-
Prologue
- The Catholic University of America Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
Prologue 1. The Path Before Us There can be little dispute that at the outset of the Summa theologiae Thomas refers to the philosophical sciences as already known by his reader, pointedly asking if the philosophical science dubbed theology renders redundant the effort he is about to undertake. At least historically, then, the philosophical sciences are distinguished from the sacra doctrina that is studied in the Summa and the beginner for whom the Summa was written is assumed already to have studied philosophy and thus likely to have the problem addressed by the opening discussion. But there is as well general agreement among students of St. Thomas that philosophical work is not only presumed by the theologian; philosophizing also seems contemporary with and intrinsic to the task of sacra doctrina. Indeed, it soon strikes a reader of the Summa that clarity on certain philosophical points is sought prior to making use of that doctrine to explicate Sacred Scripture.1 Furthermore, Thomas often contrasts the philosopher’s and the theologian’s approach to a given topic—for example, the soul2 —in a way that suggests a contemporary option. Nonetheless , as we have seen, an extremely influential Thomist, Etienne Gilson, ended by so confining Thomas’s philosophy to a theological setting that it is difficult to see how philosophy so understood could be shared by nonbelievers . But if there is any mark of the arguments and analyses that make up the 159 1. For example, in ST Ia, q. 14, a. 16, Thomas clarifies the distinction between theoretical and practical knowledge and the degrees of the latter before addressing the question as to whether God’s knowledge of creatures is speculative or practical. 2. “Naturam autem hominis considerare pertinet ad theologum ex parte animae, non autem ex parte corporis, nisi secundum habitudinem quam habet corpus ad animam” (ST, Ia, Prologue to q. 75). See too II SCG 4: “Et propter hoc etiam alia circa creaturas et Philosophus et Fidelis considerat. Philosophus namque considerat illa quae eis secundum naturam propriam conveniunt: sicut igni ferri sursum. Fidelis autem ea solum considerat circa creaturas quae eis conveniunt secundum quod sunt ad Deum relata: utpote quod sunt a Deo creata, quod sunt Deo subiecta, et huiusmodi.” 160 Thomism and PhilosophicalTheology praeambula fidei, it is that they are independent of faith and Scripture, something of which human beings are naturally capable. The rescue of the praeambula fidei requires a multitude of expositions, refutations, and corrections, and the reestablishing of the true meaning of phrases that have become mere slogans. We must be clear about what Thomas meant by philosophy, by a philosophical science, by a philosophical argument . We must understand what he meant by metaphysics. The animus against Aristotle exceeds even that against Cardinal Cajetan on the part of several of the Thomists we considered in Part Two. Of course, no one could plausibly deny the dominant role that Aristotle’s thought played for Thomas Aquinas: Aristotelian doctrine pervades the theological writings of Aquinas . Thomas’s language would be unintelligible without an awareness of its dependence on the man he called “The Philosopher.” There are two possible explanations of this presence of Aristotelianism: either Thomas adopted the principles and procedures of philosophy as taught by Aristotle because he thought they were true, or he had a different conception of philosophy than Aristotle’s into which he was able to assimilate Aristotelian tenets as well as others. In favor of the second alternative is the fact that Thomas also exhibited sympathy for Platonic teachings. Must there not, then, be a larger whole, a specifically Thomistic philosophy, into which both Platonic and Aristotelian elements fit to the degree that they are in accord with its principles ? I will endeavor to show that the first alternative is the correct one. The second has plausibility because Thomas did indeed advance the Aristotelian program beyond Aristotle and showed the kind of hospitality to Neoplatonism mentioned. But this, I argue, was done in terms of a philosophical outlook that is fundamentally Aristotlelian.3 Moreover, there are no peculiarly Thomistic philosophical principles that could supplant the Aristotelian ones he adopts. I shall be making use of the full range of Thomas’s writings and this emphatically includes his expositions of the treatises of Aristotle. These commentaries are among his most mature works, the first of them dating from 1268 and all composed prior to 1273 during a period when Thomas was bur3 . Any reader of St. Thomas’s exposition of the so-called Liber...