So what is exactly Outmoded in Aristotle or Aquinas?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheAtheist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TheAtheist

Guest
Someone else on these forums stated in a debate regarding current physics something to the effect that Aquinas (and the Aristotlean tradition) ideas regarding causality, motion, contingency, and teleology were outdated in light of modern quantum physics.

That got my curiousity piqued: But i’ve come to ask a different question-

For modern day Thomists, what exactly would you say is outdated/outmoded in terms of traditional Thomistic philosophy?
 
Well, at the very least one must acknowledge that his understanding of human biology particularly as it pertain to human reproduction is outmoded. His belief that heretics should be cooked to death is no longer endorsed by the church. It’s been a long time since I’ve read the ST and I’ve forgotten most of it.
 
:BUMP:

Well i was looking more for an internal perspective. After all, Thomas Aquinas’ philosophy is one of the 2 bulwarks of Catholic Theology and philosophy.

It would be nice to know what they would consider to be no longer valid given the shift in methodology and advances in the natural sciences.
 
Well, I don’t know much about their philosophies. I have read a little of both and they both depend on the empedoclean metaphysics of four elements.

I have been exploring an updated version based on what might be called five states of matter. See my webpage:

www.theosopher.com
 
Definitely the biology is outmoded (although it’s recently been used by nominally Catholic writers to try to justify abortion, stem cell research, etc.).

On the ontology, teleology, and so on: Some recent writers have some really interesting ideas on how Thomistic concepts of teleology (intrinsic ends) and substance (what makes something what it is) relate to quantum physics.

Whether they are right or not, I don’t know. But, for example, Simon Oliver has an argument that we need to re-consider “substance” as an explanation for how quantum particles become corporeal phenomena with observable and predictable behaviors. Other philosophers are arguing similarly.
 
Here’s another way to say the same thing as my previous post: Thomas argued for four types of causation of natural phenomena. Modern science has reduced this to two (material and efficient causation). Some philosophers are arguing now that explanations of the natural world still require the other two (formal and final causation). Formal causation equals substance; final causation equals teleology.

EXAMPLE: why does blood clot? A scientist might give a description of the material and efficient mechanism. Then you ask, But WHY does it behave that way? A biologist will say, Natural selection–it has survival value. Then you ask, But why is survival value a good? Unless the scientist admits final causation, he or she would just have to say, Because it is. Which isn’t really a scientific answer, or really any kind of answer at all.
 
Me again, once more. A lot scientists hate discussing formal and final causation because they would rather admit ANYTHING than admit what appears quite obvious: that the natural world appears to have ends and purposes.

Once you admit that, you fall right into Aquinas’s fifth argument for God.
 
cpayne said:
Here’s another way to say the same thing as my previous post: Thomas argued for four types of causation of natural phenomena. Modern science has reduced this to two (material and efficient causation). Some philosophers are arguing now that explanations of the natural world still require the other two (formal and final causation). Formal causation equals substance; final causation equals teleology.

EXAMPLE: why does blood clot? A scientist might give a description of the material and efficient mechanism. Then you ask, But WHY does it behave that way? A biologist will say, Natural selection–it has survival value. Then you ask, But why is survival value a good? Unless the scientist admits final causation, he or she would just have to say, Because it is. Which isn’t really a scientific answer, or really any kind of answer at all.
Click to expand...
Right. Most biologists are inbued with the idea of" progress" --science for th sake of science because it leads to a “good” society. Define good. That’s not a scientific question.
 
When people in keeping with the Catholic intellectual tradition say that some of the things that Aristotle and St. Thomas taught are “outmoded” in light of modern science, they primarily refer to their understanding of the natural sciences a.k.a. “natural philosophy”. You have to keep in mind that they were writting even before Newton and a basic understanding of the laws of gravity, so their scienfic understanding of such things is lacking, and sometimes they use false assumptions in other conclusions regarding the natural world. Astronomy is other area that great strides in modern science have proven the ancient notion of the spheres as incorrect.

Perhaps it is all the more impressive that their understanding of “philosophy” (what we mean by philosophy today as opposed to physical sciences) was relatively untouched by their lack of understanding. Thomism and Aristoteleanism on the whole have certainly not been disproven by modern science. If anything, they have withstood the test of time remarkably well.
 
*For modern day Thomists, what exactly would you say is outdated/outmoded in terms of traditional Thomistic philosophy? *

I think they are outmoded for the reasons given by others here, but mostly because they focused on a metaphysical approach to reality. Metaphysics seems to be out as a typical interest of intellectuals today. Yet, interestingly, Aquinas’ proofs for the existence of God, at least the cosmological and the teleological proofs, have earned considerably more respect than they had a hundred years ago just as a result of scientific discoveries that have tended to support those proofs.

If the world ever returns to a dominantly and seriously religious and metaphysical outlook (which is certainly possible) I have no doubt that Aquinas will become once again a giant of the age.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top