Notes
Thoughts On Aquinas by Ed Sarkis
"God created the heavens and earth" Genesis
St. Thomas Aquinas -- medieval Catholic theologian, its chief architect -- contended that most Christian theology agrees with Aristotle, whom he frequently referred to as simply "the Philosopher." Only, Christians by faith believed that the world has a creator. Aristotle said the world has no origin and is itself "eternal." Aquinas explicitly states that neither position is correct, that reason cannot say that either is necessarily true. A moment of rare generosity of understanding. To say the world always existed does not deny a God, only God as a creator. Notice St. Thomas does not deride Aristotle or even contend that Christian philosophy is an advance on Aristotle's metaphysics. To him, Christianity was not reactionary and simply developed on an equally valid premise.
What many realize today is again the legitimacy of the notion of the world as always existing. What happens, I think, is Christianity finally has a world and a God. (The joke: A man buys a three pound ham for his visiting parents. The wife has her family over before and eats the ham. Her husband asks, "Where's the ham?" "The cat ate it," she says. They weigh the cat and it is exactly three pounds. "If this is the cat, where's the ham? If it's the ham, where's the cat?" asked the husband.) The dilemma is 'why must I have faith in God.' If Aquinas is right then these two world views are divided only politically; people who hold each view reactively to the other.
Let me explain. Aristotle thought body and mind were separate but never (technically, "actually") is there the one without the other. The metaphysics of Christianity, Plato and St. Thomas have mind (as "God") literally existing prior to the body, or simply the world. For Plato, because the mind is prior to the body, an object is dependent on its existence to mind -- intelligence belongs to mind and objects are essentially what one thinks it as.
For Christianity then a Being has to be explained that has "qualities" but none of what constitutes qualities of our ("perceived") world. This is famously called the "third man argument" of Plato. We are always attributing something -- the explanation -- to that "third man" who happens not to be with you and me now.
Technically the third man indicates God or Mind before the world, i.e. us. I know what the world looks like, but what does mind before body look like.
As it happens, my view is much like Aristotle's. I see no reason to question oneself about what you believe -- belief is a secondary phenomena. Christianity's take on "faith" seems ludicrous. I think the world does show what it is. Who said it's immoral to investigate what is real? Why be embarrassed about wanting to know the truth? (Those reactionaries hunting out logocentrism.)
I believe in empiricism, but also that one must be empirical about art as well. Here one must take appearances seriously. It seems arrogant to say it's merely an appearance -- as if you knew its borders, where it starts and stops.
To end, consider great periods in art. People have to have confidence in their abilities to represent the world to themselves. The devout will always worry that new ideas are challenging their belief. Here, genuine love would investigate the world with pleasure. If one is to be punished or feel guilty for not believing established doctrines, then let wisdom be the guide -- fear never is correct in forming our ideas.
(It is unfortunate that science and painting in the Rennaisance were so compatible and now seem hostile.)
back to Aquinas, Aristotle, Art