{"id":42,"date":"2018-12-20T17:07:20","date_gmt":"2018-12-20T17:07:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/suny-fmcc-philosophy\/?post_type=chapter&p=42"},"modified":"2025-12-29T17:02:13","modified_gmt":"2025-12-29T17:02:13","slug":"aquinas","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/suny-fmcc-philosophy1\/chapter\/aquinas\/","title":{"raw":"2.21: Thomas Aquinas","rendered":"2.21: Thomas Aquinas"},"content":{"raw":"
\r\n

Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274<\/a>)<\/h2>\r\n\"\"<\/span>\r\n\r\nThe most profoundly influential of all the medieval philosophers was the Dominican\u00a0Thomas Aquinas<\/em><\/strong><\/a>, whose brilliant efforts in defense of Christian theology earned him a reputation as \u201cthe angelic teacher.\u201d His willingness to employ rational argumentation generally and the metaphysical and epistemological teachings of\u00a0Aristotle<\/em><\/strong><\/a>\u00a0in particular marked a significant departure from the neoplatonic\/Augustinian tradition that had dominated so much of the middle ages. Aquinas showed the church that it was possible to incorporate many of the \u201cnew\u201d teachings of \u201cthe Philosopher\u201d (Aristotle) without falling into the mistaken excesses of \u201cthe Commentator\u201d (Ibn Rushd), and this became the basis for a lasting synthesis.\r\n\r\nBorn to an aristocratic family living in Roccasecca, Italy, Thomas Aquinas joined the Dominican order while studying philosophy and theology at Naples. Later he pursued additional studies in Paris and K\u00f6ln, where he was exposed to Aristotelean thought by\u00a0Albert the Great<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0and William of Moerbeke. During the rest of his life, he taught at Paris and Rome, writing millions of words on philosophical and theological issues and earning his reputation among the\u00a0scholastics<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0as \u201cthe angelic doctor.\u201d Aquinas developed in massive detail\u00a0a synthesis of Christianity and Aristotelian philosophy<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0that became the official doctrine of Roman Catholic theology in 1879.\u00a0DE ENTE ET ESSENTIA<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0(ON BEING AND ESSENCE<\/strong><\/a>) includes a basic statement of Aquinas\u2019s metaphysical position. His literary activity stopped abruptly as the result of a religious experience a few months before his death.\r\n\r\nAlthough he wrote many commentaries on the works of\u00a0Aristotle<\/em><\/strong><\/a>\u00a0and a comprehensive\u00a0SUMMA DE VERITATE CATHOLICAE FIDEI CONTRA GENTILES\u00a0(SUMMA CONTRA GENTILES<\/strong><\/a>) (1259-1264), Aquinas\u2019s unfinished\u00a0SUMMA THEOLOGICA<\/a>\u00a0(1265-1273) represents the most complete statement of his philosophical system. The sections of greatest interest for survey courses include his views on the nature of\u00a0god<\/strong><\/a>, including the\u00a0five ways to prove god\u2019s existence<\/strong><\/a>, and his exposition of\u00a0natural law<\/strong><\/a>.\r\n\r\n\"\"\r\n\r\nAlthough matters of such importance should be accepted on the basis of divine revelation alone, Aquinas held, it is at least possible (and perhaps even desirable) in some circumstances to achieve genuine knowledge of them by means of the rigorous application of human reason.\u00a0As embodied souls (hylomorphic composites<\/a>), human beings naturally rely on sensory information for their knowledge of the world.\r\n\r\nReading hint<\/strong>: Although the rigidly formal structure of the\u00a0Summa<\/cite>\u00a0articles can be rather confusing to a modern reader, the central portion beginning with the words, \"I answer that<\/cite>...\" is always a direct statement of Aquinas's own position.\r\n

Aquinas: Christian Aristotelianism<\/h3>\r\nFor Aquinas, theology is a science in which careful application of reason will yield the demonstrative certainty of\u00a0theoretical knowledge<\/a>. Of course it is possible to accept religious teachings from revealed sources by faith alone, and Aquinas granted that this always remains the most widely accessible route to Christian orthodoxy. But for those whose capacity to reason is well-developed, it is always better to establish the most fundamental principles on the use of reason. Even though simple faith is enough to satisfy most people, for example, Aquinas believed it possible, appropriate, and desirable to demonstrate the existence of god by rational means.\r\n

Five Ways to Prove God's Existence<\/h3>\r\n

Anselm<\/em><\/a>'s\u00a0<\/span>Ontological Argument<\/a>\u00a0is not acceptable,\u00a0<\/span>Aquinas<\/em><\/a>\u00a0argued, since we are in fact ignorant of the divine essence from which it is presumed to begin. We cannot hope to demonstrate the necessary existence of a being whose true nature we cannot even conceive by direct or positive means. Instead, Aquinas held, we must begin with the sensory experiences we do understand and reason upward from them to their origin in something eternal. In this vein, Aquinas presented his own \"<\/span>Five Ways<\/a>\" to prove the existence of god.<\/span><\/h3>\r\n

The first three of these ways are all variations of the\u00a0Cosmological Argument<\/a>. The\u00a0<\/span>first way<\/b>\u00a0is an argument from motion, derived fairly directly from\u00a0<\/span>Aristotle's\u00a0Metaphysics<\/i><\/a>:<\/span><\/h3>\r\n<\/div>\r\n
\r\n
    \r\n \t
  1. There is something moving.<\/li>\r\n \t
  2. Everything that moves is put into motion by something else.<\/li>\r\n \t
  3. But this series of antecedent movers cannot reach back infinitely.<\/li>\r\n \t
  4. Therefore, there must be a first mover (which is god).<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\nThe first premise is firmly rooted in sensory experience, and the second is based on accepted notions about potentiality and actuality. In defence of the third, Aquinas noted that if the series were infinite then there would be no first, and hence no second, or third, etc. The\u00a0second way<\/b>\u00a0has the same structure, but begins from experience of an instance of efficient causation, and the\u00a0third way<\/b>\u00a0relies more heavily upon a distinction between contingent and necessary being. In all of its forms, the Cosmological Argument is open to serious challenge. Notice that if the second premise is wholly and literally true, then the conclusion must be false. If, on the other hand, it is possible for something to move without being put into motion by another, then why might there not be hundreds of \"first movers\" instead of only one? Besides, it is by no means obvious that the Aristotelian notions of a \"first mover\" or \"first cause\" bear much resemblance to the god of Christianity. So even if the argument succeeded it might be of little use in defence of orthodox religion.\r\n\r\nAquinas's\u00a0fourth way<\/b>\u00a0is a variety of\u00a0Moral Argument<\/a>. It begins with the factual claim that we do make judgments about the relative perfection of ordinary things. But the capacity to do so, Aquinas argued, presupposes an absolute standard of perfection to which we compare everything else. This argument relies more heavily on Platonic and Augustinian notions, and has the advantage of defending the existence of god as moral exemplar rather than as abstract intitiator of reality.\r\n\r\nThe\u00a0fifth way<\/b>\u00a0is the\u00a0Teleological Argument<\/a>: the order and arrangement of the natural world (not merely its existence) bespeaks the deliberate design of an intelligent creator. Although it is an argument by analogy which can at best offer only probable reason for believing the truth of its conclusion, this proof offers a concept of god that most fully corresponds to the traditional elements of medieval Christian theology. Since its empirical basis lies in our understanding of the operation of nature, this line of reasoning tends to become more compelling the more thorough our scientific knowledge is advanced.\r\n