Differences between Aquinas and Aristotle

[Curious_Hobbit]

Can anyone explain the differences between Aristotle and Aquinas? Sometimes it seems hard to reconcile Aquinas’s thought with Aristotles. I read “St. Thomas on Politics and Ethics” edited by Paul E. Sigmund and in the book there are many essays by various writers. Harry Jaffa in an article titled “Thomism and Aristotelianism” basically asserts that St. Thomas differs from Aristotle on numerous accounts while claiming to interpret his thought. I won’t quote the whole essay but he basically says that Aquinas imputates Aristotle many non- aristotelian principles such as:

1. Belief in divine particular providence.
2. Belief that perfect happiness is impossible in this life
3. Belief in the necessity of personal immortality to the complete happiness intended, evidently, by nature
4. Belief in personal immortality
5. Belief in the special creation of individual souls
6. Belief in a divinely implanted “natural” habit of moral principles.

I enjoyed reading Aquinas very much! Can anyone refer me to any reading that can help me better understand Aquinas’s utilization of Aristotles philosophy? Also has anyone read G.K. Chesterton’s book on Aquinas? I am a big Chesterton fan and have not read them yet. Thank you for your responses!

 

[JohnDamian]

Most of the Major Scholastics, from Aquinas, Bonaventure, Scotus, Ockham, Abelard and Alexander of Hales utilised Aristotle to some degree or another, (Abelard really at the initial stages of the introduction to Aristotle into Medieval Christian thought).

I would start, if you are interested in scholasticism, by reading Aristotle (greek), and then in order reading the Major Scholastics – Abelard d1142, Alexander Hales d1245, Thomas Aquinas d1274, Duns Scotus d1308, William of Ockham 1348.

You will be able to trace the philosophical and theological ideas of Scholastic thought through eachothers commentaries (some very opposed, like Scotus and Ockham) passing through their works - all interspiced with the influx of Islamic and Ancient Greek thought.

It is a truly fascinating period

 

[LoyalViews]

Thomas Aquinas is a saint, and Aristotle is not
(But, Aristotle was an amazing philosopher)

 

[Curious_Hobbit]

I guess I just want to have an answer to the critics of St. Thomas and catholic philosophy. They call in to question the validity of his thought when they see that he claims to use Aristotelian principles, but clearly deviates from Aristotles thought in places.

Also once I heard atheist author Christopher Hitchens that St. Thomas Aquinas believed he was capable of levitation. Is this true? Can someone explain what Aquinas believes on this?

Another question, (more about the papacy) I know that St. Thomas said a soul doesn’t enter the a human until 40 days after conception. A VERY VERY anti-catholic philosophy professor at my unviersity said that the vatican agreed with Aquinas on this issue up until the late 19th century. I suppose he was calling into question the consistency of Catholic moral teaching, can anyone clear this up for me?

PLEASE comment if you can answer any of these things, as a catholic I am very fond of Aquinas and want to clear up some confusion I have

 

[grannymh]

I guess I just want to have an answer to the critics of St. Thomas and catholic philosophy. They call in to question the validity of his thought when they see that he claims to use Aristotelian principles, but clearly deviates from Aristotles thought in places.

Also once I heard atheist author Christopher Hitchens that St. Thomas Aquinas believed he was capable of levitation. Is this true? Can someone explain what Aquinas believes on this?

Another question, (more about the papacy) I know that St. Thomas said a soul doesn’t enter the a human until 40 days after conception. A VERY VERY anti-catholic philosophy professor at my unviersity said that the vatican agreed with Aquinas on this issue up until the late 19th century. I suppose he was calling into question the consistency of Catholic moral teaching, can anyone clear this up for me?

PLEASE comment if you can answer any of these things, as a catholic I am very fond of Aquinas and want to clear up some confusion I have

Do not know firsthand. However, I believe that a poster said that the 40 days referred to quickening in the womb which would not be in the Catholic realm of faith and morals. Thus, anyone could agree or disagree with that “scientific” time frame without it being part of official Catholic teaching. Does anyone know for sure?

