Metaphysi-WHAT, now? Wrapping My Head Around Thomistic Metaphysics

The Lord has allowed me to write a few books on Scripture, spirituality, and apologetics; but He has also left me with a glaring weakness: I find reading St. Thomas Aquinas to be extremely difficult. His vocabulary - specifically the philosophical vocabulary he makes use of in his theology - has been a barrier for me (e.g., essence, substance, matter and form, potency, act). I know what the words mean in modern, American English; but Thomas uses them in what appears to be a completely different sense. Theologically, I have still been able to benefit from his insights; but they've come to me through the mediation of others (predominantly via my brilliant friend Kevin Vost, who has written a number of books on Thomas' thought). Even so, when I return to Thomas for myself, the semantic block remains.

I thought that a college course, "Philosophy for Theologians," might help me to finally overcome this hurdle. It was taught by an eminently-gifted Dominican priest, who provided a sweeping introduction to the field. We read Ralph McInerny's St. Thomas Aquinas and A First Glance at St. Thomas Aquinas and John Paul II's Faith and Reason. The course agave me a better grasp upon how human beings come to know and what sets human intelligence apart from that of other animals. I was taught that the study of physics (change and movement) led Greek philosophy to the recognition of an immaterial, Uncaused Cause (God) and thus the need for metaphysics, the science of "being as being." I also learned how relativism and the murky theology of the past century could be traced back to Immanuel Kant's rejection of an "objective metaphysics." Now, the scope of  the class was far too wide to go into these matters in any great depth and the assigned readings honestly didn't do much in terms of helping me read Aquinas. At least I left, however, with a better grasp of what knowledge I lacked - metaphysics!

Afterward, I came across a couple of Fulton J. Sheen's early works that had just been reprinted, The Philosophy of Science and God and Intelligence in Modern Philosophy. It seemed like a God-send, given Sheen's talent for making complex subjects intelligible to the layman. Both were advertised as Sheen using St. Thomas to expound upon the objective basis of human knowledge. The description was accurate, but I found myself reading the young Doctor Fulton J. Sheen, just graduated from the University of Leuven and flexing his philosophical muscle, as opposed to the later television host and writer addressing working-class Americans. I made few gains in my quest to understand St. Thomas' metaphysical underpinnings.

I had just registered for another college course when I happened upon Facebook post from the prolific and always trustworthy Mike Aquilina:

"I had the metaphysical itch when I was very young, but found most books on metaphysics unreadable...Then I met the metaphysician Michael Torre who, to teach his intro classes, had written his own textbook, which he would print out from his dot-matrix printer and reproduce for his undergrads. I read the book and was astonished....I begged Michael to send it off to a publisher. He said he’d think about it. We continued that conversation for 25 years, but now, AT LAST, THE BOOK IS IN PRINT. If you’ve always wanted to read philosophy, but always choked by page 10, you now have your book: WHAT IS: Introductory Reflections on Thomistic Metaphyscis."

I ordered it the next day, and after just a few pages realized that it was exactly what I had been looking for. Professor Torre cuts to the chase. What is metaphysics? Aristotle said that it was the investigation of "being insofar as it is being." Torre helpfully translates this to mean the investigation of "the most basic and fundamental principles of anything that exists." Its goal is to arrive at "the first and ultimate cause of all things." (Spoiler: When metaphysics is done well, such as by Aristotle and Aquinas, that cause is "God.") Now, with such a controversial end, metaphysics must also show students, "how to defend its conclusions against skeptical attack...Hence it takes up the first principles of knowing...the possibility of knowledge and of certitude." 

The truly beautiful thing, as Torre repeatedly demonstrates, is that metaphysics - despite the terminology - doesn't require that you come to it with any specialized knowledge; by using our senses to take in the every day world around us, we can reason to an objective knowledge of WHAT (the nature of things) IS (their existence). In the span of 267 pages Professor Torre led me from foundational truths all the way to arguing the existence of God from causality, to discussing the problem of evil. To make a long story short: I just finished that second college course I mentioned above...and I thoroughly enjoyed reading extensive portions of Thomas' Summa Theologica as part of it! My sincere thanks to Professor Michael Torre and his WHAT IS.

Book Review: "Just Whatever" by Matt Nelson

I have been a great admirer of Matt Nelson's online articles and Reasonable Catholic blog, so I cracked the cover of his first book with incredibly high expectations - and yet, Nelson exceeded them. Just Whatever: How to Help the Spiritually Indifferent Find Beliefs that Really Matter is a master's seminar, bringing philosophy, history, and finally, theology, to bear on the most pressing - albeit most neglected - questions in our lives.

