UHI Thesis - pdf download summary Moses Maimonides and Thomas Aquinas on the Good Life From the Fall to Human Perfectibility Miller, Corey DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (AWARDED BY OU/ABERDEEN) Award date: 2015 Awarding institution: The University of Edinburgh Link URL to thesis in UHI Research Database General rights and useage policy Copyright,IP and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the UHI Research Database are retained by the author, users must recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. This copy has been supplied on the understanding that it is copyright material and that no quotation from the thesis may be published without proper acknowledgement, or without prior permission from the author. Users may download and print one copy of any thesis from the UHI Research Database for the not-for-profit purpose of private study or research on the condition that: 1) The full text is not changed in any way 2) If citing, a bibliographic link is made to the metadata record on the the UHI Research Database 3) You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain 4) You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the UHI Research Database Take down policy If you believe that any data within this document represents a breach of copyright, confidence or data protection please contact us at [email protected] providing details; we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Download date: 30. Sep. 2021 Moses Maimonides and Thomas Aquinas on the Good Life From the Fall to Human Perfectibility A Thesis Presented for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Theology at the University of Aberdeen Corey M. Miller BA - Multnomah University MA - Multnomah Biblical Seminary MA - Talbot School of Theology MA - Purdue University 2014 I, Corey Michael Miller, confirm that the composition of this thesis is my own and has not been accepted in any previous application for any other degree. Furthermore, all quotations have been properly denoted by use of quotation marks and all sources explicitly acknowledged. Corey Michael Miller Corey M. Miller Date: 1 September, 2014 ABSTRACT This thesis is a comparative exploration of the good life from the perspectives of Moses Maimonides and Thomas Aquinas. By sketching a broadly characterized Aristotelian view of the good life and noting the common structure that their accounts share with their ancient philosophical forebear, we can identify certain important features lacking in Aristotle, but accounted for in either Maimonides or Aquinas or both and which do philosophical work throughout their respective projects. These features serve to distinctly illuminate and enhance the common Maimonidean and Thomistic accounts on the nature and extent of the good life. The comparative approach reveals significant differences in each more sharply than if considered in isolation. Comparatively, Aristotle’s approach may be characterized as informational, Maimonides’ as instructional, and Aquinas’ as pneumatic-relational. Significantly, the role of faith as a virtue in both Maimonides and Aquinas makes a substantive difference over Aristotle’s in theoretical and practical ways, and can be used to exploit their accounts of the human Fall, moral perfection, and ultimate human perfection—the knowledge of God. The medieval positions initially face similar problems marking Aristotle’s account, making the good life seem virtually elusive as both are challenged sometimes in more acute ways than is Aristotle’s account. The way in which each responds to similar problems helps to further elucidate their respective positions on faith, the knowledge of God, and the good life. However, we discover that Aquinas’ account displays certain advantages over Maimonides’ account which seems to suffer from a form of what we might call “spiritual autism” when compared to Aquinas’ model of spiritually formative moral epistemology. This helps to illuminate implications for future research in theology, virtue theory, philosophy, and social cognition. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to thank some of the many people who have encouraged the writing of this dissertation. My director of studies, Innes Visagie, and my supervisor, Paul Helm, have both challenged my thinking in many ways and encouraged me along the way, as has Jamie Grant who provided help navigating the path to the Ph.D. I am also grateful for Jamie Grant and Timothy Chappell who served as my viva examiners. Too many people to name contributed financially and through encouragement to see this work to an end. Individuals such as Dave Roberts and Mark Hanna along with several families, including the Simms, Reinstandlers, Pences, Moores, and Wallens, were among those most supportive in providing significant accountability and/or funding to keep me moving forward. I would like to thank