Thomism, Jewish/Islamic Philosophy, and Aristotle

[TheAtheist]

Just a quick question to the Thomists on this board.

I have a Catholic Jesuit-trained friend who is a Chemist and also formally trained in the Thomist philosophical tradition.

He is also a bit of reader in a lot of other philosophical traditions, which has often lead him to coming into great insights about how another faith tradition might interpret common issues/problems. This is especially true for the Jewish religion, since he also took it upon himself to read most of the works of Moses Maimonides. He apparently utterly failed though with Islam, as apparently many of the Aristotlean philosophers that even your Thomas Aquinas references hold the status of kafir or heretic modern Islam although such a status was not accorded to them in the past.

That got him and myself thinking though.

1.) When you study Thomas Aquinas, do you bother looking at say Averroes, Avicenna, or Moses Maimonides and the trajectory of their thought?

1a.) If so - have there been any particular works that catch your eye?

2.) Do any of you go back to Aristotle or any of his ancient Commentators like Alexander of Aphrodisias?

2a.) Do any of you bother to take a look at Aristotle or Aquinas (or for that matter, Albertus Magnus) work on biology or cosmology?

3.) Given also the great intramural between Orthodox Christianity and Catholicism, do any of you bother delving into say Maximus the Confessor, Gregory Palamas, or the relatively modern Vladimir Lossky?

 

[fred_conty]

Just a quick question to the Thomists on this board.

I have a Catholic Jesuit-trained friend who is a Chemist and also formally trained in the Thomist philosophical tradition.

He is also a bit of reader in a lot of other philosophical traditions, which has often lead him to coming into great insights about how another faith tradition might interpret common issues/problems. This is especially true for the Jewish religion, since he also took it upon himself to read most of the works of Moses Maimonides. He apparently utterly failed though with Islam, as apparently many of the Aristotlean philosophers that even your Thomas Aquinas references hold the status of kafir or heretic modern Islam although such a status was not accorded to them in the past.

That got him and myself thinking though.

1.) When you study Thomas Aquinas, do you bother looking at say Averroes, Avicenna, or Moses Maimonides and the trajectory of their thought?

1a.) If so - have there been any particular works that catch your eye?

2.) Do any of you go back to Aristotle or any of his ancient Commentators like Alexander of Aphrodisias?

2a.) Do any of you bother to take a look at Aristotle or Aquinas (or for that matter, Albertus Magnus) work on biology or cosmology?

3.) Given also the great intramural between Orthodox Christianity and Catholicism, do any of you bother delving into say Maximus the Confessor, Gregory Palamas, or the relatively modern Vladimir Lossky?

If one is interested in comparative religious studies or along those lines, then , I guess he would delve into these famous people’s teaching as well as others.

But I don’t see the practical point of doing so when you have Christ, who set up his authoritative voice in his institution he left with us. This takes away all the laborious work and readily presents to us the truth.

And of course if one isn’t prepared to read these other leaders, it might also cause a great deal of consternation to one’s soul as well. It might be better to learn to walk before running.

 

[TheAtheist]

But I don’t see the practical point of doing so when you have Christ, who set up his authoritative voice in his institution he left with us. This takes away all the laborious work and readily presents to us the truth.

I’m slightly confused here Fred.

Because, if i understand this correctly, that is precisely what your Thomas Aquinas did.

For instance, Averroes works survive only in Latin (not in Arabic) precisely because he was considered standard reading by members of your Church, Aquinas included, in trying to understand the writings of Aristotle. Its why he is nicknamed The Commentator by members of your own Church!

As for Maimonides, the Jews have pointed out to me and my friend that Aquinas does actively cite Maimonides writings in his own work. Sometimes to agree with him, and other times to quarrel with him.

The type of line your upholding though Fred, sounds a little like the objections to Thomism upheld by the Orthodox Church.

ie: You folks didn’t listen to that Voice of Christ emanating from the Church (of which they of course believe themselves to be the upholders of) and have been seduced by Pagan Philosophy. All you really need at the end of the day are the Church Fathers (their greatest hits list would be: Maximus the Confessor, St. Symeon the New Theologian, Pseudo-Dionysius, and Gregory Palamas) to explain true theology.

Aquinas’ method (borrowed from Pagan Philosophers! (why this is so scandolous to them i’m not quite sure) can only at best by unhelpful, at worst…well…to quote you:

it might also cause a great deal of consternation to one’s soul as well.

