AN APPRAISAL OF HUMAN SOUL IN ST THOMAS AQUINAS

ATTENTION:

BEFORE YOU READ THE ABSTRACT OR CHAPTER ONE OF THE PROJECT TOPIC BELOW, PLEASE READ THE INFORMATION BELOW.THANK YOU!

INFORMATION:

YOU CAN GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT OF THE TOPIC BELOW. THE FULL PROJECT COSTS N5,000 ONLY. THE FULL INFORMATION ON HOW TO PAY AND GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT IS AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE. OR YOU CAN CALL: 08068231953, 08168759420

WHATSAPP US ON 08137701720

AN APPRAISAL OF HUMAN SOUL IN ST THOMAS AQUINAS

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

Background of the study

GOD

Thomas says that the truth of the proposition THE GOD exists is knowable in itself, because the predicate is included in the essence of the subject. But it is not knowable to us, because the essence of THE GOD is unknowable to us. He also says that the essence of THE GOD is existence, that such a being is ipsum esse subsistens, and yet that we cannot know this essence. How is any of this coherent? Mustn’t one know what one is talking about to deny anything of it, in particular to deny that it is knowable to us? How can Thomas simultaneously assert what the essence of THE GOD is and deny that we know it?

In order to understand why his claims about the existence and essence of THE GOD are not incoherent, we need to place them within the context of Aristotle’s Posterior Analytics. According to Aristotle, one mode of per se predication, the first, is that in which the predicate of the proposition is included within the definition of the subject. We’ve already seen the second, where the subject is included in the defintion of the predicate, the mode appropriate to the powers of a subject. So in the first mode, if one immediately knew the essential definition of the subject, one would immediately know that a particular proposition is per se true simply by knowing that its predicate is included within that essential definition. Any proposition in which the predicate is included in the essential definition of the subject is knowable in itself. For instance, Thomas thinks that anyone who knows the language will know the truth of a proposition like a whole consists of the sum of its parts. Because the terms are related in this fashion and so fundamental in the language, no special knowledge is necessary to grasp its truth. Such a proposition is thus knowable in itself but also to us.

However, clearly this account leaves open the possibility of subjects in which the essential definition is either unknown or even unknowable. For instance, if we suppose that H2O is the essential definition of water, we have to recognize that there will be many who will not know it. It will not be immediately “known to us,” but require learning. No doubt we can still refer to water in statements about it because the term ‘water’ has a nominal definition, clear-potable-odorless etc., used by the community to refer to what is in fact H2O. So that water is H2O will be knowable in itself, even if unknowable to us, until we engage in Chemistry. Consider the mind. Clearly we use the term ‘mind’ meaningfully in any number of sentences. But perhaps, as Colin McGinn has argued, the actual nature of mind is incomprehensible to limited minds such as ours. In that case it might be knowable in itself, and yet strictly unknowable to us. Thus the distinction between what is knowable in itself and what is knowable to us is not incoherent.

What of the claims that the essence of THE GOD is not just unknown to us, but unknowable to us, that the essence of THE GOD is His existence, and that it is ipsum esse subsistens? Don’t these remain jointly inconsistent and thus incoherent, even if the underlying distinction is not? No. In claiming that the essence of THE GOD is not knowable to us, Thomas is talking about its accessibility to philosophical inquiry. The human mind of itself is proportioned to knowing material things. It can only know immaterial things insofar as causal arguments can be made to posit the existence of such things as necessary to the explanation of material things—causes that are only appealed to when one has excluded the possibility of a material explanation of the phenomenon. But we’ve already seen that to claim that something is immaterial is not to know any property of it, much less its essence. Still, it remains available to Thomas to claim that while the knowledge of the essence of THE GOD is unknowable to philosophy, it is known to us by Revelation. Indeed, he appeals to GOD’s revelation to Moses on Sinai to establish the claim that GOD’s essence is ipsum esse subsistens—that is to say, the being who reveals Himself to Moses identifies Himself as what the philosophers are looking for but cannot find in its essence. And Christians believe that GOD further discloses Himself in the Incarnation of Christ and the Gospel narratives as a Trinity of Persons in Unity of Substance. (Summa theologiae Ia.31.1 ad 4) Here, in knowing the essence of GOD as trinitarian we have another example, like the Resurrection, of something that can only be known by faith in GOD’s Revelation. It is not something that can be known by both Revelation and Philosophy. So the essence of GOD is knowable in itself, and also to the learned. But the learned are not the philosophers. Rather they are all those who know it by faith in GOD’s revelation.

