DOCSLIB.ORG

THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY of AMERICA Divine Ideas: 1250–1325

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY of AMERICA Divine Ideas: 1250–1325 THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA Divine Ideas: 1250–1325 A DISSERTATION Submitted to the Faculty of the School of Philosophy Of the Catholic University of America In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree Doctor of Philosophy By Carl A. Vater Washington, D.C. 2017 Divine Ideas: 1250–1325 Carl A. Vater, Ph.D. Director: Timothy B. Noone, Ph.D. A theory of divine ideas was the standard Scholastic solution to the question “How does God know and produce creatures?” Such a theory was only held to be successful if it upheld the nobility of God’s perfect knowledge without violating his supreme simplicity and unity. The theories of divine knowledge coming from philosophers like Aristotle, Avicenna, and Averroes, which posit no divine ideas, uphold divine simplicity, but seem to compromise the nobility of divine cognition because they are forced to say either that God does not know creatures at all, or that he only knows them in a universal (and therefore imperfect) or indeterminate way. They also seem to compromise divine causality because they have to posit either necessary (as opposed to voluntary) or mediated (as opposed to immediate) creation. Yet, positing multiple ideas in God as Augustine does seems contrary to divine simplicity. Faced with these difficulties, the medieval Schoolmen were forced to articulate very precisely how God can know and create a multiplicity of creatures without jeopardizing the divine simplicity. A complete explanation of how God knows and produces creatures requires the Schoolmen to answer a number of questions that can be divided into two types. The first type of question concerns the status of divine ideas: questions such as what is an idea? Are they speculative or practical? Are divine ideas multiple and, if so, how? How many divine ideas are there? How are the divine ideas related to God? What sort of existence, if any, does an idea enjoy? What is the status of non-existing possibles? The second type of question asks about the scope of divine ideas: questions such as are there divine ideas of singulars, evil, prime matter, genera, species, and number? These questions cause Scholastics to articulate clearly, among other things, their positions on the nature of knowledge, relation, exemplar causality, participation, infinity, and possibility. The goal of this dissertation is to trace the way in which reflection upon the theme of divine ideas in the period between 1250 and 1325 became increasingly refined as the metaphysical, epistemological, and logical topics related to them became subject to greater scrutiny. This dissertation by Carl A. Vater fulfills the dissertation requirements for the doctoral degree in Philosophy approved by Timothy B. Noone, Ph.D., as director, and by Gregory T. Doolan, Ph.D., and Kevin White, Ph.D., as Readers. ____________________________________ Timothy B. Noone, Ph.D. ____________________________________ Gregory T. Doolan, Ph.D. ____________________________________ Kevin White, Ph.D. ii To my wife Margaret iii Table of Contents Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................ix CHAPTER I .............................................................................................................................. 1 A. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1 B. DIVINE SIMPLICITY ................................................................................................................. 3 1. Arguments for Divine Simplicity ....................................................................................................................... 5 2. Arguments for the Compatibility of Distinctions with Divine Simplicity ................................................. 14 3. Ockham on Divine Simplicity .......................................................................................................................... 19 C. PROBLEMATIC ACCOUNTS OF DIVINE KNOWLEDGE ................................................. 24 1. Aristotle (384–322 BC) ...................................................................................................................................... 25 B. Avicenna (980–1037 AD) ................................................................................................................................. 33 a. The Necessary and The Possible. ............................................................................................................................... 33 b. The Intelligence of the Necessary Being. .................................................................................................................. 37 C. Averroes (1126–1198 AD) ............................................................................................................................... 45 4. Recapitulation and Summary ............................................................................................................................ 51 D. OUTLINE OF FOLLOWING CHAPTERS ............................................................................. 52 CHAPTER II .......................................................................................................................... 56 A. ST. BONAVENTURE OF BAGNOREGIO (c. 1217–1274 AD) ................................................ 58 1. The Place of Ideas in St. Bonaventure’s Thought ......................................................................................... 58 2. The Status of the Divine Ideas ......................................................................................................................... 60 a. Does God have Ideas? ................................................................................................................................................. 61 i. In I Sententias (ca. 1251). ........................................................................................................................................... 61 ii. De scientia Christi (1254). .......................................................................................................................................... 65 iii. Conclusions. ............................................................................................................................................................ 