Summa Theologica, Pars Prima Article 1

[wussup]

I have discussed with several people the idea of studying the Summa Theologica on this forum. The consensus would be detailed:

1-It would be a fun and very informative thing to do.
2-It should be kept informal but respectful of the fact that many who want and will participate are as Dr. Aquinas would say, “in such a way as may tend to the instruction of beginners.” I would add, this would mean with patience and forebearance.
3-Adding to the string a little each week as the ‘feel’ for the demand ebbs and flows.
4-It was felt that putting the study in the sub-forum ‘philosophy’ would be preferable to starting a group because of the much increased traffic here.
5-Using the New Advent @ newadvent.org/summa/1.htm and the Gutenberg Online Summa Theologica @ gutenberg.org/files/17611/17611.txt would provide consistency and a common translation generally.

I figure we play it by ear and see what kind of response is generated… Some of these folks have said they wanted to contribute brief intros to the ST for such as me. I will leave it up to them to determine if they have time in their busy schedules.

Whether, besides Philosophy, any Further Doctrine Is Required?​

Objection 1: It seems that, besides philosophical science, we have no
need of any further knowledge. For man should not seek to know what is
above reason: “Seek not the things that are too high for thee”
(Ecclus. 3:22). But whatever is not above reason is fully treated of
in philosophical science. Therefore any other knowledge besides
philosophical science is superfluous.

Obj. 2: Further, knowledge can be concerned only with being, for
nothing can be known, save what is true; and all that is, is true. But
everything that is, is treated of in philosophical science–even God
Himself; so that there is a part of philosophy called theology, or the
divine science, as Aristotle has proved (Metaph. vi). Therefore,
besides philosophical science, there is no need of any further
knowledge.

On the contrary, It is written (2 Tim. 3:16): “All Scripture inspired
of God is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in
justice.” Now Scripture, inspired of God, is no part of philosophical
science, which has been built up by human reason. Therefore it is
useful that besides philosophical science, there should be other
knowledge, i.e. inspired of God.​

FIRST ARTICLE​

 

[wussup]

As a non-Catholic, my questions to those in the know would be:

What does Dr. Aquinas mean by ‘philosophical science’?

My college understanding of ‘philosophical science’ is the study of speculative knowledge.

It would seem that the Doctor divides a priori reasoning into that of the ‘philosophical science’ and that ‘inspired of God’. Both create a knowledge based outside of experience, but both have markedly different roles.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

As a non-Catholic, my questions to those in the know would be:

What does Dr. Aquinas mean by ‘philosophical science’?

My college understanding of ‘philosophical science’ is the study of speculative knowledge.

It would seem that the Doctor divides a priori reasoning into that of the ‘philosophical science’ and that ‘inspired of God’. Both create a knowledge based outside of experience, but both have markedly different roles.

I think “philosophical science” refers to all studies of causation – roughly, everything that Aristotle wrote about. This would be both a priori and a posteriori.

I don’t think that “inspired of God” refers to what we would call a priori knowledge. Rather, the knowledge of God contained in the Scriptures, etc, is the knowledge of the experience of God.

 

[Katholish]

It is perfectly fine to leave off the “Dr.” and just call him Aquinas. “Aquinas” isn’t an actual last name, but rather refers to the town which Thomas was from, i.e. Aquino, Italy, so it sounds strange to put “Dr.” in front of it.

Anyway, I just wanted to offer a bit of an introduction to those not very familiar with St. Thomas Aquinas’s Summa. It is a rather large work which is broken up into 5 basic parts. We are beginning with the first which is the Prima Pars (which is simply Latin for “First Part”). Within section part, Thomas has things broken down into different “Questions”. Here is the first point of possible confusion for people, in Thomas, a “Question” does not refer to the grammatical sentence structure we are familiar with in English. It really just means “chapter”. Each “Question” is broken down into different Articles–each one asks a different question (what we normally mean by question). Perhaps it would have been easier had Thomas called his articles questions and his questions articles, but it is the way it is.

A common mistake is to start reading and thinking that what you are reading is Thomas’s position. This is often not the case since Thomas goes to great lengths to try to provide the opinions of everyone who disagrees with him on a given subject. Thus, in each article he gives several “objections”. These represent one side of the argument. Then Thomas gives a contrary position, often a very short quote from Scripture or a Church Father. This Contrary section often goes by its Latin name as the “Sed Contra”. It is very common for people to quote the Sed Contra as if it were Thomas’s opinion which is often the case, but not always. Finally, Thomas gets to his own personal opinion which is in the section beginning with “I answer that” and is called the Respondeo (Latin for “I respond”). After he is done giving his opinion, he returns to the objections and tries to answer them all. This section is called Replies to the Objections.

