Posted on 10/31/2001 4:12:33 AM PST by Aquinasfan
The Principles of the Philosophy of Nature
In order to understand just about anything that Aquinas says in philosophy or theology, one has to be familiar with the Aristotelian tradition in philosophy, especially as that tradition was handed on to the thinkers of the Middle Ages.
For Aristotle, the Philosophy of Nature is the study of what is in matter and motion, i.e. stuff that changes. Thus one should know the basic classifications of Aristotelian philosophy, what is meant by change, and the ways in which things are made to change.
Substance and Accident
First, as a kind of preliminary and as a tool for philosophical discourse, one should be familiar with the basic distinctions of Aristotle's logic. The basic logical distinction for our purposes is between substance and accident. This distinction is the basis for Aristotle's Ten Categories
The Problem of Change
Next, by analyzing change, Aristotle found that what is actual comes to be from what had been merely potential. In so doing, he identifies the three principles necessary for every change: matter, form and privation.
The Four Causes
Aristotle identifies four causes, i.e. four positive principles, for every change. They are what changes, what it changes into, the source of the change and what the change is for.
Natural Philosophy - Substance and Accident
(What the meaning of "IS" is)
First, as a kind of preliminary and as tool for philosophical discourse, one should be familiar with the basic distinctions of Aristotle's logic. The basic logical distinction for our purposes is between accident (what exists in and is said of another) and substance (what does not exist in another & not said of another). As an example of what Aristotle means, consider what is named by the word "white." The reality that this word names (a particular color) can be said of some other thing as eg. "This thing is white." "White" is said of "this thing" as though the color belonged to "this thing." Furthermore, it is understood to exist in "this thing;" one does not find any "white" except that is in "this thing" or some other thing. This way of speaking can be contrasted with another, as for example "This thing is Socrates." "Socrates" does not name the same kind of reality that "white" does in the previous example. "Socrates" is not said of "this thing" in the same way as "white" is, and "Socrates" does not exist IN "this thing." Rather, "Socreates" IS "this thing," and the sentence "this thing is Socrates" is understood to assert an identity between the two realities named. This basic notion of Aristotle's logic reflects the basic distinction in the way reality is stuctured and reflects the basic way that we view reality. The fundamental distinction is between substance and accident. Substance is whatever is a natural kind of thing and exists in its own right. Examples are rocks, trees, animals, etc. What an animal is, a dog for example, is basically the same whether it is black or brown, here or there, etc. A dog is a substance since it exists in its own right; it does not exist in something else, the way a color does.
Substance and Accidents
Accidents are the modifications that substance undergo, but that do not change the kind of thing that each substance is. Accidents only exist when they are the accidents of some substance. Examples are colors, weight, motion. For Aristotle there are 10 categories into which things naturally fall. They are
* Substance, and
* Nine Accidents:
* Quantity,
* Quality,
* Relation,
* Action,
* Passion,
* Time,
* Place,
* Disposition (the arrangement of parts), and
* Rainment (whether a thing is dressed or armed, etc.)
All these distinctions are basically logical, but in a sense they reflect the structure of reality. One never finds any substance that we experience without some accidents, nor an accident that is not the accident of a substance. Every dog, for instance, has some color, place, size. Nevertheless, it is obvious that what a dog is is not the same as its color, or its size, etc.
Where to begin? St. Thomas began his Summa Theologica with an examination of the nature of God and proofs for the existence of God. But we probably shouldn't begin here until we understand the metaphysical basis from which St. Thomas was working. The Summa Theologica takes for granted a knowledge of realist metaphysics in the tradition of Aristotle (among many others). It also takes for granted a knowledge of the terms of classical philosophy, which may seem very arcane and obscure to the uninitiated. But as one becomes more familiar with the terms, one will see how essentially important they are in any attempt to understand the philosophy of St. Thomas.
It is important to begin with metaphysics and epistemology for another reason. Since the time of Descartes, philosophy has been diminished by subjectivism, skepticism and relativism. The notion of objective truth is held in contempt by academics, and relativism is rampant, particularly regarding morality.
So to address a fundamentally skeptical, agnostic, modern audience, it is wise to address fundamental issues regarding metaphysics (the study of being or "the way things are") and epistemology (how we know what we know).