69 iv. Exemplar in General. ............................................................................................................................................. 71 v. Exemplar as Word. ................................................................................................................................................. 72 v. Exemplar as Art. ...................................................................................................................................................... 74 vi. Exemplar as Ratio. ................................................................................................................................................. 76 viii. Imitative Likeness. ............................................................................................................................................... 79 b. The Unity and Plurality of Divine Ideas .................................................................................................................... 80 i. In I Sententias (ca. 1251). ........................................................................................................................................... 81 ii. De scientia Christi (1254). .......................................................................................................................................... 86 iii. Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................................. 88 iv. Real vs. Rational Relations. ................................................................................................................................... 90 c. The Infinity of the Divine Ideas ................................................................................................................................. 93 i. In I Sententias (ca. 1251). ........................................................................................................................................... 93 iii. Conclusions. ............................................................................................................................................................ 98 d. The Existence of Things in God and the Possibles ................................................................................................. 99 i. In I Sententias (ca. 1251). ........................................................................................................................................... 99 ii. Conclusions. ........................................................................................................................................................... 103 3. The Scope of the Divine Ideas ....................................................................................................................... 104 a. Singulars ....................................................................................................................................................................... 104 b. Evil ..............................................................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Absolute Identity and the Trinity
    Absolute Identity and the Trinity Chris Tweedt Trinititarians are charged with (at least) two contradictions. First, the Father is God and the Son is God, so it seems to follow that the Father is the Son. Trinitarians affirm the premises but deny the conclusion, which seems contradictory. Second, the Father is a god, the Son is a god, and the Holy Spirit is a god, but the Father isn't the Son, the Father isn't the Holy Spirit, and the Son isn't the Holy Spirit. This seems to entail that there are three gods. Again, Trinitarians affirm the premises but deny the conclusion. There are two main views of the Trinity that are designed to (among other things) avoid these alleged contradictions. These views, however, have problems. In this paper, I present a resolution to these alleged contradictions that a Trinitarian proponent of divine simplicity can endorse without succumbing to the problems of the two main current views. What is surprising about the view I'll propose is that it is helped by divine simplicity. This is surprising because many current Trinitarian views either reject divine simplicity or find it a difficult doctrine to maintain. In section 1, I'll better describe the alleged contradictions the Trinitarian needs to dispel and the way in which the Trinitarian needs to dispel these alleged contradic- tions. In section 2, I'll give the two main ways to dispel these alleged contradictions and give the problems with these views. In sections 3{5, I'll propose and defend a view that dispels the alleged contradictions.
    [Show full text]
  • An Anselmian Approach to Divine Simplicity
    Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers Volume 37 Issue 3 Article 3 7-1-2020 An Anselmian Approach to Divine Simplicity Katherin A. Rogers Follow this and additional works at: https://place.asburyseminary.edu/faithandphilosophy Recommended Citation Rogers, Katherin A. (2020) "An Anselmian Approach to Divine Simplicity," Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers: Vol. 37 : Iss. 3 , Article 3. DOI: 10.37977/faithphil.2020.37.3.3 Available at: https://place.asburyseminary.edu/faithandphilosophy/vol37/iss3/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at ePLACE: preserving, learning, and creative exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers by an authorized editor of ePLACE: preserving, learning, and creative exchange. applyparastyle "fig//caption/p[1]" parastyle "FigCapt" applyparastyle "fig" parastyle "Figure" AQ1–AQ5 AN ANSELMIAN APPROACH TO DIVINE SIMPLICITY Katherin A. Rogers The doctrine of divine simplicity (DDS) is an important aspect of the clas- sical theism of philosophers like Augustine, Anselm, and Thomas Aquinas. Recently the doctrine has been defended in a Thomist mode using the intrin- sic/extrinsic distinction. I argue that this approach entails problems which can be avoided by taking Anselm’s more Neoplatonic line. This does involve AQ6 accepting some controversial claims: for example, that time is isotemporal and that God inevitably does the best. The most difficult problem involves trying to reconcile created libertarian free will with the Anselmian DDS. But for those attracted to DDS the Anselmian approach is worth considering.
