G
Geremia
Guest
To what extent did the corpus cæleste (immutable heavenly body) and corpora inferiora (mutable earthly body) distinction, derived from Aristotle’s data-deficient astronomy, permeate St. Thomas Aquinas’s theology and philosophy? St. Thomas admits in lect. 7* De Caelo,*, nn. 5-6 that with further observation of the heavens, one may be able to determine that they are corruptible. But why does, e.g., Summa Contra Gentiles III, 24, appear to require the distinction?
[Also, this footnote of the http://www.thomist.org/jour/2004/July/2004%20July%20A%20Dec.htm”]Decaen article on aether and contemporary science mentions many interesting passages of *De Caelo *(other footnotes mention more; I would definitely read the whole Decaen article; it is well worth it). My emphasis:7. Emphasizing the dialectical character of these arguments for aether, St. Thomas notes that although all the evidence suggests that the heavenly bodies and their motions are incorruptible, it remains a possibility that we have not observed them long enough ( lect. 7* De Caelo,*, nn. 5-6). Aristotle himself does not try to show that the Earth is immobile at the center of the universe until 2.13De Caelo,-14, and St. Thomas points out that until this issue is settled it is possible that the Earth, not the heavens, is moving ( lect. 11* De Caelo,*, n. 2). While Aristotle could not be accused of circular reasoning here, since the later arguments against the Earth’s mobility do not appear to rest on the assumption that the heaven is a different kind of matter, nevertheless these arguments are not demonstrative.]]
Thanks
Although he masterfully argues that divination by the stars is unlawful (i.e., astrology, occultism, etc.), why, even in that linked Summa article, does St. Thomas keep maintaining that there is a “causality of heavenly bodies” where heavenly bodies influence earthly ones? Is this what he means?
[Also, this footnote of the http://www.thomist.org/jour/2004/July/2004%20July%20A%20Dec.htm”]Decaen article on aether and contemporary science mentions many interesting passages of *De Caelo *(other footnotes mention more; I would definitely read the whole Decaen article; it is well worth it). My emphasis:7. Emphasizing the dialectical character of these arguments for aether, St. Thomas notes that although all the evidence suggests that the heavenly bodies and their motions are incorruptible, it remains a possibility that we have not observed them long enough ( lect. 7* De Caelo,*, nn. 5-6). Aristotle himself does not try to show that the Earth is immobile at the center of the universe until 2.13De Caelo,-14, and St. Thomas points out that until this issue is settled it is possible that the Earth, not the heavens, is moving ( lect. 11* De Caelo,*, n. 2). While Aristotle could not be accused of circular reasoning here, since the later arguments against the Earth’s mobility do not appear to rest on the assumption that the heaven is a different kind of matter, nevertheless these arguments are not demonstrative.]]
Thanks