For those new to Matt Nelson's work, they will quickly recognize his skill as a writer. His appreciation of great English writers such as Newman, Chesterton, and Lewis is evident, not just in quotations but in the character of Nelson's work. His prose is something special. Like Lewis, the profundity of his thought is often made clear by everyday examples, and he is honest about his own past struggles with questions of faith.

Just Whatever is divided into three parts, based upon three levels of religious indifference: 1) Indifference to the existence of a personal God; 2) Indifference to the claims of Jesus; 3) Indifference to the Church. In each section Nelson draws together the thought of the best minds - past (Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, Pascal, Newman, Chesterton, Lewis, Sheed, Sheen) and present (Ratzinger, Kreeft, Craig, Wright, Hahn, Pitre, Barron) - to overcome the indifference  and objections that keep far too many at a distance from God and the fullness of His Revelation to mankind.

Part One is an unflinching look at the objections to God's existence raised by atheism. Materialism, evolution, the problem of evil, and more - Nelson's responses are expertly reasoned and convincing. Those lulled into the intellectual and spiritual slumber of life without God will find themselves shocked awake by the philosophical arguments for His existence. They will also be forced to face atheism's logical end:

With no purpose to life except what we invent for ourselves, with no hope of life after death, and with all our greatest achievements ultimately without meaning or effect, one is left with little else than the "nausea" of existence that Jean-Paul Sartre wrote about. If God does not exist, then this meaningless existence we call our life is as good as it gets.     From this follows the questions of whether life is worth living. Sartre's existentialist ally Albert Camus reflected deeply on the consequences of life without God and came to the staggering conclusion in his literary essay The Myth of Sisyphus that "there is only one really serious philosophical problem and that is suicide. Deciding whether or not one's life is worth living is to answer the fundamental question in philosophy. All other questions follow from that." Camus understood that if God does not exist and our existence is a random accident headed for nowhere, then whether life is worth living is a question for which there is no true answer. (p. 47-48)

If that thought doesn't shock a man out of his spiritual indifference, then I doubt anything, short of a brush with death, can.

Parts Two and Three are equally as insightful. Nelson brings a host of ancient sources to bear on the question of Jesus' existence and his chapter on the historical reliability of the gospels is chocked full of the most up-to-date research. And his chapters specifically on Catholicism? After reading them this weekend, I was more spiritually alert when receiving Reconciliation and the Eucharist - I can't give higher praise than that.

Matt Nelson is an incredibly talented writer, gifted well beyond his years. (And honestly, well beyond mine, too.) Just Whatever is sure to be the first of many important works. 

Book Review: "The Porch and the Cross" by Kevin Vost

Christianity has long held that our Faith is a reasonable one. From the recognition of God’s existence to the right use of our sexuality, human reason powerfully reaffirms our deepest convictions as Catholics. Not only do we Christians need to be able to present our beliefs in a logical way, but as our society descends further into secularism it behooves us to be able to show how the traditional understanding of morality and family life are not simply “antiquated religious notions,” but are demonstrably true to any person willing to employ their reason in living according to nature. This is where philosophy, and Stoic philosophy in particular, has always been of value to Christians. As St. Justin Martyr explained in the second century, “In moral philosophy the Stoics have established right principles, and the poets too have expounded such, because the seed of the Word was implanted in the whole human race” (Second Apology VIII, 1). And that brings me to the new book from my friend Dr. Kevin Vost, The Porch and the Cross: Ancient Stoic Wisdom for Modern Christian Living. I am incredibly gratified that Angelico Press recognized it as an ideal complement to my work of biblical exegesis/apologetics, The Epistle to the Hebrews and the Seven Core Beliefs of Catholics.

In The Porch and the Cross, Dr. Vost introduces us to the lives, teachings, and legacies of four of the most influential Stoic philosophers – Musonius Rufus, Epictetus, Seneca, and the Roman Emperor, Marcus Aurelius. (Amazingly, two were historical contemporaries of the Lord Jesus; we even read of Seneca’s brother, Gallio, in Acts 18:12-27!) Unless you are already steeped in the Stoics, I have no doubt that, like me, you will be amazed at what you discover in this book.

Allow me to follow Dr. Vost’s lead and begin with Musonius Rufus. The man was a first-century “pro-life” activist! Not only did he publicly protest the gladiatorial games in Athens, but he also extolled the ancient laws prohibiting abortion and contraception. He taught that marriage was the natural union of one man and one woman, entered into for the beauty of life-long companionship and the welcoming of new lives (hopefully, many new lives) into the world. Parents, and not an amorphous state, bore the responsibility for educating their children –and that applied equally to sons and daughters (since both possessed the same powers of reason).

