St. Thomas Aquinas and the autonomy of Philosophy

[SaintNobody]

I wanted to read up on Aquinas’ views on the relationship of philosophy and religion. I was having a conversation with a poster who seemed to suggest that Aquinas did not believe in the autonomy of philosophy, i.e. that philosophy is not reliant on theology. It seems to me that Aquinas believed that philosophy was completely distinct from theology, and that it did not need theology to guide it, e.g. you didn’t have to take a cue from faith to know what is philosophically true, reason by itself will lead you to the right conclusion.

Does anyone know where I could find his views on such things? The Summa didn’t really give me what I wanted.

 

[tafan]

I believe you are wrong, at least in the way you word it, ie
“you didn’t have to take a cue from faith to know what is philosophically true”. He states quite clearly: “Hence it was necessary for the salvation of man that certain truths which exceed human reason should be made known to him by divine revelation.”

newadvent.org/summa/1001.htm

 

[SaintNobody]

“Hence it was necessary for the salvation of man that certain truths which exceed human reason should be made known to him by divine revelation.”

Those things that exceed human reason are not in the realm of philosophy.

I just wanted to know Aquinas’ beliefs about the autonomy of philosophy.

 

[tafan]

I thought about this a little bit more and am confused about your question. You use the term “philosophically true”, which I am not for sure of the definition. You seem to imply that philosophically true is defined as independant of theology. This would be a strange definition even today, but certainly in Aquinas’ time.

Would Aquinas had agreed there were truths that could be known independant of religion? most definitely. But he would not have thought those truths were adequate.

 

[Touchstone]

“Hence it was necessary for the salvation of man that certain truths which exceed human reason should be made known to him by divine revelation.”

Those things that exceed human reason are not in the realm of philosophy.

I just wanted to know Aquinas’ beliefs about the autonomy of philosophy.

The key question here is the epistemic hierarchy. That’s where the dependencies obtain, in Aquinas’ view. Aquinas would agree – of course – that many propositions could be affirmed or at least addressed independently of over theology. Mundane propositions.

For Aquinas’ though, all that remains “mundane”, and subordinate to higher philosophy (maybe we might call it “meta-philosophy”) which for Aquinas most certainly entails theological concepts. That is, we might affirm a mundane proposition in non-religious terms and concepts, but the very basis of “proposition” itself is rooted in theology. Aquinas, hapless slave to intuition that he was, understood that man cannot just “understand” the world as a natural effect of natural processes. The “light of reason” had to come from somewhere, er Someone.

Therefore, God.

That effectively puts all knowledge, all truth under the roof of theology. Even the mundane, ostensibly secular practice of philosophy owes it “life” to theology, per Aquinas. Without God, there is no thinking, no philosophy, no truth.

-TS

 

[Betterave]

The key question here is the epistemic hierarchy. That’s where the dependencies obtain, in Aquinas’ view. Aquinas would agree – of course – that many propositions could be affirmed or at least addressed independently of over theology. Mundane propositions.

For Aquinas’ though, all that remains “mundane”, and subordinate to higher philosophy (maybe we might call it “meta-philosophy”) which for Aquinas most certainly entails theological concepts. That is, we might affirm a mundane proposition in non-religious terms and concepts, but the very basis of “proposition” itself is rooted in theology. Aquinas, hapless slave to intuition that he was, understood that man cannot just “understand” the world as a natural effect of natural processes. The “light of reason” had to come from somewhere, er Someone.

Therefore, God.

That effectively puts all knowledge, all truth under the roof of theology. Even the mundane, ostensibly secular practice of philosophy owes it “life” to theology, per Aquinas. Without God, there is no thinking, no philosophy, no truth.

-TS

Oh TS, you and your half-baked hypocritical ad hominems! Were you even *trying *to respond to the OP? Could you? If you did, you might actually end up saying something interesting! You clearly want others to think you know what you’re talking about it; could you state your case in such a way that would suggest you actually do, and are not just making stuff up? Thanks!

 

[Touchstone]

Oh TS, you and your half-baked hypocritical ad hominems! Were you even *trying *to respond to the OP? Could you? If you did, you might actually end up saying something interesting! You clearly want others to think you know what you’re talking about it; could you state your case in such a way that would suggest you actually do, and are not just making stuff up? Thanks!

I think what I said was very responsive – per Aquinas, there is no ‘secular philosophy’ that is not transcendentally dependent on theological commitments. That denies the autonomy of philosophy, if that first sentence is clear (which I think it is), and strikes me as on point to the OP.