    [Show full text]
  • St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas on the Mind, Body, and Life After Death
    The University of Akron IdeaExchange@UAkron Williams Honors College, Honors Research The Dr. Gary B. and Pamela S. Williams Honors Projects College Spring 2020 St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas on the Mind, Body, and Life After Death Christopher Choma [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/honors_research_projects Part of the Christianity Commons, Epistemology Commons, European History Commons, History of Philosophy Commons, History of Religion Commons, Metaphysics Commons, Philosophy of Mind Commons, and the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons Please take a moment to share how this work helps you through this survey. Your feedback will be important as we plan further development of our repository. Recommended Citation Choma, Christopher, "St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas on the Mind, Body, and Life After Death" (2020). Williams Honors College, Honors Research Projects. 1048. https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/honors_research_projects/1048 This Dissertation/Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by The Dr. Gary B. and Pamela S. Williams Honors College at IdeaExchange@UAkron, the institutional repository of The University of Akron in Akron, Ohio, USA. It has been accepted for inclusion in Williams Honors College, Honors Research Projects by an authorized administrator of IdeaExchange@UAkron. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. 1 St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas on the Mind, Body, and Life After Death By: Christopher Choma Sponsored by: Dr. Joseph Li Vecchi Readers: Dr. Howard Ducharme Dr. Nathan Blackerby 2 Table of Contents Introduction p. 4 Section One: Three General Views of Human Nature p.
    [Show full text]
  • Life with Augustine
    Life with Augustine ...a course in his spirit and guidance for daily living By Edmond A. Maher ii Life with Augustine © 2002 Augustinian Press Australia Sydney, Australia. Acknowledgements: The author wishes to acknowledge and thank the following people: ► the Augustinian Province of Our Mother of Good Counsel, Australia, for support- ing this project, with special mention of Pat Fahey osa, Kevin Burman osa, Pat Codd osa and Peter Jones osa ► Laurence Mooney osa for assistance in editing ► Michael Morahan osa for formatting this 2nd Edition ► John Coles, Peter Gagan, Dr. Frank McGrath fms (Brisbane CEO), Benet Fonck ofm, Peter Keogh sfo for sharing their vast experience in adult education ► John Rotelle osa, for granting us permission to use his English translation of Tarcisius van Bavel’s work Augustine (full bibliography within) and for his scholarly advice Megan Atkins for her formatting suggestions in the 1st Edition, that have carried over into this the 2nd ► those generous people who have completed the 1st Edition and suggested valuable improvements, especially Kath Neehouse and friends at Villanova College, Brisbane Foreword 1 Dear Participant Saint Augustine of Hippo is a figure in our history who has appealed to the curiosity and imagination of many generations. He is well known for being both sinner and saint, for being a bishop yet also a fellow pilgrim on the journey to God. One of the most popular and attractive persons across many centuries, his influence on the church has continued to our current day. He is also renowned for his influ- ence in philosophy and psychology and even (in an indirect way) art, music and architecture.
