Philosophy: Is Aquinas Overrated?

[Ani_Ibi]

For Aquinas, when we receive Sanctifying Grace we are not merely being uplifted within our own nature, we are actually sharing in God directly; our nature remains human, but is modified by a Divine addition, and Divine powers actually become part of our soul (the theological virtue of Charity, for example, is literally a share in the Divine Love according to Aquinas; we no longer love with the power of human nature, we love with the power of the Divine Nature as humans).

This is a breathtaking insight.

 

[Feanaro]

**To answer the original question, no way!

I’m only starting to dabble in philosophy (introduced to it by listening to Peter Kreeft) and from what I can tell I would have to say Aquinas is the best philosopher who ever lived IMHO.**

 

[Ghosty]

This is a breathtaking insight.

I just wish it was my own!

As you read Aquinas, you’ll find this stuff left and right in his writings. It’s practically the foundation of his entire system of what “being” is. What I find most sadly ironic is that many polemical Eastern Orthodox theologians will bring up the West’s general lack of appreciation regarding Divine participation, and will implicate St. Thomas Aquinas! Just read his writings in the Summa on Grace, on the theological virtues, and on the being of creatures and you’ll see that this was foundational to Aquinas specifically, and why it became so critical for Dominican theology.

A small excerpt from his writing on the virtue of Charity:

Therefore it is most necessary that, for us to perform the act of charity, there should be in us some habitual form superadded to the natural power, inclining that power to the act of charity, and causing it to act with ease and pleasure.

Reply to Objection 1. The Divine Essence Itself is charity, even as It is wisdom and goodness. Wherefore just as we are said to be good with the goodness which is God, and wise with the wisdom which is God (since the goodness whereby we are formally good is a participation of Divine goodness, and the wisdom whereby we are formally wise, is a share of Divine wisdom), so too, the charity whereby formally we love our neighbor is a participation of Divine charity.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Greg27]

In my view Aquinas is a very great Philosopher and Doctor of the Church, and his exemplerary creativity when it came to using philosophy and theology together to understand God, ourselves and the world is admirable. But, we should not forget there are other great Doctors and Philosophers in the Church such as St Augustine, St Gregory of Nyssa, and many others who up until now have used Philosophy positively to understand God.

 

[cpayne]

Aquinas simply isn’t altogether relevant to many of the non-Latin traditions, not because he is wrong, but because he’s entrenched in a theological framework that is peculiarily Latin. Most traditions have their own way of asking questions, and of approaching the mysteries of God; some are quite compatible with Aquinas, others aren’t. This is true, in fact, even within the Latin context; Franciscan spirituality, for example, really doesn’t owe much to Aquinas’ approach, and wouldn’t depend much on him.

Ironically the mystical elements of the Latin tradition, especially the Carmelites, owe a lot to Aquinas’ theology. His strong emphasis on Realism, and therefore on REAL participation in Divinity for a very solid basis for the mystical experiences of prayer and the Sacraments. For Aquinas, when we receive Sanctifying Grace we are not merely being uplifted within our own nature, we are actually sharing in God directly; our nature remains human, but is modified by a Divine addition, and Divine powers actually become part of our soul (the theological virtue of Charity, for example, is literally a share in the Divine Love according to Aquinas; we no longer love with the power of human nature, we love with the power of the Divine Nature as humans). This emphasis had a profound impact on the writings of Latin mystics like St. John of the Cross, who was unapologetically Thomistic (in the broad, non-Banezian sense) in his theology.

Peace and God bless!

There’s a short but good book called *The Aquinas Prescription *by Gerald Vann which argues this point in a similar way—he thinks this sort of understanding of Thomism could lead to a closer communion between Catholic and Orthodox Christians. Just ignore the Oprah-esque title; the book itself is pretty solid.

 

[Ghosty]

There’s a short but good book called *The Aquinas Prescription *by Gerald Vann which argues this point in a similar way—he thinks this sort of understanding of Thomism could lead to a closer communion between Catholic and Orthodox Christians. Just ignore the Oprah-esque title; the book itself is pretty solid.