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.

 

[Curious_Hobbit]

When you say “quickening”, do you mean the development of the baby over the 40 days? I don’t think I understand your answer. Aquinas said the soul doesn’t enter the body until 40 days after conception. I see this as a theological issue since it deals with the soul, not a scientific opinion. Please elaborate, I am very interested. Thanks!

 

[grannymh]

When you say “quickening”, do you mean the development of the baby over the 40 days? I don’t think I understand your answer. Aquinas said the soul doesn’t enter the body until 40 days after conception. I see this as a theological issue since it deals with the soul, not a scientific opinion. Please elaborate, I am very interested. Thanks!

I know Aquinas is on the web somewhere. Do you have a link?

Without ultrasound, the development of the baby was basically unknown for about 40 days. Thus, the only real sign of life, besides the shape of the mother, was the movement of the baby. Quickening is the very old term which means according to the dictionary “To reach the stage of pregnancy when the fetus can be felt to move.”

Even miscarriage which could occur before the 40 days would not be a sign of life. Am not sure if morning sickness would occur with a stillborn, but there are women who never experience morning sickness. Come to think of it, Thomas being male would not have much experience with feelings related to pregnancy. Reminds me of an old joke about alternating pregnancies.

The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God. In no way is it procreated by the parents. The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body. See Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraphs 362-368.

I am really doubting that Aquinas actually used a phrase similar to “soul entering the body.” I would like to understand the context. “Soul entering the body” sounds more like the dualism of Descartes. I am guessing that Aquinas would use language similar to --a human being is at once corporeal and spiritual. This would be the theological issue. What would be indefinite would be the point of union which would depend on natural science or whatever the scientific name is.

Again, I am guessing from the point of view of a mother of six. If only my memory bank would come forth with where I first heard the idea of quickening.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is sacred.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Can anyone explain the differences between Aristotle and Aquinas?

The thing that really distinguishes Aquinas from Aristotle is Aquinas’ teaching about esse and essence and the metaphysical difference between the two.

Aquinas does not deviate, but rather he takes “metaphysics” beyond Aristotle to it proper conclusions. Aquinas corrects and completes Aristotle.

 

[JohnDamian]

The thing that really distinguishes Aquinas from Aristotle is Aquinas’ teaching about esse and essence and the metaphysical difference between the two.

Aquinas does not deviate, but rather he takes “metaphysics” beyond Aristotle to it proper conclusions. Aquinas corrects and completes Aristotle.

We cannot fully say that Aquinas “Completes” Aristotle; for example Aquinas si est - quid est distinction appears to me to be unsatisfactory and contrary to the Liber de Causis by pseudo-Aristotle.

It is safer to say, that from the major re-introduction of Aristotle and the Greeks into Western thought around the early 13th centuary, we begin to see Aristotle used in works such as the Fransiscan (Alexander) Summa fratris Alexandri, which was then used by Aquinas as the base for his Summa Theologica where he expanded on many of the ideas of Aristotle; but in no way can it be said that he completed it.

 

[Bill670]

A very good explanation of the similarities and differences between Aristotle and Aquinas is found in (1) “Aristotle and Aquinas” by Joseph Owens, C.Ss.R.in The Cambridge Companion to Aquinas, edited by Norman Kretzmann and Eleeonore Stump; and (2), Charles A. Hart, Thomistic Metaphysics,pp. 86 thorugh 92.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

We cannot fully say that Aquinas “Completes” Aristotle; for example Aquinas si est - quid est distinction appears to me to be unsatisfactory and contrary to the Liber de Causis by pseudo-Aristotle.

I am do not understand the language that you are writing in, and i am sure that there are English words that you could have written in, but chose not for reasons unknown. Thus cannot really challenge your statement as false (a possible reason for your covert op).

