I guess another question would be: did Aquinas just make up these ideas, or is there some basis in Catholicism? Or did the Church just like the ideas enough to say, “Yeah, this sounds good, this is what we believe now,” and make people accept it? I’m not well versed in metaphysics, so I hope you understand why this is all kind of shocking to find in a religion as modern as Catholicism.
Fair questions.
Aquinas did not make these ideas up. Most everything came from Aristotle. Thomas just built upon it, using what Aristotle had already laid out. Did Aristotle make this stuff up? Well, a lot of it is based on Plato, but corrects or at least qualifies some of the stranger and more mystical stuff Plato said. And Plato was influenced in various different ways by the Pre-Socratics, including Thales, Anaximander, Aniximenes, Pythagoras, Heraclitus, Xenophanes, Parmenides, Empedocles, Leucippus, Democritus, and Anaxagoras. Every one of those Pre-Socratics, taken by themselves, are crazy, but when combined with each other (as Plato arguably did) they start to make a very sensible look at reality. Aristotle, you could say, systemized and brought down to earth what Plato was saying. That’s my view anyway, and I believe others have said stuff like this.
And you could also look at all the Greek philosophers and say that they merely expressed ideas more clearly (and sometimes more systematically) that every human really understands (but understands initially in a vague way). Aristotle, especially, merely took existing Greek words and how they were used and developed a system showing how these words should be used consistently based on what they mean. The translated Greek words into English (if translated similarly enough) share the same consistent Aristotelian logic. Words express ideas, and ideas work the same way, no matter what word symbolizes it.
So, in a sense, Aristotle’s philosophy isn’t just “made up” but is based on common universal ideas that make sense. Obviously, many philosophies claim they are this way, but that’s not always true. The way to figure out which philosophies reflect reality is to … well … look at them. Aristotle has virulently stood the test of time in a most astonishing and pervasive manner.
Now, the Catholic Church (as it is believed) received a set of truths that were divinely revealed (let’s just call this “faith”). These truths cannot be known by natural reason (that is, we can’t just figure them out on our own without being told by God). Philosophy (even Aristotle’s philosophy) can be known just by human reasoning.
The Catholic Faith (as is believed) even though it’s different from natural reason, does not contradict natural reason. If any philosophy is true, it can be used to examine the divine truths. The saying is, “Grace builds upon nature.” That is, natural wisdom (like Aristotle’s philosophy) can help one understand and make more sense of divine revelation. Since Aristotle’s philosophy is perhaps the most developed, clear, and useful philosophy to describe complex realities, it has been used by the Catholic Church to explain a lot of its theology.
Did the Church look at Aristotle and say, “Yeah, this sounds good, this is what we believe now?” … it depends what you mean. Obviously, the Church recognizes that there are many ideas out there that are correct, yet do not have to do with divine revelation (although they may be compatible with divine revelation). When the Church found that Aristotle’s philosophy was correct (at least, largely), it employed its language in talking about doctrine, and thus implying that it affirmed the truth of Aristotle’s philosophy.
These are my thoughts. I think it’s a pretty fair evaluation of these things. I’m open to correction.
Also, what kinds of contradictions arise when these ideas are denied; could you give an example? I’m not being sarcastic, I just can’t think of any off the top of my head and I’m interested to see what kinds of contradictions you mean.
Well, good question.
If you deny the distinction between substance and accident, then I guess you could say “blue” could exist in itself and not necessarily in something. You could say that any action can have substantial being … that is, “Running” could exist in itself … you could hold “Running” because it would be like holding a “ball” (which is a legitimate substance). In short, characteristics could exist by themselves. Crazy stuff like that. Most people wouldn’t think those crazy things.
Also, if you deny the distinction between primary and secondary substance … such as, if you think there are only primary substances, you couldn’t say that there are multiple things of the same kind. For example, you couldn’t say that there are multiple horses, because that would imply that each of them is a “horse” (referring to its secondary substance) but if primary substance only exists then you have to call them completely different things.
Does that make sense? Those are
some of the crazy consequences if you deny these Aristotelian and Thomistic concepts. A lot of this is just common sense, but Aristotle (and his successors) merely systemized it and developed a consistent way to talk about this stuff. When you get into complicated debates, it is necessary to hash out distinctions of this level of detail.
