Some Summa for the Summer Time

  • Thread starter Thread starter squirt
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

squirt

Guest
Interested in playing around with weird ideas?

How about talking about one of the great works of the Angelic Doctor and looking at what does and doesn’t make sense to you in it?

Summa Contra Gentiles

I thought that maybe we could gradually work through it on an amateur level, although any professional philosophers out there would be very welcome.
 
The whole work or just particular passages?

Sounds fun…you start.
 
Squirt,

I caught up with you, but I agree with “Ham1”. I’ll let someone else start. 🙂 I’ll probably do more “lurking” on this one than anything, though. 😉
 
Hi Ham1,

I’ve been thinking of reading through the whole thing myself. I’ve only ever read bits and pieces before. I doubt that anybody will want to discuss the whole thing, though. 😛

I’m planning on delving into it a bit on the weekend … so I’ll try to post something with substance (and accident? 😃 ) early next week.

Hi Fr Frank,

If I say anything really stupid, I hope the more learned lurkers will jump in and point it out.

À bientôt,
squirt
 
Squirt,

You know I’m doing course work this summer so can’t commit to the Summa just now. If you were to compromise a bit and look at the good Doctor’s hymns, now, I could justify that in context of one of my classes… 😛
 
Sounds like a great idea. 👍

I just started an attempt to go through the whole Summa. Seems like a daunting task when one’s doing it alone. It’s been about 2 months and I’m on Question 33. :o
 
Hmmmm. I’ll bite 😉 as a recently declared Philosophy major who will be taking a Thomistic course this fall, might as well get some pre-course reading in!!

After superficially browsing the various section titles (how about that “That there is no Lightmindedness in assenting to Truths of Faith, although they are above Reason” title?? Whoo-hoo!) I paused on “That God Knows Individual Things”. Hmmm… click, what’s behind door number 1.65??

It’s a brief section, but it goes deeper than you might think at first glance. I think it’s classic Thomas (from what little experience I have with him). Excerpt:
nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/gc1_65.htm

GOD knows things in so far as He is the cause of them. But the substantial effects of divine causation are individual things, universals not being substantial things, but having being only in individuals.

…
  1. The divine mind, unlike ours, does not gather its knowledge from things, but rather by its knowledge is the cause of things; and thus its knowledge of things is a practical knowledge. But practical knowledge is not perfect unless it descends to individual cases: for the end of practical knowledge is work, which is done on individuals.
Click to expand...
“…by its knowledge is the cause of things” - wow, now *that *is an angle of Thomas’ “First Cause” concept that I never considered before… By God’s very “knowledge” does everything come into being. And, on top of that, God’s knowledge has to result in action of some sort, for “practical knowledge is not perfect unless it descends to individual cases: for the end of practical knowledge is work”. Hot potato! (Note that an “action” as described here does not necessarily mean physical action, but rather an effect of some sort, which could be either physical or mental/non-physical…)

Next noteworthy point – God’s knowledge is due to His “one simple intuition”, whereas our knowledge, as creatures, comes about by our use of “understanding, imagination and sense” (well, he’s partly right–for *some *of us, our knoweldge comes about because of those things, but I’m sure we all can think of people who obviously don’t use all of their “various faculties”! 😉 )

“Universals” [hey, there’s Plato’s “forms” for all you closet Platonists out there!!] have “being only in individuals”. Therefore, God’s knowledge by its nature must be manifest in individual cases (ie, in us as individual beings!). You can think of “humanity” as a universal, but the particular human being sitting at the computer reading this is a participation in this universal–the universal itself only has “being” (existence) because of the existence of the individuals that make up the universal… whew.

…continued below…
 
The logical conclusion of God’s all-encompassing knowledge is therefore individually-knowable effects, and these effects (as inseparable from his knowing) are therefore His very essence as the “First Cause.” As Thomas puts it:
  1. Since God’s cognitive act is His essence, He must know all that is in any way in His essence; and as this essence is the first and universal principle of being and the prime origin of all, it virtually contains in itself all things that in any way whatsoever have being.
Click to expand...
So – there we have it, in one short section Thomas manages to succinctly lay out a substantial thesis on the nature of God! Not bad… 🙂

Any other thoughts on this section? Anyone disagree with anything either I or the Angelic Doctor have written?