I have always found it much easier not to read the objections first. It is way too confusing. I recommend beginning with the Sed Contra then immediately reading Thomas’s position. Then go back to the beginning, read the objections followed by each reply.

 

[Katholish]

As a non-Catholic, my questions to those in the know would be:

What does Dr. Aquinas mean by ‘philosophical science’?

My college understanding of ‘philosophical science’ is the study of speculative knowledge.

It would seem that the Doctor divides a priori reasoning into that of the ‘philosophical science’ and that ‘inspired of God’. Both create a knowledge based outside of experience, but both have markedly different roles.

For Thomas, “science” has a very technical meaning and refers to an organized body of knowledge. It does not simply mean an empirical science. Thus, Philosophy is a science and Theology is a science, in addition to Physics, Biology, etc. Thomas will actually address this more in Article 2. Every science has first principles from which it derives it truths. In Philosophy, those principles are all things that can be naturally known by man. This is different from Theology which admits principles that are revealed by God and are not necessarily naturally knowable.

So, this first article is asking, Why do we even have Theology?

Thomas answers that there are simply some things we could never come to know with out revelation by God which are necessary for salvation. There are also some Theological truths that could be reached by Philosophy as well, but these are hard to understand sometimes and God has made these truths more accessible by revealing them.

This is one of my favorite articles in the whole Summa.

 

[wussup]

I think “philosophical science” refers to all studies of causation – roughly, everything that Aristotle wrote about. This would be both a priori and a posteriori.

I think Katholish addresses this in similar language below where he address’ the ‘very technical meaning’

I don’t think that “inspired of God” refers to what we would call a priori knowledge. Rather, the knowledge of God contained in the Scriptures, etc, is the knowledge of the experience of God.

That’s interesting. My recollection of a priori is knowledge outside of experience, whereas aposteriori is knowledge based on experience. I happen to think the religious experience is a different type of knowledge that is neither experience or empirically based, because it requires a supernatural event, nor is it a priori because while the knowledge is obtained outside of experience, it is only outside of a normal experience, a supernatural experience not of our own mind is necessary for a religious experience. I guess you could say it is a unique type of aposteriori? What think ye?

Philosophy is a science and Theology is a science, in addition to Physics, Biology, etc. Thomas will actually address this more in Article 2.

I did cheat and read into Article 2…

Every science has first principles from which it derives it truths. In Philosophy, those principles are all things that can be naturally known by man. This is different from Theology which admits principles that are revealed by God and are not necessarily naturally knowable.

’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’
…I must frankly confess, this is one of the most profound and perfectly phrased sentences in apologetics I have ever read. When I read this a couple weeks ago, I was stunned. Truly beautiful.

 

[Katholish]

a priori and a posteriori knowledge has been a little confused by Modern Philosophy I think. Traditionally, and for St. Thomas, it simply means this:

a priori refers to understanding some effect because you know the cause.

a posteriori refers to understanding some cause because you know the effect.

God’s knowledge is all a priori. The only way that man can come to know God, however is *a posteriori *because we can never directly know God as cause, but can only see His effects in the world and reason back to His existence. I think Kant is primarily to blame for the way it is used in today’s philosophical-babble. Modern philosophers liked taking old scholastic terms and giving them new meaning.

 

[wussup]

God’s knowledge is all a priori.

Do you mean God’s as in possessive of God, i.e., God Himself knows apriori; or do you mean knowledge of God, i.e., our human knowledge of God?

The only way that man can come to know God, however is *a posteriori *because we can never directly know God as cause, but can only see His effects in the world and reason back to His existence.

I am familiar with the Duns Scotus argument he gives of first creator. While I, and presumably you, agree God is the Watchmaker, the real world has what it considers a rational alternative, hence an appeal to reason along these lines, imo, is very weak.

I think Kant is primarily to blame for the way it is used in today’s philosophical-babble. Modern philosophers liked taking old scholastic terms and giving them new meaning.

