[Loyola Book Comp., run.tex: 0 AQR–Vol. W–rev. 0, 14 Nov 2003 ] [The Aquinas Review–Vol. W–rev. 0: 1 14 Nov 2003, 4:01 p.m.] . R. Glen Coughlin Some Considerations on Aristotelian Place and Newtonian Space R. Glen Coughlin Most Catholics agree with most non-Catholics that the scholastic philosophy, especially the scholastic physics, by means of which much of the Church’s doctrine has tra- ditionally been expounded, has been wholly discredited by modern science. They see that modern science has ex- tended our understanding of nature and given us a con- trol over nature not even imagined by the older philoso- phers, and that many assumptions of modern science are incompatible with the ancient philosophy of nature—and they draw their conclusion. They are right in some ways. There really are disagreements in principle here, and the scholastics certainly got some things wrong. Yet if we leave the question in this state, we are surely, as Catholics, in a curious state. We recite a creed in which the Son is said to be ‘‘consubstantial’’ with the Father; we speak of the Eucharist in terms of the ‘‘accidents of bread and wine’’ and the ‘‘substance’’ of Christ; we talk of the ‘‘form’’ and ‘‘matter’’ of the sacraments; of a ‘‘natural law;’’ of God as the ‘‘First Mover’’ and even as a ‘‘cause of being.’’ All these notions find their most complete development in scholas- tic physics and metaphysics. If that philosophy of nature and the metaphysics based upon it are completely wrong, R. Glen Coughlin is a tutor at Thomas Aquinas College. This article was first delivered as a lecture at St. John’s College, Santa Fe, and then later expanded for its publication here. 1 [Loyola Book Comp., run.tex: 2 AQR–Vol. W–rev. 0, 14 Nov 2003 ] [The Aquinas Review–Vol. W–rev. 0: 3 14 Nov 2003, 4:01 p.m.] . Some Considerations on Aristotelian Place and Newtonian Space R. Glen Coughlin the theological grasp of matters of faith through the lan- causes, goods, etc., we are in fact turning to the very foun- guage of that philosophy is impossible, for modern sci- dations of scholastic natural philosophy. But there is really ence is surely not concerned with such notions, but rather no choice to be made: the doctrines of the Church are al- with mathematical formulae which reflect nature in some ready formulated in terms drawn, in large part, from the way, often a very remote way. A more exact analysis of common sense upon which ancient natural philosophy is the method of modern physics would lead us to conclude based. that it has nothing to say about these things, positive or The facts testify that the Church, in the Ecumenical Coun- negative. I will not go into this method in detail here, but cils held after his (St. Thomas Aquinas’) death, so used his it is useful to recall what one of the chief exponents of writings that many of the decrees propounded found their modern science, Henri Poincare´, had to say about how source in his works and sometimes even the same words modern science treats even those things which in some were used to clarify Catholic dogmas or to destroy errors.² way fall within its scope: If that physics is so far from truth as most people think, When one says that force is the cause of a motion, one is doing metaphysics, and this definition, if one must content we are left saying the Catholic Church has utterly misrep- oneself with it, will be absolutely sterile. That a definition resented the truths God has given her the exclusive and might serve some purpose, it is necessary that it teaches to infallible ability to define. This is not, of course, to say measure force; moreover, this is sufficient: it is in no way that everything the ancients said about physics is right or necessary that it teaches us what force is in itself, not even that everything the moderns say is wrong. It is only to whether it is the cause or the effect of motion. insist that there must be something essentially right about . .even if this direct intuition [arising from the notion the scholastic procedure and central insights. of effort, which is familiar to us from infancy] makes us Now, the Church clearly sends us to St. Thomas Aquinas know the true nature of force in itself, it will be insufficient as to the master of philosophy and theology. In Aeterni Pa- for the founding of Mechanics; it will be, moreover, totally tris, Pope Leo XIII quoted Pope Innocent VI as saying: useless. What is important is not to know what force is, it is to know how to measure it.