Aquinas - Summa Theologica
From The Inferno
Aquinas Review: Outline of Arguments
Contents |
[edit] The Short Story
- 4 causes
- Find Aristotlean claims and where he diverges with Aristotle
- God efficient/final cause/actuality/composite
- Two ways to god: Reason and faith
- Reconciles Aristotle with Christianity
[edit] Biography
Aquinas: born into privileged family Study with Albert the Great – at U o Paris – learned about the works of Aristotle Before he died, he had such a mystical experience that he quit writing
- “I have seen things that makes all my writing look like straw”
Aquinas as philosopher suffers b/c of theology: affiliation w/ Roman Cath. Church, etc.
Distinction b/t philosophy and theology
- Has to do with starting points
- Theologian can begin with scripture, etc.
- But Aquinas believes philosophy cannot blindly accept
Aquinas believes we cannot reason certain things: infinity of universe <-- begin with revelation
[edit] Relations
- not reflexive: nothing cause its own change, nothing can cause itself to exist
- transitive: being taller than, A taller than B, B taller than C => A taller than C; also not reflexive: A not taller than A
- Can’t have infinite regression of things in relation to each other =>
must have one thing that does not stand in relation to anything else =>
First cause, unmoved mover --> God: this jump is argued later
[edit] Question 2: The Existence of God
- Existence of God Self-Evident
He says: things can be self evident in two ways: 1) self-evident in itself, not to us 2) and to us- God is self evident but not to us because we don’t know the essence of God; proposition that God exists needs to be shown through things God made/did
- Objections and Replies
- God exists naturally
- We know naturally that God exists, but in a confused way
- Man naturally desires happiness, but don’t naturally know what ultimate happiness is (happiness could be candy, or Trumbull Brunch with waffles, or contemplating God)
- We know naturally that God exists, but in a confused way
- Existence of truth is self-evident, and God is truth
- Existence of Primal Truth is not self-evident, but truth is self-evident
- God exists naturally
- Demonstrated that God Exists
He says: Can be demonstrated by 1) the cause 2) the effect- We know effect (God’s works) better than cause (God).
- Because effects exist, cause (though not self-evident) is also demonstrated to exist.
- Objections and Replies
- God’s existence is based on faith
- Faith presupposes natural reason; He can also be demonstrated via reason.
- Not know God’s essence => can’t demonstrate God exists since essence is a middle term
- God’s name can also be a middle term
- His effects are finite, He is infinite. Effects are not proportional => cause can’t be demonstrated
- This only means that we cannot have perfect knowledge of cause
- However, we can still demonstrate that the cause exists.
- God’s existence is based on faith
- Whether God Exists: See Lecture Notes!!!
He says: Yes- material: made of ceramic; if made out of water, not a coffee cup
- formal: shape or structure; if ceramic block, not a coffee cup
- efficient: that which put form into matter <-- factory
- final: so that we can drink coffee, the purpose
- Motion (efficient cause of motion)
- Motion is change from potentiality to actuality (I’m potentially writing a review I’m actually writing a review)
- Nothing can be potentiality and actuality at the same time
- There needs to be a mover who moves people from P to A
- There needs to be an unmoved mover, prime mover <-- is God
- Efficient cause (efficient cause of existence)
- Cause --> Effect; no cause --> no effect
- Can’t have instance where something is the cause of itself (alas, this review cannot write itself)
- There needs to be a first efficient cause is God
- Possibility and necessity (material causality)
- Contingent things: things that can be and not be
- Things exist now
There needs to be something that does not receive its necessity from another, but causes other things to be <-- is God
- Gradation in things (formal causality)
- There needs to be something that causes all goodness <-- is God
- Similar to how fire causes all hotness
- There needs to be something that causes all goodness <-- is God
- Governance from the world (final causality)
- things that lack knowledge act for an end
- things that lack knowledge cannot move towards the end unless something with knowledge directs them <-- is God
- If God is goodness and evil exists, then this would be that two infinite contraries exist. There is evil in the world, so God doesn’t exist
- God brings good out of evil. Evil exists for good.
- All natural things are reduced to one principle, nature. Thus, there is no need for God to exist
- Nature works under direction of a higher being
- This being is: immovable, self-necessary, first principle <-- is God
Dr. O told us that the above article is the bulk of Aquinas. She also mentioned that Aquinas will probably not be that big on the test. Study the lecture notes! I did not really understand the rest, and when I went to office hours, she said all that’s in her text were question marks too (that it’s not so important). We discussed some of the material, but not very thoroughly. I’ll make a short summary of these Questions, and hopefully that will suffice.