Larry Baxter, Tully Borland, Joey Dodson, Ronald Frost, Erik Hanson, Jonathan Jacobs, Yongfu Meiling, Rick Wade, Dorothy Deering, and Michael Thune for helpful comments on drafts. I am particularly grateful for my family: my mother, Lynette Sopko; my in-laws, Bob and Lynnae Ness; and especially my wife, Melinda, and kids, Parker, Sadie, and Dacey, whose incomparable patience, given my long, extended hours and years committed in graduate school, made this feat possible. They have had to sacrifice for me to complete this project, and my wife has been a trooper through it all. Last, but certainly not least, I wish to honor and thank God for providing me with a new lot in life, the Good Life, and making even this endeavor possible through regeneration, motivation, and long term vision. ABBREVIATIONS diss. dissertation ed(s). editor(s) e.g. example gratia, for example etc. et cetera, and the rest i.e. id est, that is M.A. Master of Arts no. number n.p. no publisher Ph.D. Doctor of Philosophy p(p) page(s) Th.D. Doctor of Theology TSS testimonium spiritus sancti univ. university vol. volume TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 Chapter One A COMMON TELEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND 4 1.1 The Basic Structure of the Human Good 5 1.1.1 Human Nature and its Natural Capacities 7 1.1.2 The Human Telos (virtue and theoria) and Theos 10 1.1.3 Ethical Theory 17 1.2 Problems in Attaining the Prize 30 1.2.1 Internal Disqualifications 31 1.2.2 External Disqualifications 35 1.3 A Way Through for the Virtuous: “The Few, The Proud” 39 1.4 The Medieval “Aristotelian” Turn 45 Chapter Two MAIMONIDES AND THE GOOD LIFE 48 2.1 Maimonides on Faith 50 2.2 The Fall and Ethics 60 2.3 Morality and the Path to Attaining Human Perfection 71 2.3.1 The Dispensability of Fortune 71 2.3.2 Habituation, the Fixity of Character, and Repentance 75 2.3.3 Sagacity, Saintliness, and Moral Motivation 81 2.4 “Morality” upon the Attainment of Intellectual Perfection: Imitatio Dei 93 Chapter Three AQUINAS AND THE GOOD LIFE 106 3.1 The Aristotelian Synthesis 107 3.2 Prelapsarianism and Human Rectitude 114 3.2.1 The Meta-Ethics of Goodness 114 3.2.2 Human Moral Psychology and Human Action 116 3.2.3 The Original State 126 i 3.3 Postlapsarianism: Sin, Origin of Sin, and Original Sin 130 3.3.1 The Concept of Sin 130 3.3.2 Origin of Sin 131 3.3.3 Original Sin 139 3.4 The Necessary Conditions for the Wayfarer State 144 3.4.1 Faith 144 3.4.2 Charity 151 3.4.3 Grace 160 3.5 Conclusion 172 Chapter Four MAIMONIDES AND AQUINAS IN DIALOGUE 174 4.1 Comparing Conceptions 174 4.2 Maimonides and the Cosmic Orphan 178 4.3 Maimonides on Natural Law and an Initial Evasion 192 4.4 The Ways of Negativity and the Knowledge of (the Simple) God 203 4.4.1 Negative Knowledge and the Tension between Transcendence and Immanence 203 4.4.2 The Immanent Foundation of Aquinas’ Model of Spiritual Formation 219 4.4.3 Trust and the Transmission of Testimonial Knowledge 232 4.4.4 Contemporary Elucidation on Aquinas’ Pneumatically Relational Model 239 Concluding Remarks 253 Bibliography 258 ii INTRODUCTION This project is a comparative exploration of the good life from the standpoint of two of the greatest medieval philosophers. As Moses Maimonides (1135/8-1204) is the greatest Jewish philosopher of the medieval period, so Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) is the greatest Christian philosopher of that period. Yet it has been said that “Maimonides without Aristotle is unthinkable,”1 and, “without Aristotle, Thomas would not be.”2 Of course, what is meant by such statements is simply to express a debt to the enormous and ubiquitous influence Aristotle has had on the two medievalists and continues to have on their respective traditions through their writings such that these latter thinkers’ views come to light best when understood in light of their historical sources of influence. Given that Aristotle was the major (though certainly not only) philosophical influence on these two thinkers, it makes sense to begin this exploration by attending to his views that are germane for shaping some of the background of their respective positions on important issues. While noting the common structure that the medieval thinkers share with their ancient philosophical forebear, indeed with much of the classical tradition altogether, my central concern in this research will be to identify certain important features that seem to be lacking in Aristotle but are accounted for in either Maimonides or Aquinas or both and which do philosophical work throughout their respective projects. These features serve to distinctly illuminate and enhance the common Maimonidean and Thomistic accounts over the Aristotelian account on the nature and extent of the good life as understood through an exploration of their respective views on the fallen human condition and human perfectibility.