That is to my understanding, the argument they make against Thomism and in general, their objection to the whole tradition of Western philosophy as it relates to understanding your God.

I thought (and i can be wrong about this of course), that your Church took an opposite viewpoint regarding the role of human reason and the validity of pagan philosophy. Which would be the reason why Augustine found value in reading Plato and the Stoics. And Aquinas found the works of Averroes, Maimonides, and Avicenna as helpful to his own understanding of philosophy/theology.

And hence why i asked my questions.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Just a quick question to the Thomists on this board.

I have a Catholic Jesuit-trained friend who is a Chemist and also formally trained in the Thomist philosophical tradition.

He is also a bit of reader in a lot of other philosophical traditions, which has often lead him to coming into great insights about how another faith tradition might interpret common issues/problems. This is especially true for the Jewish religion, since he also took it upon himself to read most of the works of Moses Maimonides. He apparently utterly failed though with Islam, as apparently many of the Aristotlean philosophers that even your Thomas Aquinas references hold the status of kafir or heretic modern Islam although such a status was not accorded to them in the past.

That got him and myself thinking though.

1.) When you study Thomas Aquinas, do you bother looking at say Averroes, Avicenna, or Moses Maimonides and the trajectory of their thought?

1a.) If so - have there been any particular works that catch your eye?

2.) Do any of you go back to Aristotle or any of his ancient Commentators like Alexander of Aphrodisias?

2a.) Do any of you bother to take a look at Aristotle or Aquinas (or for that matter, Albertus Magnus) work on biology or cosmology?

3.) Given also the great intramural between Orthodox Christianity and Catholicism, do any of you bother delving into say Maximus the Confessor, Gregory Palamas, or the relatively modern Vladimir Lossky?

TA Thomists don’t tend to be Thomists just for the fun of it.
They study for a purpose and the depth and breadth is determined by that purpose.
People tend to specialise beyond the basics.

What you suggest would be the sort of thing a specialist professor might have the years for.

For a standard grad or post grad degree there would not be the time to seriously go beyond Aristotle and Aquinas and a few others.

The whole point of this sort of theological scholarship is that its a communal effort involving different specialisations rather than everybody doing everything.

 

[e_c]

Just a quick question to the Thomists on this board.

I have a Catholic Jesuit-trained friend who is a Chemist and also formally trained in the Thomist philosophical tradition.

He is also a bit of reader in a lot of other philosophical traditions, which has often lead him to coming into great insights about how another faith tradition might interpret common issues/problems. This is especially true for the Jewish religion, since he also took it upon himself to read most of the works of Moses Maimonides. He apparently utterly failed though with Islam, as apparently many of the Aristotlean philosophers that even your Thomas Aquinas references hold the status of kafir or heretic modern Islam although such a status was not accorded to them in the past.

That got him and myself thinking though.

1.) When you study Thomas Aquinas, do you bother looking at say Averroes, Avicenna, or Moses Maimonides and the trajectory of their thought?

1a.) If so - have there been any particular works that catch your eye?

2.) Do any of you go back to Aristotle or any of his ancient Commentators like Alexander of Aphrodisias?

2a.) Do any of you bother to take a look at Aristotle or Aquinas (or for that matter, Albertus Magnus) work on biology or cosmology?

3.) Given also the great intramural between Orthodox Christianity and Catholicism, do any of you bother delving into say Maximus the Confessor, Gregory Palamas, or the relatively modern Vladimir Lossky?

1. That is a hefty dose of reading on top of another hefty dose of reading, if one is going to understand the “trajectory” in any meaningful way. The beauty of Thomas is that he has done much of the heavy lifting already, having taken much of the good and unique stuff from those guys and presented it as part of a coherent system. Some items may drive even the casual scholar into the secondary texts though, like the Averroist controversy.

1a. Nope. I think I have poked around the “Guide for the Perplexed” and the primary text for the Averroist controversy though.

1. Reading the primary texts of Aristotle is part of any solid education in the Thomistic tradition. Some commentators may be helpful, though Thomas was a major commentator on Aristotle too.

2a. Not aware of any works of Thomas specifically on biology. They would be interesting to read. Have not spent much time with Aristotle’s biology or zoology, but then again I am not a biologist.

1. I’ve at least heard of Maximus the Confessor, but not the others. Sorry.

 

[fred_conty]

I’m slightly confused here Fred.