    [Show full text]
  • The Church and the People of God: Fragments of a Constitution Al History*
    THE CHURCH AND THE PEOPLE OF GOD: FRAGMENTS OF A CONSTITUTION AL HISTORY* By J.T. Me PARTLIN I THE re-appraisal of the place of the laity in the Church is well-known to be a task which at once arouses the suspicion and hostility of a certain type of Catholic: it eamed Newman himself a formal delation to Rome for heresy, l and the attitude of Newman' s opponents has unfortunately not disappeated with the passage of time, but remains to complicate still further an already sufficiently complex discussion. For some, to recom­ mend a new vision of the laity is nothing less than a chal1enge to the authority of the Church, cal1ing in question the collective wisdom of Catho1icism which has ordained the present relationship of the two orders. On the other hand, ie is now becoming painfully evident that a great deal of our present situation is due more to historical accident than to the considered decision of the Church, and that some of the Church's collective wisdom is thereby obscured rather than expressed - for in the recent past the Church has 'appeated above everything else to be a reli­ gious organisation for practical aims, of an outspoken juridical character. The mystical element in her, everything that stood behind the palpable aims and arrangements, everything that expressed itself in the concept of the Kingdom of God, of the mystical Body of Christ, would not be perceived at once.'2 The restoration of these hitherto obscured elements, moreover, is no merely academic question, for the needs of the modem world are now widely recognised to require a thoroughly activt;! partici­ pation of the laity in the Church' s life.
    [Show full text]
  • © in This Web Service Cambridge University
    Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-89754-9 - An Introduction to Medieval Theology Rik Van Nieuwenhove Index More information Index Abelard, Peter, 82, 84, 99–111, 116, 120 beatific vision, 41, 62, 191 Alain of Lille, 71 beatitude, 172, 195–96 Albert the Great, 171, 264 Beatrijs van Nazareth, 170 Alexander of Hales, 147, 211, 227 beguine movement, 170 allegory, 15, 43, 45, 47, 177 Benedict XII, Pope, 265 Amaury of Bène, 71 Benedict, St., 28–29, 42 Ambrose, 7, 10, 149 Berengar of Tours, 60, 83, 129, 160, see also amor ipse notitia est 51, 117, see love and knowledge Eucharist anagogy, 47 Bernard of Clairvaux, 79, 82, 100, 104, 110, 112–15, analogy, see univocity 147, 251 analogy in Aquinas, 182–85, 234, 235 critique of Abelard, 110–11 Anselm of Canterbury, 16, 30, 71, 78, 81, 83–98, on loving God, 112–14 204, 236 Boccaccio, Giovanni, 251 Anselm of Laon, 72, 99 Boethius, 29–33, 125, 137 Anthony, St., 27 Bonaventure, 34, 47, 123, 141, 146, 148, 170, 173, apophaticism, 8, 34, 271 176, 179, 211–24, 227, 228, 230, 232, 242, 243, Aquinas, 182–83 245, 254 Aquinas, 22, 24, 34, 47, 51, 72, 87, 89, 90, 133, 146, Boniface, Pope, 249 148, 151, 154, 164, 169, 171–210, 214, 225, 227, 230, 235, 236, 237, 238, 240, 241, 244, 246, Calvin, 14 254, 255, 257, 266 Carabine, Deirdre, 65 Arianism, 20, 21 Carthusians, 79 Aristotle, 9, 20, 29, 78, 84, 179, 181, 192, 195, 212, Cassian, John, 27–29, 47 213, 216, 223, 225, 226, 227, 229, 237, 254, Cassidorius, 124 267, 268 cathedral schools, 82, 169 Arts, 124, 222 Catherine of Siena, 251 and pedagogy (Hugh), 124–28
    [Show full text]
  • The Providence of God: a Trinitarian Perspective
    The Providence of God: A Trinitarian Perspective Haydn D. Nelson BA DipEd BD(Hons) This thesis is presented for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy of Murdoch University 2005 I declare that this thesis is my own account of my research and contains as its main content work that has not previously been submitted for a degree at any tertiary education institution. ……………………………… Haydn D. Nelson ABSTRACT The primary focus of this dissertation is the doctrine of the Providence of God and it is approached from a distinctive perspective – that of the doctrine of the Trinity. Its fundamental thesis is that the adoption of a trinitarian perspective on Providence provides us with a conceptual paradigm in which varying theological emphases, which often divide understandings of Providence, are best understood in a form of paradoxical tension or creative balance with each being correctly understood only in the context that the other provides. To demonstrate this, it addresses four issues of Providence that have on occasion divided understandings of Providence in the past and which have become significant issues of contention in the contemporary debate on Providence occasioned by a proposal known as Open Theism. These issues concern the nature of divine transcendence, sovereignty, immutability and impassibility and how each should be understood in the context of divine Providence. Through a detailed examination of three recent trinitarian theologies, which have emanated from the three main communities of the Christian church, it argues that a trinitarian perspective is able to provide significant illumination and explication of these identified issues of Providence and of the tensions that are often intrinsic to this doctrine.