I definitely agree that a better understanding of true Thomism could go a long way towards reconciliation between Orthodox and Catholics (or in developing deeper understandings between East and West in general, even within the Catholic Communion).

I myself practice mainly in the Melkite Church, but have a profound appreciation of the Dominican tradition in general, and St. Thomas Aquinas in particular. I think his approach is largely misunderstood outside of the Latin tradition, and perhaps even within it in certain quarters. My dream conversation would be St. Thomas Aquinas (West) and St. Gregory Palamas (East), the two greatest defenders of “Realist” theology and real participation in Divinity.

Peace and God bless!

 

[richardwy]

Slowly making my way through The Summa of The Summa and rereading The Dumb Ox.

Overrated? NOT!!

 

[Anonymous_38bd6e522241f447828936aad53f0c4c]

Aquinas seems to be overrated by quite a few folks that I’ve met or read. Take his theory of knowledge, for instance. He posits (along with Aristotle) the existence of an agent intellect and says that it has the power to abstract universal natures from physical objects. Of course Thomas Aquinas had never directly perceived an agent intellect, nor has anyone else for that matter. Aquinas’ theory of knowledge is just that, a theory. There are other theories out there; Augustine’s divine illumination, Plato’s participation in the eternal forms, and Kant’s transcendental deduction of the synthetic a priori. To my knowledge (no pun intended), no theory of knowledge has ever answered every attack leveled against it and Aquinas’ theory is no exception. It bothers me a bit when I’m practically accused of heresy for suggesting to a thomist that there may be some problems with Thomas’ theory. I really don’t have a lot of problems with Thomas, just with some thomists who feel all they have to do is memorize the master’s arguments and never really think for themselves.

 

[cpayne]

I really don’t have a lot of problems with Thomas, just with some thomists who feel all they have to do is memorize the master’s arguments and never really think for themselves.

Just a second. I’m going to find what Aquinas would say to this before I respond.

Seriously, though, given the theories of knowledge you mentioned (Augustine, Plato, Kant), I do think Aquinas’s modified Aristotelian empiricism is the best option.

 

[CapIV]

this thread is ridiculous.

 

[cpayne]

this thread is ridiculous.

One thing we learn quickly from Aquinas is that assertions without undergirding arguments do not accomplish much.

 

[CapIV]

Is Aristotle overrated?

Discuss.

Is Plato overrated?

Discuss.

Is Catholicism overrated?

Discuss.

I repeat, this thread is ridiculous.

 

[cpayne]

The point of the thread is found in Post # 12. A rather interesting discussion after that, don’t you think?

 

[cpayne]

By the way, “Is Aristotle overrated?” and “Is Plato overrated?” are not inherently ridiculous questions. However, they would probably not be as interesting to Catholics as “Is Aquinas overrated?”—which is also not an inherently ridiculous question.

 

[Hastrman]

By the way, “Is Aristotle overrated?” and “Is Plato overrated?” are not inherently ridiculous questions. However, they would probably not be as interesting to Catholics as “Is Aquinas overrated?”—which is also not an inherently ridiculous question.

No, not inherently ridiculous–it is not ridiculous to ask questions like “why have society” or “why bother having rationality at all, when one can simply feel or have faith or base everything on coin tosses.” It’s a similarly fundamental question (actually, it is the second question, since the alternative to Aquinas, in the western tradition, is either Plato/Augustine or some species of fideism, generally combined with broken-minded empiricism).

 

[richardwy]

The point of the thread is found in Post # 12. A rather interesting discussion after that, don’t you think?

Not knowed-up enough to add anything. And am reading the Summa to try to remedy my ignorance.

When it comes to important things, internet forums fail. Too much room for “Oh yeah! Well, so’s your old man!”

Not always, but so often.

 

[Truthstalker]

Not knowed-up enough to add anything. And am reading the Summa to try to remedy my ignorance.

When it comes to important things, internet forums fail. Too much room for “Oh yeah! Well, so’s your old man!”

Not always, but so often.

Oh yeah, well! So’s your old man.

Sorry but I could not resist…

I’ve abandoned Aquinas at the moment to focus on Augustine. Maybe we should discuss whether HE is overrated.