Because, if i understand this correctly, that is precisely what your Thomas Aquinas did.

For instance, Averroes works survive only in Latin (not in Arabic) precisely because he was considered standard reading by members of your Church, Aquinas included, in trying to understand the writings of Aristotle. Its why he is nicknamed The Commentator by members of your own Church!

As for Maimonides, the Jews have pointed out to me and my friend that Aquinas does actively cite Maimonides writings in his own work. Sometimes to agree with him, and other times to quarrel with him.

The type of line your upholding though Fred, sounds a little like the objections to Thomism upheld by the Orthodox Church.

ie: You folks didn’t listen to that Voice of Christ emanating from the Church (of which they of course believe themselves to be the upholders of) and have been seduced by Pagan Philosophy. All you really need at the end of the day are the Church Fathers (their greatest hits list would be: Maximus the Confessor, St. Symeon the New Theologian, Pseudo-Dionysius, and Gregory Palamas) to explain true theology.

Aquinas’ method (borrowed from Pagan Philosophers! (why this is so scandolous to them i’m not quite sure) can only at best by unhelpful, at worst…well…to quote you:

That is to my understanding, the argument they make against Thomism and in general, their objection to the whole tradition of Western philosophy as it relates to understanding your God.

I thought (and i can be wrong about this of course), that your Church took an opposite viewpoint regarding the role of human reason and the validity of pagan philosophy. Which would be the reason why Augustine found value in reading Plato and the Stoics. And Aquinas found the works of Averroes, Maimonides, and Avicenna as helpful to his own understanding of philosophy/theology.

And hence why i asked my questions.

Thank you for you reply and maybe I can better explain what I mean.

In your post you want the average Catholic to poke around some very deep men in their religious and natural thought. I say average because the question was generic and not pointed specifically at.

And as I said, the catholic shouldn’t be into these deeper men unless they are prepared before hand because otherwise they might misunderstand and also be misdirected in thought. Just as I would not advise anyone not familiar with welding tools to just start welding.

I thought (and i can be wrong about this of course), that your Church took an opposite viewpoint regarding the role of human reason and the validity of pagan philosophy. Which would be the reason why Augustine found value in reading Plato and the Stoics. And Aquinas found the works of Averroes, Maimonides, and Avicenna as helpful to his own understanding of philosophy/theology.

Aquinas and Agustine are not ordinary Catholics wouldn’t you say?

Now I would agree with you that if someone had an interest in this subject and would want to pursue it, then they would do best to do it in the right way and not casually start reading. So my reply is not against what you say, but rather I see it differently in that the faith is the treasure of great price.

 

[TheAtheist]

Thank you for you reply and maybe I can better explain what I mean.

In your post you want the average Catholic to poke around some very deep men in their religious and natural thought. I say average because the question was generic and not pointed specifically at.

Ah I see i think i know where the miscommunication is.

By virtue of mentioning Thomism, i thought i had already “narrowed down” the audience.

Because it is to my experience at least, that the average Catholic doesn’t know much about Thomas Aquinas…or Augustine… or matters of philosophy in general.

It just doesn’t fall into their realm of interest or experience. I’m sure they are faithful in their own way (although given the continual complaints about people not being “cathechized properly” how or what degree of faithfulness is beyond my reckoning to evaluate) but in general I can’t really picture the average Catholic coming home from a long day at work and pulling the Summa Theologica off his bookshelf for some “light reading”

 

[Wesrock]

As a person with a casual interest in Thomism (a casual Thomist?) there is just so much material out there. Even putting aside secular reading interests, I want to read always be reading the Catechism and Bible (even if slowly) and I’ve an interest in reading the Church Fathers and other church documents. It’s just a lot. I’m not against reading these other philosophers. In understanding Thomas and Thomism they could be very beneficial. I just don’t have the time right now, and may not ever. I’d expect people who make this study their life’s work to be more familiar with it, of course.

 

[TheAtheist]

1. That is a hefty dose of reading on top of another hefty dose of reading, if one is going to understand the “trajectory” in any meaningful way. The beauty of Thomas is that he has done much of the heavy lifting already, having taken much of the good and unique stuff from those guys and presented it as part of a coherent system. Some items may drive even the casual scholar into the secondary texts though, like the Averroist controversy.