I apologize however, as i did use “esse”, which probably prompted you to continue in the use of Latin or what ever it is.

However i will say that there is nothing false about the distinction between “existence”, as an act, and “essence”. The distinction follows necessarily from a correct rendering of metaphysical analysis.

Aquinas masters metaphysics and stays true to metaphysics even if he doesn’t stay true to the ideas of Aristotle. For example, One can create the scientific method, and yet misuse that method. If i was to come along and use that method correctly, and there by showing truths that would have otherwise been ignored, then i have justified the scientific method and transcended the thinking of my teacher. That i have mastered my teachers method beyond what my teacher could grasp, in no way means that i have gone beyond or left behind the scientific method. I have completed it in so far as i have stayed true to that method. The value of Metaphysics as a method is independent of the ideology or falsehoods of Aristotle, so long as metaphysics is remains a real means to true knowledge.

If you think that it isn’t a means to true knowledge then that is up to you to prove.

 

[JohnDamian]

However i will say that there is nothing false about the distinction between “existence”, as an act, and “essence”. The distinction follows necessarily from a correct rendering of metaphysical analysis.

Sorry for using the latin, I assumed and etc.

Aquinas believes that in finite beings there is a sensible distinction between that a thing is, and what a thing is; essentially he argues that We can conceive of what it is to be something, without conceiving it as existing.

To cite Aquinas from De Ente Et Essentia “But every essence or quiddity can be understood without understanding anything about its existence.”

This is absurd; to have any sensible conception of what or if exists; we must have a sensible conception of that which we know to exist.

This (the latter) view has been around since at least Proclus Elements of Theology, and pseudo-Aristotles Liber de Causis. So to say that Aquinas completed anything when he is incorrect on such a core point is absurd.

I do not deny that Aquinas was an extremely influential and respectable theologian, but to glorify him by saying that he completes Aristotle or any somesuch is absurd - whilst Aquinas additions to metaphysics were astounding; they are not the be all - nor the end all of theology, metaphysics; or even Scholasticism.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

This is absurd; to have any sensible conception of what or if exists; we must have a sensible conception of that which we know to exist.

This is an easy pit to fall in to. I Like to use the analogy of the mind when trying to explain Aquinas; this is the one i use in my book.
For example.** Ideas can exist**, but potential ideas do not exist independently from the actuality of the mind. Ideas exist in the mind and are real because of the mind; as in they exist through the existential act and sustenance of the mind or intellect. It would be absurd to identify ideas as being synonymous with the existential act of the mind, since if that were true there would be no such thing as a potential idea since all ideas would already exist without potential in the nature of the mind. That is to say that ideas would be identical with the existence of the mind. It is true that it is in the nature of the mind to have ideas, but as a “nature” a mind exists before ideas do, and ideas exist through the actuality of a mind thinking. Thus in this very real sense, ideas and minds are necessarily distinct in nature.

It is the same with existence and essence. To begin with, out of absolutely nothing comes nothing, therefore potentiality is necessarily an expression of reality. That is to say that all potentiality must proceed from something that is always and already actual if it is to have the possibility of existence. Potential Essences exist, but they exist only in virtue of there being such a thing as “existence”. It would be absurd to say that things potentially exist in absolutely nothing. It would be equally absurd to identify a potential essence with existence, because then all things that we know as potential would never have not existed since their nature is intrinsically identical with the fact that they exist and thus could not fail to exist. But it is evidently not in their nature as potential beings to exist (that is not to say that there is no possibility of their existence), despite it being in their nature to be round or square or having a particular smell or colour. Yet it is obvious that there is a real difference between a real apple and an imaginary apple or an apple that is no longer real. The difference is, one has an act of reality, the other does not. In other words, reality has been given to something which did not have in its nature the act of reality. It did not have a nature or an act; since it was not real before it existed; and thus, in its actuality, it necessarily recieves something that does not intrinsically belong to it. Thus “act” is a real distinct thing existing independently from the possibility of any potential being. Potential beings have no reality of their own and only exist because they participate in the existential act of “ultimate reality”. Thus there is a being whose essence is identical to its existence.