[edit] Question 3: The Simplicity of God
1. Whether God is the same as his essence or nature? He says: Yes - Things made of matter and form, their essence/nature differ from the suppositum o Essence/nature: is what is included in definition of the species Can think essence/nature of man: formal part of man Blackness (in hair) not essence/nature of man, it’s not in definition of species: material part of man - God is not made of matter and form, therefore he is what is predicated of Him o I think what Aquinas is saying is that God is just form, and formal part of something (aka what defines something) is essence/nature. Thus, God is same as essence/nature Objections - nothing is in itself o We speak of simple things as though they were composite. This, however, does not mean that there is any composition in God. - man is not same as man’s essence/nature, and man’s an effect of God o effects do not perfectly imitate God 2. Whether essence and being are the same in God? He says: Yes - Things whose beings differ from their essences are caused by an exterior agent. God is first efficient cause. Therefore, God’s being is same as his essence. - Being is actuality of every form or nature. God has no potentiality. Therefore, his essence is same as his being. - That which has being is only being by participation. Fire is only fire by participation. God does not participate in anything; he is not a participated being. Therefore, his essence is same as his being. Objections and Replies - If they are the same, the God has nothing added to it. But men gave names to things. o God’s essence precludes any addition Animals’ essence precludes addition of reason o Things’ essence, in general, does not require that anything should be added to it Animals’ essence, in general, does not require that it lacks reason - We can’t know what God is. o To be: 1) act of being 2) what joins predict with subject o We only understand what God is in the 2nd sense (predict are sort of like God’s effects) 3. Whether God is altogether simple? He says: Yes - He is not a body/composition. His essence is same as being. Thus, God is simple. - God is first being, so he is not dependent on anything. Thus, God is simple. - God is uncaused, since he is first efficient cause. Thus, God is simple. - God is actuality without potentiality. Composite things require actuality and pot. - God is made up of only God. Man, for instance, is made up of limbs and hair (not considered to be man). God is absolute form. Thus, God is simple. Objections - Composite things are better than simple things. o Created goodness is in composites (like many ingredients creating cookies. Cookies are composite, but, man, are they yummy!). However divine goodness is found in simple thing.
[edit] Question 6: Goodness of God
1. Whether to be good belongs to God He says: Yes - God is the first producing cause of everything. Good belongs to him since he produced it. Objection - Goodness has limit, species, and order do not belong to God o Caused good has limit, species, and order. - Not all things desire God, but all things desire Goodness o If you have knowledge, you know what you desire is God. If you have sensible knowledge, you know what you desire is participation of goodness (of God). If you don’t have knowledge, God directs you towards your end. 2. Whether God is the highest good He says: Yes - All desired perfections flow from Him as from the first cause - Thus, he is the highest good. Objection - Highest good adds something to good. God is supremely simple. Thus, He is not the highest good. o This is not so. The highest good adds by comparison. Other good are deficient because it pails in comparison to God. Hierarchy of good not building blocks, but more like hierarchy of different sizes of blocks. - We can’t compare our goodness with God. Highest implies some sort of comparison. o We’re not in the same genus as God. He is outside genus. 3. Whether to be essentially good belongs to God alone He says: Yes - Good is relative to how perfect something is - Perfect in 3: o constitution of its own being o respect of any accidents being added as necessary for its perfect operation o attaining to something else as the end - Only God fits all three definitions 4. Whether all things are good by the divine goodness - All things are good by participating in the divine goodness - Everything is called good because it resembles divine goodness
[edit] Question 7: The Infinity of God
1. Whether God is infinite - God is not matter (which is finite; some ancient philosophers said the first principle was matter—this is false) - Form is made finite by matter - God does not have this problem 2. Anything but God can be essentially infinite? - Things can be relatively infinite, but not absolutely infinite (only God is abs. inf) o Wood is finite o What about forms? Specifically, angels? They depend on God (God created them) so they are only relatively infinite. 3. Whether actually infinite magnitude can exist? - ex: fire and air: it’s infinite in magnitude, but its essence… I don’t understand this, and my brain feels like mush. - Essence infinite? No. o Essence are terminated in a species by its form, and confined to some individual by matter. (WTF?) My guess: Essences are limited by form (so it’s not infinite) because form sets limitations are what my essences are. Right? Huh? Still confused. I need a bagel. - Natural things o Infinite body: can’t move, because that would imply there was more space to move in and that defeats its infinite-ness. o Can’t move in circular motion - Mathematical things o Not infinite because infinity would preclude shapes because shapes have boundaries. 4. Whether an infinite multitude can exist? - no. You could say you have Apple 1, 2, … - It seems to be infinite in number (multitude), but it belongs in the species of Apple. - Because it belongs in a set, or species, it is constrained and therefore not infinite. - There is always something greater than n. Because there is always something greater than n, the set of numbers is not infinite. - Accidental multitude: ex: multitude of hammers where one hammer is broken and creates multiple pieces of hammer
Godspeed!