Ha! I always find it fascinating how one of the most influential philosophers in history is so often categorically dissed. The Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics was one of the first heavy philosophy books I had read in High School. I was fascinated by the use of language and my vocabulary grew exponentially, but I found the work itself somehow, well, pompous. Near the end of the book, just before the appendix he bashed his peers big time. Sort of like watching a star receiver do a dance in the endzone after a td.

 

[Katholish]

“God’s knowledge” meaning possessive.

I am familiar with the Duns Scotus argument he gives of first creator. While I, and presumably you, agree God is the Watchmaker, the real world has what it considers a rational alternative, hence an appeal to reason along these lines, imo, is very weak.

This is the topic of Question 2 in the Summa, so we will have plenty of time to look at it in depth. Sufficieth to say, Thomas will argue that not only can a strong case be made for God’s existence, but that it can be logically proven. Regardless of whether we come to know God through reason alone or through revelation, it is still a posteriori knowledge.

I would also add that I do not accept God as the “Watchmaker” because that analogy (first used by the deists if I am not mistaken) was meant to imply that God made everything, and then stepped back from the creation and let it run itself. This is inconsistent with the notion of God as Primary Cause Who sustains the world in being which is Thomas’s position and mine as well.

 

[wussup]

When he says, ‘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.’ The protestants would hold ‘divine revelation’ to mean the Holy Bible in an almost Islamic sense of God ceasing to speak to man. My faith holds the Bible to be a compilation of God’s Revelations to specific men that can only be understood by the power of the Holy Ghost, but even then the ‘revelation’ spoken of here would be overshadowed by the ‘scripture of testimony’ written in our heart. In RCC theology, what is ‘divine revelation’?

 

[Katholish]

In RCC theology, what is ‘divine revelation’?

Divine Revelation refers to truths which are taught by God to men using supernatural means.

It comes in two forms, Public Revelation refers to the Sacred Scriptures and the life and teachings of Christ while on Earth and the inspired preaching of the Apostles (Sacred Tradition). All of the faithful must accept this.

Private revelation is when God addresses an individual or a smaller group of people with information which is not necessary for the entire Church to accept nor provides conditions necessary for Salvation beyond what is included in Public Revelation. The faithful are free to not accept this unless they are specifically the ones to receive the revelation.

 

[wussup]

Divine Revelation refers to truths which are taught by God to men using supernatural means.

One interesting note, Aquinas’ comments regarding, “that the earth,for instance, is round”, contradicts the notion commonly held that those in the middle ages contended universally that the earth was flat.

Exactly! It is this supernatural means that I contend makes the unique relationship between God and Man illogical, extra-rationally. Aquinas goes on at the end of the Article to begin his argument that sacred doctrine is a science, this he begins in Article 2.

 

[wussup]

I think “philosophical science” refers to all studies of causation – roughly, everything that Aristotle wrote about. This would be both a priori and a posteriori.

The next articles deal with Aquinas attempting to make theology a science. I think his use of the phrase ‘philosophical science’ is deliberate and the beginning of this argument. I have been wondering the last couple days why he would feel the need to begin his ‘Summa Theologica’ with an argument of is Theology a Science. I think it has to do with two things. First, my understanding of this period of medieval history Aristotle’s works, while known, were not considered worthy of study because they were from a pagan era. I get the impression Aquinas knew he would get a lot of push back unless he prepared his audience for the use of Aristotle’s metaphysics and logic he was going to which he was going to put it.

Second, I think Aquinas firmly believed God could be rationally and logically proved and discussed in formal language and in a non-revelatory manner. I think he felt he could give contribute to the Church by providing the rational behind her beliefs. I also think he recognized this would be perceived as taking some of the mystery out of God, and his argument for theology as a de facto science rendered this argument efficacious, dulling the edge of the sword that would be put to it. In effect his critics would be pierced with the same sword they would attempt to use on him.

I don’t think that “inspired of God” refers to what we would call a priori knowledge. Rather, the knowledge of God contained in the Scriptures, etc, is the knowledge of the experience of God.

‘the knowledge of the experience of God’, I really like that phrase. Did you make this up? I couldn’t find it within the article, but it sounds Thomistic.

 

[Katholish]

Sounds like are ready to officially move on to Article 2 since we are mostly discussing it now already.

One interesting note, Aquinas’ comments regarding, “that the earth,for instance, is round”, contradicts the notion commonly held that those in the middle ages contended universally that the earth was flat.