So, can the existence of GOD be philosophically demonstrated? If GOD’s essence is His existence, and His essence remains in principle philosophically unknowable to us, how could it be demonstrated? In fact, Aquinas claims that it can be demonstrated that there is THE GOD, and that there is only one GOD. That GOD’s essence remains in principle philosophically unknowable to us is the basis for Aquinas’ denial that the existence of GOD can be demonstrated a priori. And any reliance upon knowledge of the essence that is only known to us by faith would by that fact cease to be properly philosophical. However, we have seen that Aquinas relies upon the distinction between nominal definitions of terms and essential definitions of the subjects referred to by those terms. To demonstrate the existence of THE GOD one may use nominal definitions that appeal to THE GOD as the cause of various phenomena. This is to argue a posteriori. The appeal to these nominal definitions forms the basis for Aquinas’ Five Ways (Summa Theologiae, Ia.2.3) all of which end with some claim about how the term ‘GOD’ is used.

Again, some will claim that Aquinas isn’t really interested in proving the existence of GOD in these Five Ways. After all, he already knows the existence of GOD by faith, and he is writing a theological work for beginners. What need is there of proving the existence of something he already knows exists? The Ways are very sketchy, and don’t even necessarily conclude to a single being, much less GOD or the Christian GOD. In addition, Aquinas claims that GOD’s essence is his existence and that we cannot know His essence, so we cannot know His existence. Aquinas must really intend the Five Ways as less than proofs; they are more like incomplete propaedeutic considerations for thinking adequately about GOD in Sacred Theology. In effect, Aquinas doesn’t think philosophy can in fact demonstrate the existence of GOD.

But as elsewhere these claims are ambiguous and suffer at the hands of Thomas’ own texts. In the first place, the objection that he already knows by faith that GOD exists has some merit in it, if we understand it as directed at a reading of Thomas that would have him attempting a foundational enterprise of grounding religious faith in what is rationally demonstrable by Philosophy. But that reading is anachronistic, and does not attend to the context of the Summa Theologiae. There is no reason to think that Thomas thinks the proofs are necessary for the rationality of religious faith. They are part of the enterprise of showing that Sacra Doctrina meets the condition of a science as described by Aristotle in the Posterior Analytics, which he had argued in the first question of the Summa, an issue that is different from the question of the broad rationality of religious faith.

In addition, the objections end up denying what Aquinas writes immediately before the Five Ways—that the existence of THE GOD is “demonstrable.” (Summa Theologiae Ia.2.2) And his introduction of the Five Ways begins by saying that the existence of THE GOD can be “proved” in Five Ways. To counter the objection that he must mean something informal here by “demonstrate” and “prove,” one need only recognize the explicit use of Aristotle’s Posterior Analytics to sort through the question. He cites Aristotle’s distinction between demonstrating the existence of some subject, and going on to demonstrate properties of that subject by appeal to the essence of the subject as cause of those properties. The first kind of demonstration is called demonstration quia, the second demonstration propter quid. In order to have any science at all, the subject matter must exist. So demonstration quia must precede demonstration propter quid. If you want to have a science of unicorns, you have to show me that there is at least one unicorn to be studied. There is no science of what does not exist. So there are two demonstrative stages in any science, the demonstration of the existence of the subject (quia), and the demonstration of the properties of the subject through its essence (propter quid). Aquinas’ denial that the essence of GOD can be known philosophically is a denial that one can have propter quid scientific understanding of THE GOD through philosophy. It is not a denial that there can be demonstration quia of the existence of THE GOD. There is no reason to deny that Thomas thinks the Five Ways are proofs or demonstrations in the most robust sense, namely that which he appeals to as set out by Aristotle in the Posterior Analytics.

Notice however the back and forth between the use of ‘GOD’ as a proper name and the use of ‘GOD’ as a common noun. One source of the ambiguity in the objections comes about because it is claimed that Aquinas does not think one can demonstrate the existence of GOD. But in terms of the Posterior Analytics one cannot demonstrate the existence of anything under a proper name. One can point at Socrates, and say “see, Socrates is alive.” One cannot do that with GOD. In addition, one cannot give a formal argument for Socrates existence using ‘Socrates’. One can only demonstrate in the relevant sense using common nouns, since such nouns are the only ones that have definitions, either nominal or essential. So strictly speaking it is true that Thomas doesn’t think one can demonstrate the existence of GOD in the Five Ways. He recognizes the difference between ‘GOD’ used as a proper noun, and ‘GOD’ used as a common noun. (Summa Theologiae Ia.13.9) The ambiguity is pronounced in Latin which lacks the indefinite article ‘a’, where in English we can disambiguate between ‘GOD’ and ‘THE GOD’. The situation is exacerbated by translations that simply translate ‘deus’ in the Ways as ‘GOD’ in English. In the Five Ways, he does not use ‘GOD’as a proper name, but as a common noun having five different nominal definitions. So each of the ways concludes that there is “THE GOD.” Thus, it is also true that the Five Ways do not as such prove that there is only one GOD. It is for that reason that Thomas himself thinks one must actually argue additionally that THE GOD must be utterly unique, and thus that there can be only one, which he does several questions after the Five Ways (Summa Theologiae Ia.11). Of course, once the utter uniqueness of THE GOD has been shown, one can begin to use “GOD” as a proper name to refer to that utterly unique being, as he subsequently argues in Summa Theologiae Ia.13 does happen.