 

[JohnDamian]

I don’t know of anything that is not essentially predicated by being - this being being the univocal expression of its existence - towit; essence is not conceivable without.

Nonetheless; as things are conceived by their essences; such a distinction is unnessecary for to know that it is and what it is is identical – therein; existence is indistinguishable from essence.

Furthermore; even an object of the mind is predicated by being; otherwise such a thing would not be conceived or indeed conceivable; and thus; both finite and infinite beings existence is indistinct from their essence.

This is where I disagree with Aquinas; he states that this is only the case in infinite beings; not finite ones.

The act or manifestation of their existence from potential to actual is irrelevant in the predication of being as univocally intrinsic to all objects; both those in mind and fact - therein; to draw a distinction; particularily such an arbitrary one with regards to the finitude of a thing is absurd.

Therefore; an object of the mind is conceived; but in such a conception it is nessicary that the conceiver conceives that the conceived is predicated upon existence; even if this existence is latterly deemed potential or irrelevant; for such a conception of any object that is not existing and cannot exist is absurd; whilst an object that is not existing but could exist is sensible.

It is impossible to formulate an object of the mind that is impossible to exist – it is certainly possible to formulate an object which occurs through implausible means; but nessecarily all formulations of the mind are predicated by the being of their form; or essence. Unless of course you can give me an example of something which is not formally and primarily predicated by being.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I don’t know of anything that is not essentially predicated by being - this being being the univocal expression of its existence - towit; essence is not conceivable without.

Nothing is possible without a primary reality that is reality and is the giver of reality. It is brutally evident that there is such a thing as potential possibilities. In order for there to be possibilities that become real, there has to be a reality in which possible beings can participate, since possibilities have no reality of there own. There has to be that which necessarily exists, and that which necessarily exist does so because it is in its nature to do so.

Nonetheless; as things are conceived by their essences; such a distinction is unnessecary for to know that it is and what it is is identical – therein; existence is indistinguishable from essence.

This is obviously false since it is contrary to logic. In the context of potentiality; we know of a things existence in respect of the fact that it exists, but it is evidently impossible for it to be identical to existence for the reason i gave in my previous post. This is proven by the very fact of potentiality. And you have given no reason why i should conclude otherwise, accept make assertions. That it is unnecessary for you to conceive of something as distinct in order to know something is not evidence in itself that there is no such distinction.

Furthermore; even an object of the mind is predicated by being; otherwise such a thing would not be conceived or indeed conceivable; and thus; both finite and infinite beings existence is indistinct from their essence.

This is a fallacy again. Just because a thing is inconceivable with out actuality is not evidence that the two are synonymous. In fact it is logically impossible for the two to be identical for the reasons given in my previous post. Perhaps you should read it again as i have made some edits that you might have missed.

This is where I disagree with Aquinas; he states that this is only the case in infinite beings; not finite ones.

You have no good reason to disagree other than to say that it appears as if the two were the same and thus therefore the two are the same. You have not shown why any of the logical arguments i have given in favor of such a distinction are false accept to say that you cannot imagine something. This is what your arguments amount to. But imagination is not the measure of logic or being.

The act or manifestation of their existence from potential to actual is irrelevant

It is not irrelevant, and your attempt here to ignore the relevance of it shows that you are not really being objective. Its like a B-theorist saying there is no such thing as time because it does not bind well with the idea of a 4 dimensional block universe in which all time and space exist at once.

in the predication of being as univocally intrinsic to all objects; both those in mind and fact - therein; to draw a distinction; particularly such an arbitrary one with regards to the finitude of a thing is absurd.