You know perhaps i wasn’t too clear in the manner i asked my questions. Because there seems to be an impression that I was somehow implying that the average Thomist should check out every single written work of one of the people I mentioned from their local or university library and just start reading.

So let me try to illustrate an example of what i mean.

Let’s take a Marxist Scholar (yes they apparently still exist). What’s his or her education going to be like? Obviously its dependent on his field of concentration, he or she could be one of those Social Justice-y types who sub-specializes in women studies, african american studies, gender theory, blah blah blah.

But what else is he or she going to read? Marx’s own writings are definitely on the list.

So if i were to adapt my question in this context, i guess i would ask: “When studying Karl Marx, do you bother to read Hegel?”

Without Hegel’s philosophy of history (and associated metaphysics), there is no Marx.

Now i actually know the answer to my question: The Majority Do read parts of Hegel.

Specifically the Parts that were Borrowed/Adapted/Altered by Marx. There is a whole swath of Hegel’s ideas and thoughts which would be irrelevant to the Marxist scholar - his Aesthetics for instance.

But if i were to go up to the newly minted Marxist scholar and ask for an accounting of how Marx’s conception of History differed from Hegel’s since from the outsider’s point of view they look rather similar - 9 out of 10 times i’m betting that they could do it although there is probably a variance in the level of exposition.

If i had to boil this down into a more simpler question: “Do you bother looking at the decent of ideas adapted by your favorite philosopher from those who came before?”

I don’t think this is a particularly controversial point really. I mean, for instance, if you wanted to do an in-depth study of Plato’s Timaeus, people usually include material from the Presocratics like Pythagoras to show where Plato is borrowing from.

But at least in this case, i find this rather interesting paradox in that

Thomas Aquinas himself did in fact do this - he sat and chewed over what the best and brightest minds of Jewish and Islamic world could offer.

But Thomists don’t.

I thought that signified perhaps you folks study your tradition in Isolation - but that doesn’t make much sense to me either because of the existence of Transcendental Thomism where Thomists of that persuasion are have read/are pulling ideas from Kant. Or Analytical Thomism where folks are pulling from people like Wittgenstein.

1a. Nope. I think I have poked around the “Guide for the Perplexed” and the primary text for the Averroist controversy though.

Oh dear… the “Guide to the Perplexed” seems to be one of those books that requires a lot of hand holding to go through. I haven’t met a single Christian, Muslim, or Jew with an interest Aristotle who hasn’t tried at least mount some sort of expedition into that work and come back a little…confused.

1. Reading the primary texts of Aristotle is part of any solid education in the Thomistic tradition. Some commentators may be helpful, though Thomas was a major commentator on Aristotle too.

Ah but you see, this is what i meant by my example of “Do Marxists read Hegel?” You folks do go back to the prior sources of inspiration - but you end up jumping over Averroes, Avicenna, and Moses in a way that Thomas himself did not.

2a. Not aware of any works of Thomas specifically on biology. They would be interesting to read. Have not spent much time with Aristotle’s biology or zoology, but then again I am not a biologist.

I actually went back and double checked more sources. Made a mistake. Thomas wrote on Nature, but biological writings were more to his mentor Albertus Magnus.

As to your other statement - Most Biologists don’t read Aristotle.

But you do find a number of Aristotlean philosophers who read Aristotle’s biological works to understand how he applies his Philosophy of Nature in analyzing the natural world. It isn’t so much that they look at his conclusions, but rather his logic for making those conclusions.

I’m guessing than that most Thomists then don’t have an interest in the natural world.

1. I’ve at least heard of Maximus the Confessor, but not the others. Sorry.

Nothing to apologize to me for. As i said, i’m pulling directly from your Counterparts if you will in the Orthodox Tradition.

I guess they are correct in one sense - you folks will read Thomas and Aristotle before resorting to the writings of the early Church Fathers.

Incidentally, they will in fact read Thomas backwards and forwards if you will, for the same reason our theoretical Marxist scholar might read the writings of Lenin…

…because how else do you properly criticize something without understanding it?

Ah well, thanks for your response. It was most enlightening.

 

[Wesrock]

I guess they are correct in one sense - you folks will read Thomas and Aristotle before resorting to the writings of the early Church Fathers.