    [Show full text]
  • The Providence of God: a Trinitarian Perspective
    The Providence of God: A Trinitarian Perspective Haydn D. Nelson BA DipEd BD(Hons) This thesis is presented for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy of Murdoch University 2005 I declare that this thesis is my own account of my research and contains as its main content work that has not previously been submitted for a degree at any tertiary education institution. ……………………………… Haydn D. Nelson ABSTRACT The primary focus of this dissertation is the doctrine of the Providence of God and it is approached from a distinctive perspective – that of the doctrine of the Trinity. Its fundamental thesis is that the adoption of a trinitarian perspective on Providence provides us with a conceptual paradigm in which varying theological emphases, which often divide understandings of Providence, are best understood in a form of paradoxical tension or creative balance with each being correctly understood only in the context that the other provides. To demonstrate this, it addresses four issues of Providence that have on occasion divided understandings of Providence in the past and which have become significant issues of contention in the contemporary debate on Providence occasioned by a proposal known as Open Theism. These issues concern the nature of divine transcendence, sovereignty, immutability and impassibility and how each should be understood in the context of divine Providence. Through a detailed examination of three recent trinitarian theologies, which have emanated from the three main communities of the Christian church, it argues that a trinitarian perspective is able to provide significant illumination and explication of these identified issues of Providence and of the tensions that are often intrinsic to this doctrine.
    [Show full text]
  • Why the One Cannot Have Parts: Plotinus on Divine Simplicity
    Why the One Cannot Have Parts 1 Why the One Cannot Have Parts: Plotinus on Divine Simplicity, Ontological Independence, and Perfect Being Theology By Caleb Murray Cohoe This is an Author's Original/Accepted Manuscript of an article whose final and definitive form, the Version of Record appears in: Philosophical Quarterly (Published By Oxford University Press): Volume 67, Issue 269, 1 OctoBer 2017, Pages 751–771: https://doi.org/10.1093/pq/pqx008 Abstract: I use Plotinus to present aBsolute divine simplicity as the consequence of principles aBout metaphysical and explanatory priority to which most theists are already committed. I employ Phil Corkum’s account of ontological independence as independent status to present a new interpretation of Plotinus on the dependence of everything on the One. On this reading, if something else (whether an internal part or something external) makes you what you are, then you are ontologically dependent on it. I show that this account supports Plotinus’s claim that any entity with parts cannot Be fully independent. In particular, I lay out Plotinus’s case for thinking that even a divine self-understanding intellect cannot Be fully independent. I then argue that a weaker version of simplicity is not enough for the theist since priority monism meets the conditions of a moderate version of ontological independence just as well as a transcendent But complex ultimate Being. Keywords: aseity, simplicity, ontological dependence, perfect Being, monism, Platonism 1. Introduction This paper draws on the works of Plotinus to present absolute divine simplicity as the natural consequence of principles aBout metaphysical and explanatory priority to which the theist (and the perfect Being theologian in particular) is already committed.