It is the utter uniqueness and singularity of THE GOD that undermines the objection that whatever the philosophical arguments terminate in, it is not the GOD of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, THE GOD who is only known by faith. That is simply to deny Thomas’ claim that the GOD Jews, Christians, and Muslims believe in can be known, but only partially by philosophical analysis. If the demonstrations work, as Thomas thinks they do, what other GOD would the Jews, Christians, and Muslims believe in? There is no other GOD. Given GOD’s revelation, He must be identified with the utterly unique being the philosopher’s argument terminates in.

Finally, the sketchy character of the Ways reflects the fact that they are directed at beginning students. However the audience of beginners that Thomas has in mind are not beginners in Philosophy. They are beginners in Sacra Doctrina. As we have seen, in the medieval educational setting such beginners would be thoroughly steeped in the philosophical disciplines before ever being allowed to study Sacra Doctrina. So Aquinas could expect his readers to know the much more extensive and complete arguments he was gesturing at with the Five Ways, arguments to be found in detail in other figures like Aristotle, Avicenna, and so on, as well as in other works of his own, the Summa Contra Gentiles for example. In short, even if the Five Ways are judged to be unsound demonstrations, a judgment that requires close analysis and examination of the filled out arguments, there is no reason to suggest that Thomas took them any less seriously as demonstrations or proofs in the fullest sense.

Now, even though there can be no demonstration propter quid of GOD’s essence or nature, this does not mean that philosophical theology is left with a bare knowledge of the existence of GOD, and nothing more. The second stage of science will go on, but it will go on in a mode deeply indebted to Pseudo-Dionysius and Neoplatonism with the approach often called the “via negativa.” Instead of arguing positively from the essence of GOD to His properties, one will argue from GOD’s effects, particularly the perfections of creatures that do not of necessity involve material embodiment, to the affirmation that GOD possesses these perfections. However, recognizing that the way in which GOD possesses these perfections must be different from the way in which creatures possess them, one must deny that GOD has them in the creaturely mode. Instead He must possess them in a “super eminent” fashion that we cannot comprehend. So, while on the basis of effect to cause arguments we can say that GOD is just, wise, good, perfect, and so on, we do not know what it is for GOD to be just, wise, good, and perfect. We end up denying of GOD the creaturely mode of these perfections. In this way GOD is approached negatively by denying things of Him rather than by directly knowing what GOD is. This account relies heavily upon the use of analogous names in talking about GOD and creatures.

Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) lived at a critical juncture of western culture when the arrival of the Aristotelian corpus in Latin translation reopened the question of the relation between faith and reason, calling into question the modus vivendi that had obtained for centuries. This crisis flared up just as universities were being founded. Thomas, after early studies at Montecassino, moved on to the University of Naples, where he met members of the new Dominican Order. It was at Naples too that Thomas had his first extended contact with the new learning. When he joined the Dominican Order he went north to study with Albertus Magnus, author of a paraphrase of the Aristotelian corpus. Thomas completed his studies at the University of Paris, which had been formed out of the monastic schools on the Left Bank and the cathedral school at Notre Dame. In two stints as a regent master Thomas defended the mendicant orders and, of greater historical importance, countered both the Averroistic interpretations of Aristotle and the Franciscan tendency to reject Greek philosophy. The result was a new modus vivendi between faith and philosophy which survived until the rise of the new physics. The Catholic Church has over the centuries regularly and consistently reaffirmed the central importance of Thomas’s work, both theological and philosophical, for understanding its teachings concerning the Christian revelation, and his close textual commentaries on Aristotle represent a cultural resource which is now receiving increased recognition. The following account concentrates on Thomas the philosopher.