¹ His teaching above that of others, the canons alone ex- If this is right, one could hardly think of using mod- cepted, enjoys such an elegance of phraseology, a method ern science as a replacement for the older philosophy of of statement, a truth of proposition, that those who hold to it are never found swerving from the path of truth, and nature, of basing theological thought on the theoretical he who dares assail it will always be suspected of error.³ structures built around operational definitions of force, mass, light, etc. Such definitions are not about what these Moreover, when Pope Pius X sends us to the scholas- things are, let alone what a substance or a good is. tics, he leaves no doubt that St. Thomas is first among What, then, are we to base our theology on? If we unequals: think that we can turn to the evident truths about things, ² Pope Pius IX, Letter to Fr. Raymond Bianchi, July 9, 1870. ¹ Henri Poincare´, La Science et L’hypothèse, (Paris: Flammarion, 1968), ³ Pope Leo XIII, Aeterni Patris (1879), (Boston: Daughters of St. Paul, pp. 118, 124. n.d.), p. 16. 2 3 [Loyola Book Comp., run.tex: 4 AQR–Vol. W–rev. 0, 14 Nov 2003 ] [The Aquinas Review–Vol. W–rev. 0: 5 14 Nov 2003, 4:01 p.m.] . Some Considerations on Aristotelian Place and Newtonian Space R. Glen Coughlin When we recommended that the philosophy of Aquinas large extent determine how we think of the order of the ‘‘particularly’’ but not ‘‘exclusively’’ be followed, some per- universe. I hope to manifest more fully in the third part suaded themselves that they were acting in conformity with of this paper how the conception of place is tied to our Our will, or at least not actively opposing it, in the indiscrim- understanding of other aspects of the world. inate adoption of an adherence to the philosophical opin- This paper will be divided into three parts. In the first ions of some other Scholastic doctor, though they be repug- and second parts, I will present Aristotle’s and Newton’s nant to the principles of St. Thomas. They were greatly views and something of their backgrounds; in the third, I deceived.⁴ will attempt to outline the significance of the differences It is clear, though, that St. Thomas’ philosophy of na- uncovered in the first two parts. ture is derived from Aristotle’s, and so I would like to con- centrate here on Aristotle’s thought. As I said, I do not I wish to give a detailed critique of the method of modern Aristotle’s View and Its Historical Background science; instead, I would like to compare Aristotle and the moderns as to certain general points of procedure, and try The Pythagoreans, believing that numbers, thought of to show the consequences of embracing the modern mode as points, constituted things, rightly considered that such without qualification. To do this, I will take Newton as numbers must be separated by empty space. For, as Aris- a spokesman for the modern mind, for he focuses in a totle says, points cannot be multiple and touching. They remarkable way some key strands of modern thought. must be separated, and, since all beings, according to the Furthermore, our idea of place is a locus of our thought Pythagoreans, are made up of these point-numbers, they about other matters, both physical and theological, so I must be separated by non-being, i.e., by empty space. The will start with Aristotle’s and Newton’s views of place. Eleatics, led by Parmenides, responded by saying that what We everywhere see signs of the importance of place in is not, is not, and what is, is. By denying the existence our thought: we speak of the ‘‘place’’ of a concept in a of non-being, they were constrained to deny the existence system, of a person in a family, of the family in the state; of multiplicity and of motion, for both imply difference we speak of God being ‘‘everywhere,’’ and the universe and difference implies non-being (this is not that). The being ‘‘nowhere’’ or ‘‘in itself;’’ we speak of ‘‘where’’ we immobility of the All is a direct consequence of denying are in time or our careers; of a species being ‘‘in’’ a genus; the existence of the non-being needed for difference. For etc. The universality of our image and notion of place example, if there is no difference between white and black, even led Kant to posit space as a form of consciousness, one can hardly change from one to the other. Hence the i.e., an attribute of our minds which determines the way famous, or infamous, doctrine of Eleaticism: ‘‘The All is we sense the world. More proximately to physics, it is clear one and motionless.’’ that the way we understand things to be in place will to a Faced with this, certain later philosophers tried to ex- plain our experience of motion and difference while re- ⁴ Quoted by Santiago Ramı´rez in ‘‘The Authority of St.