+veritas+
 
Veritas,

Fun post—and I believe I actually understood it!

I have a question to ask of you, though it is off-topic: you mentioned being a philosophy major, and I see that you are in St. Paul. May I ask where you are going to college? St. Thomas? If St. Thomas, what do you know of their philosophy/theology department? Is it orthodox? I ask because there is a chance that I may have the opportunity to attend (a chance of a chance, so to speak).
 
Hi Veritas,

Thanks for starting things off! I’m just starting from the beginning today … so I’ll try to get back to what you’re saying about that section once I get there.
 
Sherlock -

Yes, I am a junior at the University of St. Thomas, as a double major in Philosophy and Catholic Studies.

UST’s Catholic Studies department is very orthodox and true to Church teachings and practices. We have our own department house, with our own small chapel with the Blessed Sacrament reserved (Adoration also numerous times during the week during the school year) and there are many great priests who come to celebrate Mass there during the week. I love the Catholic Studies program!! It focuses on all aspects of Catholicism, philosophy, theology, history, art, literature, etc etc… And the profs are excellent! There is also a Catholic Studies Masters program offered that I would highly recommend to anyone looking to go back to school. Also–on top of everything–they have an awesome Rome study-abroad program, where you live in Rome just across the Tiber from St. Peter’s, and take classes at the Angelicum (Pontifical Univeristy of St. Thomas Aquinas), of which our Holy Father is also an alumni from 😉

The Philosophy department is also very orthodox, with many many practicing and committed Catholics on the faculty–including quite a few young converts to Catholicism. There are many close ties between the Philosophy and Catholic Studies departments, therefore there are also quite a few of us who are double-majors in both departments. 🙂

UST’s Theology department, on the other hand, suffers from a general sense of relativisim, and there are many modernists, both Christian and non-Christian, on the faculty. This does not mean that there are not wonderful (fabulous actually!) profs there who, whether Catholic or not, are committed to learning and teaching the truths that God has revealed to us! There are more than a few Theology profs who I would not hesitate to recommend.

However, it became clear to me very quickly that the Philosophy/Catholic Studies majors were going to be of far more use to me both spiritually and academically than the Theology/Catholic Studies route (after all, you need to understand Philosophy in order to truly be able to study Theology :)).

The University as a whole is still suffering from post-Vatican II shenanigans… but it is definitely turning around for the better, and the orthodox Catholics (who are becoming a larger and larger presence on campus, due to the Catholic Studies program!) are not “persecuted” in any way… while the University is not a perfect Catholic school, in many ways I prefer it this way–good “real-world” experience 😉

E-mail me or PM me privately if you want more info or anything!!

+veritas+
 
Veritas,

Thank you so much for that information! I am relieved and pleased to learn that orthodoxy is alive and well at St. Thomas. I will probably take you up on your offer and e-mail you privately with more questions should my “chance of a chance” of attending become less…chancy.

I was just recently there on campus attending the American Chesterton Society conference. Have you gone to that annual event?
 
Hey Veritas,

Glad to hear of some good things happening at UST. I wish they had a better music dept. so my 2nd born dottir would have wanted to attend there in stead of St. Olaf’s! But she has found her little niche there and they get their fellowship and nourishment from St. Paul Outreach.

Anyway, St. Tom is quoted by you as saying:

GOD knows things in so far as He is the cause of them. But the substantial effects of divine causation are individual things, universals not being substantial things, but having being only in individuals…

and you said:

*“Universals” [hey, there’s Plato’s “forms” for all you closet Platonists out there!!] have “being only in individuals”. Therefore, God’s knowledge by its nature must be manifest in individual cases (ie, in us as individual beings!). *

I take it then that St. Tom does not believe in Plato’s forms? IOW, a universal is just an abstraction of a given characteristic (say, roundness) which only exists in concrete form in individual cases (say, an orange)?

Cordially,

Ferd from Nordakotah
 
Starting at the very beginning (it’s a very good place to start … at least in the Sound of Music …)

I’m starting at the beginning of SCG … here’s what struck me in sections 1.3 to 1.15, 1.1 and 1.2 being your standard introductory, motivation for the work to be read kind of stuff.

In the following, stuff in parentheses is probably not found directly in SCG, but just in my little brain.