It is not intrinsic to the nature of all objects as i have made evident, and is evident to all of us who has eyes. Rather, an essence must exist first in order for us to know about it. We “know” it through its existence. That is not the same as saying that an object is existence, since the context in which you are making the argument is purely an epistemological consideration and has little to nothing to do with the ontological nature of beings accept to say that we see that things exist and cease to exist. There is a difference. A rose does not exist as a rose because it is a rose; rather, the rational approach would be to say, a rose exists because the possible essence that we understand to be rose has received reality. To say that we know of reality through the essences of things does not address nor disprove Aquinas argument.

Note, that nobody is claiming that an essence exists before it exists, but rather, a potential essence cannot exist if there is no such thing as existence. There has to be such a thing as necessary reality before we can speak meaningfully and rationally about potentiality. The potentiality of beings makes no logical sense without the esse/essence distinction

 

[MindOverMatter2]

whilst an object that is not existing but could exist is sensible.

An object that could exist but does not exist does not have “existence”; it has no act. Yet we can certainly conceive of things potentially existing (as in they are pending existence in virtue of somethings act), and thus we can validly perceive the actuality of a thing as receiving something that it did not have before when it was only a potential possibility. There is nothing invalid about that. The fact that a possible thing requires existence in order to be a real sensible object in no way validates the idea that the two are identical in the event that a potential being becomes actual. Instead what it shows is that in order for a possible tree to be a real tree, reality must create it, and once it is created it is participating in something that it was not before. When it exists it evidently has something that is not intrinsic to its nature; it has an act. If existence was intrinsic to its nature it would never not exist, because existence would then be its nature; which it evidently is not. It isn’t the giver of its own reality since at one time it was evidently not a reality. Given the fact that a thing potentially exists, but does not and cannot exist unless it is actualized by something that has existence, is in-itself proof of my position. Otherwise there would be no difference between things that exist and things that don’t exist. Which means a thing could be and not be at the same time, since there is no fundamental difference between nothing and something. Your position on the nature of existence undermines logic. In fact it it savagely rips it apart.

However; there is nothing illogical about the idea of something participating in something else’ existence. In other-words, there is nothing irrational about the idea of a potential being requiring the reality of another being in-order to be real. It just means that all potential beings, in so far as the possibility of them being actual, require a necessary reality in-order to be real and remain real, since by themselves they have no possibility of reality; since a potential nature is not real in virtue of its possible existence; rather it is possibly real in virtue of that which is real.

It is impossible to formulate an object of the mind that is impossible to exist

I never argued that one could imagine a thing that is impossible to exist. I said ideas cannot possibly exist without the “existence” of the mind, in so far as ideas are an expression of the minds imagination. Ideas to not exist in virtue of themselves or because of something intrinsic to their nature.

You obviously have not read my argument properly.

I guess, those who want to learn will learn. You cannot fill a cup that is already full of itself.

 

[Hesychios]

It does not matter at all if Aquinas does not agree with Aristotle. He used the man’s logic, but should not depend upon him for facts.

First of all, Aquinas was teaching religion, he (and the church) cannot use philosophy as a source for beliefs, he can only use it as a tool to form opinions about things.

If there is ever a conflict between the revealed Truth and some philosophy, the philosophy has to be discarded. I think that Aquinas borrowed from neo-Platonic thought (itself quite a mix) a bit too. His work is a synthesis.

Secondly, philosophy is in a constant state of transition. Students take what they learn and make what they think is more accurate or reflective of truth, discarding whatever is necessary from their predecessors and teachers. Aristotle was a seminal thinker but he wasn’t God, his own students diverged from him and within a short time he was nearly forgotten (to be revived some time later).

Aristotle systematized philosophy for future generations, which is useful. It’s next to impossible to escape the influence of his thinking now. But the Faith is actually full of paradox we have to live with, the revealed religion does not strictly conform to human logic nor can it borrow ideas without great risk to it’s integrity.