Unfortunately, the metaphysical and epistemological system of Aquinas' time was so taken for granted that Aquinas never wrote extensively or exclusively on either. However, James Anderson recently edited a wonderful little book entitled "An Introduction to the Metaphysics of Thomas Aquinas (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/089526420X/qid=1004532597/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_10_1/103-1239511-6109426)," which gathers and organizes the metaphysical writings of St. Thomas from many sources including the Summa Theologica and Summa Contra Gentiles I highly recommend it.
So lets begin the study of St. Thomas with this introduction to the Metaphysics of St. Thomas by Joseph Magee, Ph.D.
(Also, since an understanding of the metaphysics and epistemology of St. Thomas is so crucial to an understanding of any of St. Thomas' writings, and because the terminology can seem at first to be so arcane to those unfamiliar with it, I will begin with very small posts, and we can proceed from there.
Patent, Would you bump this to the Catholic list? Also, would you tell me how to do this so I won't have to bother you in the future? ;-) Please post the instructions here so others can learn how to do it too. Thanks!There are two different lists. First, there is forum “Catholic-List.” Anyone who wants to bump a thread to the Catholic list only needs to enter "Catholic_list" in the to box. To search for Catholic related articles you can click here. Bookmark that page for easy searching.
Second, there is the personal list that I keep. Actually there are a number of these, I’m not the only one keeping one and they don’t exactly match each other. As to my list, I describe it on my home page:
Catholic/Pro-life/Traditional Schooling Bump ListSeveral of the people on the list aren’t Catholic, so it isn’t entirely a Catholic bump list. It’s more my personal bump list, and I can’t really say whether the people on it want to be bumped to every Catholic article or not. It is advertised as being relatively limited in scope. While I have no idea if the people on the list actually like that the scope is limited, it is how I've set it up. For that reason I haven't made a public list available to everyone. I have suggested to a couple people over time that if there is an interest in creating a bump list of names who want to be bumped to everything Catholic, they could go ahead and do that. No takers so far. ;-)Allegedly I have started to compile a bump list for those interested in Catholic (and occasionally other religious) news, pro-life issues, pro-liver issues (with or without beer), and the occasional traditional schooling issue that seems to fit in (private schools, home schooling). For those unfortunate souls who have found their name on my bump list by some mechanism, and who would like off it for any reason whatsoever, please feel free to let me know and you will be cheerfully removed. For any who would like on it, let me know as well.
I tend to keep the number of posts a bit limited, around 5-6 a week. I don't know how often people want to be bumped to things, and it is always my goal to not overwhelm people. Accordingly I will not bump each and every thread that I come across or even every thread I am asked to bump. So the bump list is different then some of the lists like the bang lists (gun and second amendment related posts), the zion_ist list, etc.
patent +AMDG
Romulus suggested that I post selections from St. Thomas on a regular basis. As a fan of the Angelic Doctor, I'm more than happy to oblige. This is the first installment.I ran out of time earlier (meeting to go to) but I would suggest that you start to create a bump list for these articles. You could either create a list of names (which I would recommend for this) or create a new bump list such as “Aquinas_list.” If you do create a list I would enjoy being bumped to these articles.
patent +AMDG
We can know with certainty that any proposition that is deduced from first principles is true. OTOH, most of the "truths" that we know, we know with probability.
As for whether we can trust our senses, I will be posting Thomas' epistemology later on.
We can know with certainty that any proposition that is deduced from first principles is true. OTOH, most of the "truths" that we know, we know with probability.
As for whether we can trust our senses, I will be posting Thomas' epistemology later on.
We can know with certainty that any proposition that is deduced from first principles is true. OTOH, most of the "truths" that we know, we know with probability.
As for whether we can trust our senses, I will be posting Thomas' epistemology later on.
We can know with certainty that any proposition that is deduced from first principles is true. OTOH, most of the "truths" that we know, we know with probability.
As for whether we can trust our senses, I will be posting Thomas' epistemology later on.
We can know with certainty that any proposition that is deduced from first principles is true. OTOH, most of the "truths" that we know, we know with probability.
As for whether we can trust our senses, I will be posting Thomas' epistemology later on.
Thanks for the post!!
We can know with certainty that any proposition that is deduced from first principles is true. OTOH, most of the "truths" that we know, we know with probability.
As for whether we can trust our senses, I will be posting Thomas' epistemology later on.
We can know with certainty that any proposition that is deduced from first principles is true. OTOH, most of the "truths" that we know, we know with probability.
As for whether we can trust our senses, I will be posting Thomas' epistemology later on.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.