1.3
(1) Some aspects of God are intellibilbe via human reason, some aren’t. We can deduce a First Cause, and can gain some limited insight of attributes that must be necessarily attribute to a first cause. (For example, a First Cause cannot have an existence that commences after its effects commence.)

(2) Our understanding of the world and God commences with our senses. We cannot investigate all points of intelligibility of God via our senses. There are some things that can only be known via revelation (ex. Trinity). (And some things that cannot be known at all??? … not stated explicitly, or maybe it is and I missed it … definitely seems to be implicit)

1.4
If God could only be known via reason, lots of people would be up the creek because not everybody has the time or inclination to think deeply for decades to come to know a lot about God in this way … and those who do think for decades may make a wrong assumption or conclusion somewhere along the line and end up way off base.

1.5
Some say that if you can’t know it via Reason, you shouldn’t believe it. Well, this assumes that everything knowable is knowable via reason. Well, if God exists and there are truths about him that are knowable in other ways, then it is good to know of these things, even if they are not fully understood by us. (Heck, if God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, what would stop him from being able to impart knowledge via revelation, for example.)

1.7
Truths of faith and reason can’t contradict us. (God isn’t a trickster in his revelations, as considered a possibility in the ponderings of Descartes. And the Double Mind stance of Siger de Brabant is bovina dejecta)

1.8
Knowledge via reason from effect to cause does not allow us to know the substance of God, but only an imperfect view of His essence.

1.9
God is one simple Truth, but our cognitive abilities will not obtain that truth. Reason will allow us to learn something, but not all, about God.

(to be continued … 345 characters over the limit!!!)
 
1.10-1.11
God is not self-evident. We can come to know His existence via His effects. Here he looks at Anselm’s views, teleological views, etc and criticizes them

1.12
Looks at things from another angle. Can God’s existence and some of his characteristics be proven? Or are these confined to be only tenets of faith? Aquinas says they can be proven.

1.13
Aquinas shows his Aristotelian colours. He ain’t no Platonist. Standard proof from motion.

1.14
What can we learn about God’s nature from the proof from motion? Aquinas sets out his methodology: negative differentiation. We can’t know what God is, but we can know what God is not … and thereby we can refine our understanding of what/who God is. All understanding via this method will be imperfect, but will still impart true knowledge.

1.15
First example about what we can know from this method. God is Eternal. (Well, that’s enough for today for me … I was going to outline what he has to say about this, but nah … I don’t think I will today.)
 
Hey Veritas,

More musings:

You said:

*"…by its knowledge is the cause of things" - wow, now that is an angle of Thomas’ “First Cause” concept that I never considered before… By God’s very “knowledge” does everything come into being. And, on top of that, God’s knowledge has to result in action of some sort, for “practical knowledge is not perfect unless it descends to individual cases: for the end of practical knowledge is work”. *

So if God conceives or thinks of whatever, that whatever becomes real or actual? What are we then to make of God’s omniscience then? Esp. WRT the future. From our POV as creatures existing in space-time, we think of the past as being a done deal (actual), and the present is now (the experience of future potential becoming actual) and the future as pure potentiality. But apparently St. Tom thinks it is different for God. If we say that God knows the future as well as the past, then the future, for God has already happened. It has already become actual and concrete. This is a great puzzle for me.

Cordially,

Ferd
 
I don’t know if I can take all this Thomistic thinking in one sitting. I’ll have to re-read the whole thread each time just to get my bearings.

“Universals,” which I would call abstractions, have being only in individuals. So the human intellect, by virtue of having something in common with God, (created in His image?) is able to abstract from the individual to the universal. But God doesn’t need universals, because he not only knows but causes all individuals.

Ferd said: “If we say that God knows the future as well as the past, then the future, for God has already happened. It has already become actual and concrete. This is a great puzzle for me.” In some respects physics also views the future has having already “happened,” in the sense that the totality of space-time can be divided into slices, no one of which is preferred over the other. (However, observers who are accelerating relative to each other will divide the space-time loaf at different angles, so what is past from one standpoint will be future from the other.) OK, that’s not Thomistic, just wanted to get it in.

Squirt, that’s an impressive summary you did. Maybe you should be teaching Thomism.

JimG
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top