intelligence and will, which involve only irreducible dimension to the material (4). So he has an immortal spirit. But body size is essential to humans. How to reconcile this with immortality? Proving that spiritual dimension is the ordering principle of the body (5). Body and soul are thus two separate things but one thing, with an irreducible dimension to the material whose ultimate goal for his intellect and will, is God (6).
Faith is a fact that there will be resurrection of the body the day of Judgement, but it is compatible with a stated reason for the substantial unity between soul and body. Another typical element of faith, the dogma of original sin, but it is compatible with a reason that says that man has inclinations as such are good, and are the basis for analyzing the natural law and virtue (7). Natural law is the basis for an ethics that, human nature basis, has in God as their ultimate transcendent destiny of man. Destination
transcendent which is consistent with free will, with the choice as an essential characteristic of the human will (8). The grace of God leads man to God (figure of faith) in dialogue with a free will which means that divine grace does not equal coercion. God wants tolerate goods and evils, evils that are deprived of the right order, the result of free choice by man. Tolerance of evil is only for the greater good, making it part of a divine plan that is providence (9). Providence that is compatible with chance and freedom because he was not planned in the order of secondary causes is planned in the order of the first cause (10).
man can capture the essence of things, not totally, but through the accidents (11). Fully know the essence of creation is only reserved for the operator (12). But since the human mind participates in the light of the divine intellect, can, through the assistance of the sensory image that captures the senses, to abstract that limited knowledge of the essence, that is not an abstraction but as something having the individual whose singular image known (13). The human mind also knows himself, knows he knows, once you have grasped the reality different from each other (14).
The human intellect, knowing the gist of things (what are) captures that "are", an issue that is central to St. Thomas, as with the data of faith in the creation, enters into dialogue with the simple reason that transforms things exist in their being created. The richness of this issue is critical but is hidden from his contemporaries (15). Highlight the importance of this "hiding" in subsequent classes.
As a method, however, can be split, not that things are created, but there, so go back to God as first cause no finite things are finite (16). So God and creation by God are rationally integrated faith (17) The essence created things are not abstract but primary substances, that is, individual things (18). Both individual corporations might have the same essence, which occurs only in the individual and completely in every individual, yet the essence is not limited to the individual (19). In all this, Thomas tries to overcome the dialectic between nominalism which denies knowledge of essences, and neo-Platonism that does not take into account the importance of the individual (20).
God is the creator, infinite, finite things. Thus God is not confused with the creatures at all, but its cause is permanent. Since the effect involved, somehow, the nature of the case, created things participate in God, but not because they are a part of God, but because they are being sustained by God in his being (21). For Thomas, part is to cause (22). Thus the relationship between God and creatures is not the distance between two absolutely different (deism) or even the nearness of the same (pantheism). It is an analog connection. The analogy and participation are issues where the root is more evident Thomas Neoplatonic Aristotelian conceptual tools (analogy, substance, causality) to give explanations and famous "distinctions" that shade "technical" that prevents it from falling into confusion or of possible pluralities of meaning that would have been more poetic language. It is this harmony
reason / faith, the physical universe is assumed to be an essential part of their worldview, Christian Aristotelianism fundamental legacy of his teacher St. Albert. Thus, her worldview is open to dialogue with what we now call science to assert a physical universe "frequently" (23) ordered, with some failures and accidents that open your system to the more contemporary consideration of the physical and biological theories (24 .)
Now, I need to fulfill a promise.
In class one had promised to always relate to philosophy of life. This time it seems like I forgot about it. Perhaps, but almost as a matter for the conscience of my readers. Let me explain.
What does all this in real life? Perhaps nothing. Even less if you take any of these manuals Thomistic metaphysics, written by people who already have faith, which describes a rational way, in a way that Thomas never wrote, notions such as act, power, substance, accident, etc. Tabled Moreover, with little difference with Aristotle.
Many of these manuals are very good at their technical level. But they seem to be written from people who have faith to others that also have it. What
I mean by that?