    [Show full text]
  • Divine Omnipotence in Descartes' Philosophy
    City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works All Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects 6-2014 Divine Omnipotence In Descartes' Philosophy Alfredo Rodriguez Graduate Center, City University of New York How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/274 Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY). Contact: [email protected] DIVINE OMNIPOTENCE IN DESCARTES’ PHILOSOPHY BY ALFREDO RODRIGUEZ A master's thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Liberal Studies in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts, The City University of New York 2014 © 2014 Alfredo Rodriguez All Rights Reserved ii This manuscript has been read and accepted for the Graduate Faculty in Liberal Studies in satisfaction of the requirement for the degree of Master of Arts. Professor Douglas Lackey Date Thesis Adviser Professor Matthew K. Gold Date Executive Officer THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK iii Abstract Divine Omnipotence in Descartes’ Philosophy by Alfredo Rodriguez Adviser: Professor Douglas Lackey The present thesis explores various aspects of Rene Descartes’ doctrine of divine omnipotence within the context of his overall philosophy and with reference to his medieval heritage. This thesis shows that, contrary to his multiple and explicit statements that God’s power cannot be limited in any way, Descartes took a more nuanced position on divine omnipotence that incorporated aspects of the widely accepted medieval position that God’s goodness is a constraint on his power.
    [Show full text]
  • A Brief Introduction to Divine Simplicity
    1 A Brief Introduction to Divine Simplicity [Notes adapted from Brian Davies, Philosophy of Religion: A Guide and Anthology, pp. 533-8] 1. What is divine simplicity? The claim that God is simple is an ancient one. It is endorsed by several of the early Christian fathers. It is defended by a variety of medieval Jewish, Christian and Islamic thinkers and also by many contemporary philosophers and theologians. But what might it mean to say that God is simple? A famous account of divine simplicity comes in St. Augustine’s The City of God. Here Augustine says: There is then one sole Good, which is simple, and therefore unchangeable; and that is God. By this Good all good things were created; but they are not simple, and for that reason they are changeable. … The reason why a nature is called simple is that it cannot lose any attribute it possesses, that there is no difference between what it is and what it has, as there is, for example, between a vessel and the liquid it contains, a body and its colour, the atmosphere and its light or heat, the soul and its wisdom. None of these is what it contains; the vessel is not the liquid, nor the body the colour, nor the atmosphere the light or heat; nor is the soul the same as its wisdom. (The City of God, XI, 10). Augustine shows us that when philosophers say that God is ‘simple’ they are saying two things: i) God is unchanging (immutable) ii) God does not possess different properties or attributes God’s essence and attributes are one and the same.
    [Show full text]
  • Providence and a New Creation Charles M. Wood Here Is an Entry
    Providence and a New Creation Charles M. Wood “We mustn’t question the ways of Providence,” said the Rector. “Providence?” said the old woman. “Don’t yew talk to me about Providence. I’ve had enough of Providence. First he took my husband, and then he took my ’taters, but there’s One above as’ll teach him to mend his manners, if he don’t look out.” The Rector was too much distressed to challenge this remarkable piece of theology. “We can but trust in God, Mrs. Giddings,” he said . —Dorothy Sayers, The Nine Tailors1 A Problematic Legacy Here is an entry from the diary of Thomas O. Summers (1812-1882), an English immigrant to America who became one of the leading theologians of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, and founding head of its publishing house: Nashville, February 15, 1872.—On going to the Publishing House this morning I found my office, library, papers, etc., in ashes. About midnight a fire broke out in the bindery, and burned it, my office, the composition and stereotype rooms. My journal, which I had kept for forty years, manuscript works on Retribution, Hymnology, the Church, notes on Scripture, sermons, commonplace-books, autograph letters of the Wesleys, Coke, Asbury, Watson, and other distinguished men, and my library worth thousands of dollars, were all consumed. Summers concluded the entry thus: The Lord would not have permitted so great a calamity to happen to me, if he had 1 Dorothy Sayers, The Nine Tailors (San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1962), p. 68. not intended to overrule it for good; so I submit without murmuring.
    [Show full text]