Saint Thomas Aquinas

(Originally Written July 29, 2006 in Book 5)

The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell

Chapter 13 - St. Thomas Aquinas

Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) is the greatest scholastic philosopher of all time.

Catholic philosophies still teach his philosophical system as the only true system.

He has the respect and authority of the Church Fathers in Catholicism.

Thomas was the son out Count Aquino and born in Naples near Monte Cassino. Monte Cassino is where the "angelic doctor" began his education. He then studied at the University of Naples. He became a Dominican and then studied under Albertus Magnus at Cologne.

Aquinas had a fuller understanding of Aristotle than other scholastics. He disliked Neo-Platonism, even in the writings of Augustine.

He convinced the Church in the philosophy of Aristotle, despite misinterpretations of Islamic Avveroist Aristotelians.

Thomas' most important work is the Summa Contra Gentiles. Its purpose is to establish the truth of Christianity in arguments to Non-Christians.

Summa Theologica is of almost equal importance, but is addressed to Christians.

This is an abstract of Summa Contra Gentiles

1) Wisdom is concerned with the end of the universe
2) The end of the Universe is the good of the intellect (truth)
3) Natural Reason is deficient in the things of God. It can prove some parts, but not all. It can prove the existence of God and the immortality of the Soul, but not the Trinity, the Incarnation or the Last Judgment.
4) Nothing in revelation (the Scriptures) is contrary to reason

Linehan - Not exactly.

The Summa Contra Gentiles is divided into four parts. The first three do not refer to the Scriptures as arguments.

The first step for Aquinas was to prove the existence of God. He rejected the ontological argument because it requires man to know the essence of God, which is impossible. The existence of God can be proved, but it can also be deduced by faith. Aquinas denies that only faith makes God knowable.

Aristotle proved the existence of God through the argument of the unmoved mover:
1) There are things that are only moved
2) There are things which move and are moved.
3) Whatever is moved, is moved by something
4) An endless series of movers is impossible.
Conclusion: There necessarily exists something that moves without being moved. This unmoved mover is God.

Aquinas gives five proofs for the existence of God in the Summa Theologica 
1) the argument of the unmoved mover
2) the argument of the first cause
3) there must be an ultimate source of all necessity
4) the various perfections of this would must have their source in something completely perfect
5) Non-living things have a purpose, but only living things have a purpose and thus something outside of them must have a purpose.

In returning to the Summa Contra Gentiles: after proving the existence of God we can say many things about him in a negative sense.
1) He is unmoved, thus eternal
2) He contains no passive potentiality, thus he is unchanging
3) He is not primary matter (pure passivity) thus he is pure activity
4) God has no composition, thus no body, thus no body parts, thus he must be something other than physical

Since God is not a composite he is his own essence.

God's essence and existence are identical.

There are no accidents in God. He cannot be defined.

It is more proper to state that X is similar to God in such a way than to say that God is similar to X.

God is good. He is the good of every good.

He is intelligent. His act of intelligence is His essence. He understands by His essence and understands himself perfectly.

God understands forms because he created them. He understands the world as being like Him in a way or unlike him in another way. God understand the plant as:
1) like him in that it is alive
2) unlike him in that it is not possessing of knowledge.

A creature always differs from God in some form of negation.

God understand all  things at the same instant.

God is literally truth.

Aquinas is now troubled with the question, can God know particular things or does He only know universals and general truths? As a Christian, Aquinas believes in providence and that demands that God must know particular things despite weighty arguments against this view. Aquinas states 7 contrary arguments then refutes them.
1) Singularity being signate matter, nothing immaterial can know it. Refutation God knows singulars as their cause.
2) Singulars do not always exist and cannot be known when they do not exist; therefore they cannot be known by an unchanging being. Refutation God nows things that do not yet exist
3) Singulars are contingent, not necessary. Therefore there can be no certain knowledge of them except when they exist. Refutation He sees all time as present.
4) Some singulars are due to volitions, which can only be known to the person willing the volition. Refutation God knows our minds and secret wills
5) Singulars are infinite in number and the infinite as such is unknown. Refutation God knows an infinity of things
6) Singulars are too petty for God's attention. Refutation Nothing is wholly trivial.
7) IN some singulars there is evil, but God cannot know evil. Refutation God knows evil things because he knows what is good and anything not good must be evil.

God possesses will. His will is His essence. His will is the cause of other things. He does not will necessarily. It is free-will.

God hates nothing. He is happy and is His own happiness.

God create the world out of nothing.

God cannot be a body, change, fail, be weary, forget, repent, be angry or sad, create a man with no soul, make the sum of the angles of a triangle be the sum of two right angles, undo the past, commit sins, make another God or make himself not exist.

Intellectual substances are immaterial and incorruptible.

The intellect is part of the soul.

The soul is not created through sexual reproduction, it is created new in each body.

Linehan - I tentatively reject this view. The soul must be reproduced in sex for the inheritance of sin to happen.

Thomas adopts Aristotle's view on universals. "Universals do no subsist outside the soul, but the intellect, in understanding universals, understands things that are outside the soul" (Russell, 458).

Evil is unintentional, not an essence. It has an accidental cause, which is good.

God is the end of all things so all things tend to be like God.

Man's happiness lies in moral virtue, not bodily pleasures. It consists in the contemplation of God.

Ultimate happiness is unachievable on earth. It only exists in heaven, when we see God face to face (even though God doesn't really have a face).

Divine Providence does not negate evil, contingency, free will, chance or luck.

Evil comes through second causes.

Angels are each individual species.

Astrology is rejected, as well as any notion of fate.

Prayer is useful in spite of Providence being unchangeable.

Miracles are solely performed by God. Magic is demonic.

Divine law:
1) directs us to love God
2) directs us to love our neighbor, but not as vividly
3) it forbids birth control because it is against nature (interestingly it does not forbid celibacy)
4) matrimony is indissoluble
5) not all carnal intercourse is sinful, but continence is a better life than marriage
6) monogamy is demanded
7) incest is forbidden

Mortal sins demand Hell as punishment. No man can be forgiven of sin without grace, yet is condemned if he doesn't convert.

God is not the cause of sin, but chooses to free some from sin and leave others in sin.

Aquinas states God is knowable three ways:
1) Reason
2) Revelation
3) Intuition of previous revelation

He blames the Greek Church for denying the double procession of the Holy Ghost and the supremacy of the pope.

He believes the sacraments are valid even if dispensed by a wicked priest.

Aquinas basically agrees with Aristotle philosophically. He is original in aptly adapting Aristotle to Christian dogma.

He was very innovative and condemned in Paris and Oxford universities.

He was even more remarkable in systematizing then originality. "Even if every one of his doctrines were mistaken, the Summa would remain an imposing intellectual edifice" (Russell, 461).

He is fair to arguments and positions contrary to his own. He then firmly dismantles them.

He does a good job in distinguishing arguments from reason and arguments from revelation.

He thoroughly knows Aristotle.

Russell contends that since Aquinas already knows the outcome of his arguments (revealed by God) that he cannot be regarded as an elite philosopher.