I don’t know if that’s fair. Maximum the Confessor and Pseudo-Dionysius are the only two names I saw you list that count as being written during the Patristic period, and western and eastern traditions do draw a little differently from Patristic sources. Symeon the Theologian was more a contemporary of Saint Anselm and Gregory Palamas was both after the schism and after Thomas Aquinas and would not really be considered Fathers of the Church in the same way. At least, western tradition sees the end of the Patristic period as being in the eighth century.

 

[TheAtheist]

I don’t know if that’s fair. Maximum the Confessor and Pseudo-Dionysius are the only two names I saw you list that count as being written during the Patristic period, and western and eastern traditions do draw a little differently from Patristic sources. Symeon the Theologian was more a contemporary of Saint Anselm and Gregory Palamas was both after the schism and after Thomas Aquinas and would not really be considered Fathers of the Church in the same way. At least, western tradition sees the end of the Patristic period as being in the eighth century.

Hmm!

Well if that’s the case, if you and they divide “Church Fathers” into different sets - then that kind of takes the wind out of their sails so to speak.

I take it then, that in the Catholic understanding of things, what constitutes being a Church Father refers to a set of individuals living within a very specific time period?

And I guess from the Orthodox perspective, New Church Fathers could potentially be around the corner in time…

 

[John_Martin]

… but in general I can’t really picture the average Catholic coming home from a long day at work and pulling the Summa Theologica off his bookshelf for some “light reading”

Wow, that is exactly what I do; though it is mostly my bedtime reading. The Summa is large - 3 plus years for the first reading (with more than bedtime reading), and the second and third readings are giving a wealth of results in understanding myself and reality (due to the fact of knowing all the context of the three parts when reading any specific question or article).

I don’t read him for comparative philosophy, but only because my masters (the popes and magisterium) commend him to me as a place to find understanding of all things, which is what I want to have, a correct understanding of all things, including my self. And it works.

I do read Aristotle, finding him much easier to follow, a very relaxing person to learn from. But I learn from him as a student also, not as a comparative critic. I put what I read to work, and verify that he is describing reality as it works. That is why Thomas so venerated the Philosopher.

I read them both, and would read others if they were more readily available to me (if I knew where to find them on the internet). And I read my bible in Greek, basically to see how Thomas and how Jerome, etc. gave such remarkable insight into the attitude of translation.

As for the problems with the extent of 13th century natural sciences (or those of Aristotle), I do not read either as a 20th or 21st century person; I become a 13th century student when I read Thomas, just as I only think in Greek when I read my bible. I understand in 13th or 1st century outlook. Then I come back to my own time, and I “re-congnize” or “re-understand” with today’s outlook. There is no conflict of meaning - I understand today the way Thomas would have said it today were he here today, because I understand him in the 13th Century (I live in two ages, and can relate to both).

I really would like to find Moses, Avecenna, or Averroes, but Thomas also cites many of the Fathers, whom I would like to read first, in detail (for instance, while I did read the City of God, Augustine, many years ago, I would like to re-do that with Thomas in mind, and re-enter that world).

Let me clarify also, I do not read the Thomists; I read Thomas. I want his understanding as my own, I do not want to know what others think Thomas thought.

 

[TheAtheist]

Wow, that is exactly what I do; though it is mostly my bedtime reading. The Summa is large - 3 plus years for the first reading (with more than bedtime reading), and the second and third readings are giving a wealth of results in understanding myself and reality (due to the fact of knowing all the context of the three parts when reading any specific question or article).

Well allow me to say that is quite commendable.

Many people I tend to encounter these days, while holding a boatload of opinions, don’t really seem to bother about where those opinions come from, or even the logic that underlies them.

Perhaps i’m being reactionary, but I blame the Internet, Youtube, and Social media

I do read Aristotle, finding him much easier to follow,

Now i know for a fact you are a rare person indeed!

At least amongst Undergraduates that i’ve interacted with over the years, there seems to be a very strong love of Platonic Dialogues…and a ho-hum sort of attitude regarding Aristotle…or to be blunt their eyes glaze over and their feet tap impatiently for somoene just to summarize everything for them.

Let me clarify also, I do not read the Thomists; I read Thomas. I want his understanding as my own, I do not want to know what others think Thomas thought.

Well, my interactions with members of your faith who happen to bother to read Thomas makes me wonder if everyone has their own version of Aquinas running around in their heads.

Last time I stopped in on CAF about maybe four or five years ago, there were people very interested in Catejan for instance and didn’t really seem to pay much credence to any other interpreter of Thomas.