sign in sign up
<<
Home , Henry of Ghent

THE ROOTS OF LOVE OF WISDOM: HENRY OF GHENT ON PLATONIC AND ARISTOTELIAN FORMS

Juan Carlos Flores

I. Introduction

At the very beginning of his Summa quaestionum ordinariarum,1 Henry of Ghent provides a brief history of to convey more adequately his own orientation and approach. Henry himself later describes his approach as a synthesis of Platonic and Aristotelian thought in the light of faith.2 This synthesis, as developed in the whole Summa and in his Quodlibeta, is quite original and at the same time inspired by many sources, above all Augustine.3 The purpose of this paper is to capture an important aspect of Henry’s synthesis, namely the significance of love of wisdom in his thought. What is the basic source of love of wisdom in , and Henry of Ghent (who synthesizes Plato and Aristotle)? What is the ultimate meaning of this drive or motive force in these thinkers? In order to capture the nature of love of wisdom in Henry of Ghent, we shall first look at the nature of this love in the of Plato and Aristotle.4 Concerning this topic, we shall analyze Plato and Aris- totle (and Henry, of course) on their own terms. In the case of Plato, we shall consider texts that were not available directly to Henry, who knew Plato chiefly through Augustine. Our goal is not to trace the textual sources of Henry’s account of love of wisdom, nor to evalu- ate Henry’s historical accuracy. Rather, the goal is to understand the

1 Cf. Henry of Ghent, Summa quaestionum ordinariarum, art. 1, q. 1 (ed. G. Wil- son), in: Henrici de Gandavo Opera omnia 21, Leuven 2004. In this paper, all refer- ences to Henry’s Summa indicate this volume. 2 Cf. ibid., art. 2, pp. 60 sq.; art. 4, p. 104. 3 For an analysis of this synthesis, cf. J. C. Flores, Henry of Ghent: Metaphysics and the Trinity (Ancient and , Series 1/36), Leuven 2006, especially the Introduction and Conclusion. 4 For a summary of the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle in the context of medi- eval thought, see the entries entitled “Plato (in the Middle Ages)” and “Aristotelian- ism”, in: S. F. Brown / J. C. Flores, Historical Dictionary of Medieval Philosophy and (Historical Dictionaries of Religions, Philosophies and Movements 76), Lan- ham (Maryland) 2007. 624 juan carlos flores nature of love of wisdom in Henry of Ghent as revealed by his text as well as against the background of the two classical philosophical formulations of this love. However, as we consider the elements of Henry’s own formulation, the way in which he elaborated ideas associ- ated with Plato and Aristotle shall become clear. As we shall see, love of wisdom means different things to Plato and to Aristotle, the fathers of the two most seminal philosophies. The diversity between their understandings of love of wisdom depends on what each considers to be the root of this love. A look at this issue in Plato and Aristotle reveals the sources and goals of their philosophies, as well as what each considers to be the ultimate human end.5 More-

5 Adequately studying this topic requires more than analyzing how terms, such as ‘love’, ‘wisdom’, ‘philosophy’, and ‘love of wisdom’, appear in texts. This is because the present purpose is not to establish a nominal definition. Philosophy or love of wisdom, as understood by Plato and Aristotle, is the highest calling of which human beings are capable. Seeking to understand love of wisdom in Plato and Aristotle is seeking to grasp what each thinks the human is ultimately ordered towards. This motiva- tion requires a look at their fundamental principles. Nevertheless, the language which Plato and Aristotle use to convey the love of wisdom does provide some indication of their underlying attitudes. In addition to using the term as generally applied to those who pursue wisdom, namely the (philosophos, e.g., in Republic 581 b), Plato often refers to the love of wisdom, in the sense of a human drive, in terms of erotic love (eros). In the Symposium, as is well known, the discussion of wisdom takes place within the context of erotic love. In the Phaedrus, another chief text associating wisdom with erotic love, Plato mentions that if wisdom (phronesis) were visible to the eyes it would arouse a powerful love (eros, 250 d). There he also calls the philosopher a lover, using the language of erotic love: “the lover of the beautiful itself is called a lover (ho erôn tôn kalôn erastês kaleitai, 249 e)”, namely a lover of true (intelligible) reality, as he goes on to explain. This is consistent with and indicative of his view, which we will elucidate in this paper, that love of wisdom is love for another, fundamentally the drive to be one with the most lovable being. When Aristotle uses the term ‘philosopher’ (philosophos), explicitly in the sense of a human drive, he generally uses it to convey the desire to know purely for the sake of knowing, born out of wonder (e.g., in Metaphysics I, 2, 582 b 19), similarly to the way in which Plato also sometimes uses it, as in Plato’s contrast between the philosopher and the lawyer in the Theaetetus (172 c–177 b). In one of his most famous lines, however, Aristotle provides us with a very telling formulation of what love of wisdom, understood as a human drive, more specifically and fundamentally means to him. The well-known first sentence of his Metaphysics is: all human beings by nature desire to know (pantes anthrôpoi tou eidenai oregontai phusei). In Metaphysics I, 1, he also discusses why wisdom (sophia) is the best and most desirable form of knowl- edge. However, Aristotle here uses the notion of wisdom not only in the strict sense of the highest knowledge. In order to convey his hierarchy of knowledge, consisting (in ascending order) of sensation, experience, craft, master-craft, and wisdom, Aristotle repeatedly uses the comparative “wiser” (sophôteros): the man of experi- ence is thought wiser (sophôteros) than the one only possessing sense-perception, the craftsman than the man of experience, the master-craftsman than the mere crafts- man, and so on (981 b 30). This indicates that to him all knowledge may be called,