Thomas was born in 1225 at Roccasecca, a hilltop castle from which the great Benedictine abbey of Montecassino is not quite visible, midway between Rome and Naples. At the age of five, he was entered at Montecassino where his studies began. When the monastery became a battle site—not for the last time—Thomas was transferred by his family to the University of Naples. It was here that he came into contact with the “new” Aristotle and with the Order of Preachers or Dominicans, a recently founded mendicant order. He became a Dominican over the protests of his family and eventually went north to study, perhaps first briefly at Paris, then at Cologne with Albert the Great, whose interest in Aristotle strengthened Thomas’s own predilections. Returned to Paris, he completed his studies, became a Master and for three years occupied one of the Dominican chairs in the Faculty of Theology. The next ten years were spent in various places in Italy, with the mobile papal court, at various Dominican houses, and eventually in Rome. From there he was called back to Paris to confront the controversy variously called Latin Averroism and Heterodox Aristotelianism. After this second three year stint, he was assigned to Naples. In 1274, on his way to the Council of Lyon, he fell ill and died on March 7 in the Cistercian abbey at Fossanova, which is perhaps twenty kilometers from Roccasecca.

1.2 Education

Little is known of Thomas’s studies at Montecassino, but much is known of the shape that the monastic schools had taken. They were one of the principal conduits of the liberal arts tradition which stretches back to Cassiodorus Senator in the 6th century. The arts of the trivium (grammar, rhetoric, logic) and those of the quadrivium (arithmetic, geometry, music and astronomy) were fragments preserved against the ruinous loss of classical knowledge. They constituted the secular education that complemented sacred doctrine as learned from the Bible. When Thomas transferred to Naples, his education in the arts continued. Here it would have been impressed upon him that the liberal arts were no longer adequate categories of secular learning: the new translations of Aristotle spelled the end of the liberal arts tradition, although the universities effected a transition rather than a breach.

Taking Thomas’s alma mater Paris as reference point, the Faculty of Arts provided the point of entry to teen-aged boys. With the attainment of the Master of Arts at about the age of 20, one could go on to study in a higher faculty, law, medicine or theology. The theological program Thomas entered in Paris was a grueling one, with the master’s typically attained in the early thirties. Extensive and progressively more intensive study of the scriptures, Old and New Testament, and of the summary of Christian doctrine called the Sentences which was compiled by the twelfth century Bishop of Paris, Peter Lombard. These close textual studies were complemented by public disputations and the even more unruly quodlibetal questions. With the faculty modeled more or less on the guilds, the student served a long apprenticeship, established his competence in stages, and eventually after a public examination was named a master and then gave his inaugural lecture.

1.3 Writings

Thomas’s writings by and large show their provenance in his teaching duties. His commentary on the Sentences put the seal on his student days and many of his very early commentaries on Scripture have come down to us. But from the very beginning Thomas produces writings which would not have emerged from the usual tasks of the theological master. On Being and Essence and The Principles of Nature (the latter a very useful summary for students of the principles that Aristotle develops in his Physics) date from his first stay at Paris, and unlike his commentaries on Boethius’ On the Trinity and De hebdomadibus, are quite obviously philosophical works. Some of his disputed questions date from his first stint as regius master at Paris. When he returned to Italy his productivity increased. He finished the Summa contra gentiles, wrote various disputed questions and began the Summa theologiae. In 1268, at Rome, he began the work of commenting on Aristotle with On the Soul, and during the next five or six years commented on eleven more Aristotelian works (not all of these are complete). During this time he was caught up in magisterial duties of unusual scope and was writing such polemical works as On the Eternity of the World and On There Being Only One Intellect.

At Naples, he was given the task of elevating the status of the Dominican House of Studies. His writing continued until he had a mystical experience which made him think of all he had done as “mere straw.” At the time of his death in 1274 he was under a cloud in Paris. 219 propositions were condemned in 1277 by a commission appointed by the Bishop of Paris, among them some tenets of Thomas. This was soon lifted, he was canonized and eventually was given the title of Common Doctor of the Church. But the subtle and delicate assimilation of Aristotle that characterized his work in both philosophy and theology did not survive his death, except in the Dominican Order, and has experienced ups and downs ever since.

HOW TO RECEIVE PROJECT MATERIAL(S)

After paying the appropriate amount (#5,000) into our bank Account below, send the following information to

08068231953 or 08168759420

(1) Your project topics

(2) Email Address

(3) Payment Name

(4) Teller Number

We will send your material(s) after we receive bank alert

BANK ACCOUNTS

Account Name: AMUTAH DANIEL CHUKWUDI

Account Number: 0046579864

Bank: GTBank.