Aristotle (L) and Aquinas (R)
THOMAS AQUINAS WAS AN ARISTOTELIAN, NOT A NEO-PLATONIST LIKE AUGUSTINE
Thomas Aquinas was a Christian philosopher who lived in the 13th century (700 years ago). Just as Augustine had adapted Platonic philosophy to Christian philosophy (philosophy and theology were united at that time), in a similar fashion Aquinas adapted Aristotle to Christian philosophy.
Remember, this was before the printing press, and manuscripts were written and re-written by hand. Over the centuries, many of Aristotle’s books had been lost. They were written in Greek. However, manuscripts of Aristotle were discovered by various Islamic scholars, and translated from the Greek into Arabic. Averroes was one of the leading translators. Subsequently, those manuscripts were translated into Latin. Since the Catholic philosophers wrote their books and essays in Latin, Aristotle re-entered the mainstream of learning.
Aquinas embraced Aristotle. The key to the differences between Aristotle and Plato was that Aristotle did not accept the Forms as the basis for a true understanding of general ideas like justice, virtue, truth, etc. Rather, Aristotle further developed the field of logic based on deduction and on our inborn ability to reason abstractly.
Deduction is deriving valid statements from other statements. So, the classic example is the syllogism that states:
All men are mortal (universal statement)
Socrates is a man (particular statement)
Therefore, Socrates is mortal (conclusion)
This is an example of a valid deduction. Its validity is derived from the deduction. Any statement about “all men” must apply to every individual man. But in this case, the conclusion is not only valid, but the conclusion is true which is derived from direct observation.
But a statement can be valid, but not true.
All men have blond hair (universal statement)
Socrates is a man (particular statement)
Therefore, Socrates has blond hair (conclusion)
This is another example of a valid deduction. Its validity derives from the deduction. If all men have blond hair, then each individual man has blond hair. The validity follows from the logic of the sequence. However, the conclusion is false because it our simple observation of men shows it is false that all men have blond hair. So the conclusion is valid (logically), but false (by observation [empirically]) false.
So Aristotle made it clear that the discovery of truth had two components, the empirical or observation-based component, and the separate but very important logical component which draws us directly into validity or lack of validity.
Here’s another example:
All dogs have tails. (universal statement)
My cat has a tail. (particular statement)
Therefore, my cat is a dog. (conclusion)
Here the logic is invalid, and the conclusion is false. By experience and observation, we know that cats are not dogs, so the conclusion is false. The deduction is also invalid because the universal statement is only about dogs, so we cannot derive a statement about cats from a statement about dogs.
Because of our ability to generalize and make universal statements as well as our ability to observe particular facts, we are able to assess terms like truth, justice, virtue, happiness, etc. in a general sense without resorting to Platonic Forms.
Aquinas fully accepted this idea.
WHAT DOES AQUINAS SEE AS THE LIMITATIONS OF ARISTOTLE’S EPISTEMOLOGY AND ETHICS (VIRTUE BASED ON THE MEAN LEADING TO HAPPINESS) WHILE AT THE SAME TIME EMBRACING THOSE ARISTOTELIAN IDEAS?
Further, while building up habits of goodness by applying the reasoned hexis (between Excess and Deficiency) was, according to Aquinas, good in and of itself, the practice of virtue cannot be the basis of happiness as Aristotle stated. We should strive for the mean in our ethical dealings with others, but arête does not itself lead to happiness.
Why not?
- It takes too long a period of time. Building up habits of virtue based on the Mean (sometimes called the Golden Mean) means having to wait, sometimes for too long a time, to be happy.
- If happiness were to be our goal in life (Aristotle’s “actualization” of the human), then its loss at death would be the greatest sorrow. How can the greatest happiness be the basis for the greatest sorrow? To Aquinas this did not make sense.
- Thus, Aristotle’s idea of potentiality leading to happiness via the path of virtue was right as far as it went, but it did not go far enough.
- To solve this problem, he went back to Aristotle’s Four Causes. He considered the Material Cause, the Formal Cause, the Efficient Cause, and the Final Cause. “Happiness” as Aristotle’s Final Cause was driving Aristotle’s entire ethical theory. That was why people wanted to and should want to be happy.
- But Aristotle also asked how did this chain of causation begin? For every chain of events beginning with potentiality and moving towards actuality, we begin with potentiality (potentiality is the point of origin of the human’s movement towards happiness). Every life, every human, however, had a cause, and every cause has itself a cause, etc. etc. You can keep tracking it back. Eventually, Aristotle says that there must be a cause of causes or First Cause or Prime Mover. If every cause were caused infinitely then the idea of cause itself (that is, a point of origination would make no sense) because it would make no sense to talk about a point of origination (there has to be some sense of the fixedness of that point in order for it to be a point of origination), so that sense of fixedness must come from there being one First Cause. He didn’t call that point “God,” and there is no presentation of God as a Supreme Being as in some of our organized religions. Yet it is a real “starting point.” It is an abstract point, yet has more substance than a merely abstract point. In fact, we might be tempted to say that his First Cause sounds a little like a Platonic Form. So perhaps his teacher, Plato, influenced him in this way?
- Aquinas then concludes that God who existed before the created universe existed (before Aristotle’s First Cause) is the ultimate author of all potentialities, including the potentiality for happiness. Additionally, God exists after death and subsequent to the entelechy which is contemplation of our habits of virtue. Thus, eternal existence after death or salvation is the goal and basis of happiness and does not depend on the perfecting of the virtuous life as in Aristotle. Aristotle’s path to happiness while valid, is only valid up to a point, and within the context of faith in God, who alone brings happiness. Thus, God is described in Christian philosophy as the Alpha and the Omega, meaning the eternal source before everything and after everything.
IN THE NEXT ATTACHMENT (WITH TOMORROW’S VIDEO) I WILL EXPLAIN HOW, IF MAN IS A RATIONAL CREATURE IN THE ARISTOTELIAN SENSE (AS AQUINAS CLAIMS) AND IS NOT INTIMATELY DEPENDENT UPON GOD IN THE AUGUSTINIAN SENSE (DIVINE ILLUMINATION) TO REASON HIS WAY THROUGH DAY-TO-DAY CHALLENGES HIS OR HER MIND FACES, THEN HOW ARE HUMANS TO UNDERSTAND THEMSELVES IN A UNIVERSE WHICH, NONETHELESS, AQUINAS CLAIMS IS GOD-CENTERED AND GOD-BASED?