-TS

 

[SaintNobody]

You use the term “philosophically true”, which I am not for sure of the definition. You seem to imply that philosophically true is defined as independant of theology. This would be a strange definition even today, but certainly in Aquinas’ time.

That is what I am talking about.

Is philosophy a science that can be exercised without it being informed by Revelation?

Can you talk about metaphyscis, logic, ontology, etc etc without having any reference to faith and do so competently?

My impression is that Aquinas would say yes, but I have no textual evidence to that effect (which is what I’m looking for).

 

[tafan]

That is what I am talking about.

Is philosophy a science that can be exercised without it being informed by Revelation?

Can you talk about metaphyscis, logic, ontology, etc etc without having any reference to faith and do so competently?

My impression is that Aquinas would say yes, but I have no textual evidence to that effect (which is what I’m looking for).

I dont’ know if you will find something from Aquinas along that helps you out much more than the the smua pages I referenced. Tjhe reply to the second objection of the first sentence obviously implies the Aquinas belelieved knowledge could be obtained without revelation. I don’t know why this is not sufficient to what you are looking for:

Sciences are differentiated according to the various means through which knowledge is obtained. For the astronomer and the physicist both may prove the same conclusion: that the earth, for instance, is round: the astronomer by means of mathematics (i.e. abstracting from matter), but the physicist by means of matter itself. Hence there is no reason why those things which may be learned from philosophical science, so far as they can be known by natural reason, may not also be taught us by another science so far as they fall within revelation. Hence theology included in sacred doctrine differs in kind from that theology which is part of philosophy.

Note: Today’s idea of “philosophy” being seperated from empirical science did not exist at that time.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

That is what I am talking about.

Is philosophy a science that can be exercised without it being informed by Revelation?

Can you talk about metaphyscis, logic, ontology, etc etc without having any reference to faith and do so competently?

My impression is that Aquinas would say yes, but I have no textual evidence to that effect (which is what I’m looking for).

SN,

I would also say yes. But as to Aquinas himself saying so directly, in so many words, I think it might be difficult to find. Rather you would have to construct the argument that given that Aquinas states in various places that one can know true things through natural reason alone, even things about God, then certainly one may know true things about logic, metaphysics, ontology, etc without presupposing any faith whatsoever.

You could also look at the Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy on St. Thomas which will state what you are looking for.

VC

 

[Betterave]

I think what I said was very responsive – per Aquinas, there is no ‘secular philosophy’ that is not transcendentally dependent on theological commitments. That denies the autonomy of philosophy, if that first sentence is clear (which I think it is), and strikes me as on point to the OP.

-TS

Re-read the OP, TS, then read Tafan’s reply (post #9), then re-read your reply. You will need some powers of intuition to perceive the salient differences between the two replies, but still, they are pretty obvious. (Perhaps your intuitive disdain for intuition needs to be reconsidered? Your campaign against it not only tends to distract you from saying anything intelligent or constructive; it’s also obviously intrinsically incoherent and self-defeating, as we see from your performance here.)

 

[EarnestBeliever]

Hello all

I am not taking part in this discussion but i have some helpful links.

documentacatholicaomnia.eu/20_50_1225-1274-_Thomas_Aquinas,_Sanctus.html

documentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/1225-1274,_Thomas_Aquinas,_Of_God_And_His_Creatures,_EN.pdf

This is the page dealing with Thomas Aquinas, look to the right hand side where it tells you which language the documents are written in there is a section for some English documents Look for the EN code for English

documentacatholicaomnia.eu/20_50_1225-1274-_Thomas_Aquinas,_Sanctus.html

This is the main page the google toolbar will list any documents in

documentacatholicaomnia.eu/

This is the Chiesa website note the third line down where it says

Documenta Catholica Omnia. A gold mine of 20,000 texts by popes, councils, fathers, and doctors of the Church. In their original versions and translations.and that links to this

 

[JP2Admirer]

Check out the first few chapters of the first book of the Summa Contra Gentiles (roughly chapters 1-10). There are his clearest distinctions between philosophy and revelation that I’ve discovered.

For those suggesting that Aquinas’ was some blind theologian using his philosophy to reach predetermined ends (the crime of theologism, as Gilson called it) need to research the disputes about the eternity of the world and the unity of the intellect.

Aquinas got into a lot of hot water with theologians because he said that the eternity of the world could not be disproved philosophically – that the arguments both for and against it were valid. (See roughly SCG bk. 2 chapters 30-40).