Not that these notions need faith as budget. But it is a style of ultra-academic philosophy, a style of writing as if the most important of human life was already resolved, and philosophy were a science devoted to particular teach otherwise. And, I say, not so. There are times to be so, the extent that the "pact of reading." But it was in St. Thomas.
Thomas attempts to answer specific items moved by something that I think is universal to us all: the "problems" of reason and faith. In that sense, the budget of harmony reason / faith was aware that it is usually the opposite. All of us have wondered, in the privacy of our conscience, our final destination for our freedom, by morality, by the existence of God. These are human issues, permanent, may not affect the core of our box to solve problems specific professionals, but do affect the profession of which we can not escape: being human .....
St. Thomas is a radical answer to these questions, an answer that, moreover, has the audacity to present himself as rational.
In that sense I think that there is a "tension" in the way of presenting to St. Thomas. If the mode is more academic, more like those manuals that I have spoken, all seems to be very academic, very "technical", more like a manual for Physics I. Very nice, except you do the obvious question: what does all this with my life?
But if the question is intended to be answered, and you live has to St. Thomas, one whose calm words have precisely the "risk" to penetrate completely into the center of your spiritual life, then you feel that you have been made to give catechesis account. So is this pastoral theologian and monk, and yet so quiet and his writing technical (25). as Aristotle and Augustine once, you do not know what happens to you inside as you read. It's like reading the Confessions of St. Augustine Aristotle's Physics and at the same time. What I mean is that Thomas simply has everything to do with your life, to such an extent that makes it. Nobody tells me, then, that not "noticed." My job is to highlight ways. Scroll through them, the office of each person. ---------------
Notes:
1) See in this regard Weisheipl, JA, Thomas, lives, works and doctrine, EUNSA, Pamplona, \u200b\u200b1994.
2) See in this regard Gilson, E.: The philosophy in the Middle Ages, op. cit. mandatory in the literature.
3) See in this regard the encyclical Fides et Ratio, John Paul II.
4) Summa Theologica (ST), I, Q. 75, a. 1; Suma Contra Gentile (CG), book II, chap. 49.
5) CG, II, 56.
6) ST I-II, Q. 2, a. 8 c.
7) I-II, Q. 94, a. 2 c.
8) I-II, Q. 10, a. 2 c.
9) CG, III, chaps. 71-75, 93-94, ST, I, Q. 22.
10) CG, III, chap. 94.
11) De Anima, I, 1, no. 15, ST, I, 13, a. 8 ad 2; Q. 29, 1 ad 3.
12) This issue opens a point of dialogue for the current concerns of philosophers such as H. Putnam.
13) ST I, Q. 79, a. 3; Q. 86, a. 1.
14) ST I, Q. 87 to 1 c.
15) See in this regard Echavarria, R.: Essence and existence Cudes, Buenos Aires, 1990.
16) De Ente et Essentia, Ch. V, ST, I, Q. 2, a. 3 c.
17) CG, II, chaps. 15-21.
18) CG, I, 65.
19) De ente et Essentia, chaps. I to IV.
20) See in this regard Sacchi, ME: "St. Thomas Aquinas: the exegesis of the metaphysical and the refutation of nominalism." In Sapientia (2001), vol. LVI, fasc.
209 21) ST I, Q. 104.
22) See Faber, C.: Participation et causalité, 1961.
23) ST I, Q. 2, a. 3.
24) See in this regard Artigas, M.: The mind of the universe; EUNSA, Pamplona, \u200b\u200b1999.
25) It is said that it matched his personality: quiet, calm, gentle, innocent and trusting as a child, smart as a genius, a saint charity. -------------
Recommended Reading:
- Gilson, E.: The philosophy in the Middle Ages, Gredos, Madrid, 1976. Cap. VIII, point V.
- Marias, J.: History of Philosophy, Rev. De Occidente, Madrid, 1943, medieval philosophy, points I, II, III.
- Sciacca, MF: History of Philosophy; Luis Miracle ed., Barcelona, \u200b\u200b1954, ch. XIII.
- Santo Tomás de Aquino: Suma Contra Gentiles. Different editions.
0 comments:
Post a Comment