Yeah, no one in the Middle Ages thought the Earth was flat. The ancient astronomers argued that it was round and they, particularly Ptolemy were accepted and widely respected. Aristotle himself provided proof that the earth was spherical.

Exactly! It is this supernatural means that I contend makes the unique relationship between God and Man illogical, extra-rationally.

St. Thomas would have a huge problem with saying it is “illogical”. For Thomas (and the entire Catholic tradition) there is no conflict between truths of philosophy which are derived from reason alone and truths of the faith which are revealed by God. To say that faith and reason could actually conflict implies that Truth is relative and not objective. It creates an incomprehensible world-view (which is part of the struggle the modern world finds itself in having denied the objectivity of many kinds of truths).

 

[wussup]

St. Thomas would have a huge problem with saying it is “illogical”. For Thomas (and the entire Catholic tradition) there is no conflict between truths of philosophy which are derived from reason alone and truths of the faith which are revealed by God. To say that faith and reason could actually conflict implies that Truth is relative and not objective. It creates an incomprehensible world-view (which is part of the struggle the modern world finds itself in having denied the objectivity of many kinds of truths).

Pardon a brief story…my military background is grounded in nuclear technology, a program which while rather intense, gave me essentially no college credits. The physics part of the school covered thoroughly calc based physics, applied physics, blah blah blah. When I was deactivated I went back to college and had to take calc based physics again. Needless to say it was not a problem. One of my profs was a retired PhD who had worked for Texas Instruments and taught part time. He would often give tests for which multiple answers were possible, and then he would fail to recognize that given the same information two correct answers could be had for the same problem. A very few of us always chose the route we figured he would want, whereas most of the class would choose the route that was easiest. Needless to say, this caused great consternation in his class as most of the students fancied themselves ‘pre-med/pre-vet/etc’, and getting a 3.0 in calc physics was not an acceptable plan.

I think that Truth is ‘truth’ to the extent we are all given different pieces of the same mixed fruit pie. My piece just happens to have all apples and yours all cherry. A little mixing of the flavor is inevitable, but neither can see the entirety. While Aquinas may have serious problems with this, the fact is that different rational systems can come up with logical sound arguments and be at total odds one to another. For example, Mills’ Utilitarianism vs. Nietzsche’s Superman. I think that is part of what Paul meant when he said we must work out our salvation with ‘fear and trembling’. We should not trust to the rational of man, but rather on the Faith of God. This is a hard saying.

 

[Katholish]

And herein lies the problem. What do you think faith (as an action) is if it is not logically-based?

Faith is believing something to be true even though you cannot rationally explain it because God told you it was true and you know that God cannot deceive you. It is an argument from authority. That being said, for the Catholic intellectual tradition, faith is entirely a logical concept.

Luther and the Protestant tradition denied the synthesis of Faith and reason that Catholicism proposed, but never satisfactorally answers the question of “what is faith?”

 

[wussup]

And herein lies the problem. What do you think faith (as an action) is if it is not logically-based?

I don’t think we are that far apart. In fact, I think we have similar beliefs, maybe even identical, regarding what faith is. I think the difference is I believe God’s reality is outside of our ability to understand rationally. Because of our Faith is based on the ultimate supernatural event, the Atonement and Redeeming Sacrifice and Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, there is not rational way to explain it with assurity. By this I mean there are a plethora of doctrines regarding these matters. It is LDS doctrine that we pray to the Holy Ghost and He will guide us as to what to ask for. Then we study, familiarize ourselves with the subject and then pray. Either our prayer will be answered, or it will not. And even if it is answered, we may not understand the answer, or we may misinterpret the answer. Our ability to have the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost and our humility will determine the true understanding of Revealed Word.

Allow me to give an example. I was listening to a Catholic give a sermon on the Holy Mother, Mary. As an LDS I was extremely skeptical. When the discussion got to the point of how she can intercede on our behalf, my initial skepticism (that is a term I use kindly) turned, to my astonishment, to a witness of the Holy Ghost that the priest was speaking truth. To say I was shocked is an understatement. I am not foolish enough to say I understand enough of what was revealed to me to recognize what the priest was saying that was being witnessed to, but I am also not foolish enough to say rubbish, I just ate some curry.

I guess all I am saying is I expect to find much in the Summa Theologica that will edify me. I also am recognizing it was written by a man, albeit brilliant, and he is subject to error as much as I on this subject. Perhaps more given his much advanced education giving him more opportunity .