Dr. Vost then presents us with pride of the Stoics, Epictetus – the slave (his very name means “acquired”) who gained his freedom and rose to prominence as a professional philosopher. Epictetus taught that happiness, no matter one’s state in life, lay in interior freedom. It is what we say to ourselves, and not our circumstances, that determine our emotions and actions; and it is our moral purpose that distinguishes us from animals. He addressed practical means of growing in virtue and combating what we Christians would come to call the seven deadly sins. Is it any wonder that his Handbook was adapted for use in Christian monasteries? Further, Epictetus’ insights  served as the basis for psychotherapists Albert Ellis’s rational-emotive therapy and Aaron Beck’s cognitive therapy.

I realize that I have two Stoics yet to discuss: Of Seneca let me simply note that his maxims were especially loved by the early Dominicans and that St. Thomas Aquinas made copious use of them when extolling the virtues in his Summa Theologica. (Is there a stronger endorsement?) Dr. Vost’s chapters covering Marcus Aurelius are truly inspirational – a Roman emporer who embraced simplicity, sexual purity, and was convinced that all human beings, no matter their station in life, possessed dignity. Listen to him for yourself: “[M]y philosophy means keeping that vital spark within you free from damage and degradation, using it to transcend pain and pleasure, doing everything with a purpose, avoiding lies and hypocrisy, not relying on another person’s actions or failings. To accept everything that comes and everything that is given, as coming from the same spiritual source” (Meditations, II, 17). It is the grace of Christ that makes it possible for us to do just that!

The Stoics had their short comings, but Christians have always recognized them as powerful cultural allies in explicating a morality rooted in the natural law and the inculcation of virtue. Dr. Kevin Vost’s The Porch and the Cross: Ancient Stoic Wisdom for Modern Christian Living (Angelico Press, 2016) is a much needed reminder that Christianity, and especially Catholic Christianity, has always valued its Jewish and Gentile heritage:  We embrace Revelation and philosophy, faith and reason – all in the service of Christ, Truth incarnate.

Aristotle 101 - Part II, Bodies & Attributes

Yes, more notes from Mortimer Adler's Aristotle for Everybody.
Aristotle recognized that the universe contained more things that could be thought of than simply the physical bodies (things) we observe:  mathematical concepts, fictional characters, ideas and theories for example.  Adler promises to address those after he lays much more of the groundwork: 


When considering physical bodies, Aristotle drew a sharp distinction between 1) a body, and 2) the characteristics it possesses.  A rock, for example, is a body.  Lets say we have a rock that is grey and weigh 5 lbs.  Its color and weight are characteristics that belong to the rock.  The color and weight don't exist, in and of themselves, apart from the rock.  If the stone is blown up, you no longer have the weight "5 lbs."

The stone on the other hand does have existence.  You can change the stone's color by painting it purple, or its weight by grounding it down from 5 lbs. to 2 lbs.  But white has not magically transmuted into purple or 5 lbs. been changed into 2.  It is the rock that changed.  "Physical things, in short, are changeable.  Physical attributes are not changeable; they are the respects in which physical things change" (p.13).


There are three principal respects in which things change:
1) in quanity - weight or size
2) in quality  - shape, color, texture
3) in place    - move from one place to another


The most important attributes are those which do not change as long as that body exists.  These are the attributes that help us in defining something's nature.
Examples:  certain metals conduct electricity; mammals suckle their young; human beings ask questions

Human beings are physical things, bodies.  But we're more than that.  We are rational animals - not just things, but persons.  Aristotle is going to teach us about our three dimensions as bodies, as well as three dimensions unique to us as persons.
_________________________
Previous post in this thread:  Aristotle 101 - Introduction

Aristotle 101 - Introduction

Scripture and Theology - I've spent many years reading them and love them.  Philosophy?  I consider myself woefully inadequate, and have been trying to remedy that.  Trying to read someone like Aquinas however is very difficult because I do not have the vocabulary down.  To start making some headway I have been reading an introduction to the thought of one of Aquinas' heroes, the Greek philosopher Aristotle.   This book came recommended to me from Kevin Vost, Mortimer Adler's Aristotle for Everybody.  My intent is to post my study notes here on the blog so that you can make use of them too.


Adler's purpose in distilling the philosophy of Aristotle for modern readers is to help us think more clearly.  The beauty of Aristotle in his opinion is the way he used common human experiences and notions common to all of us - thing, body, mind, change, cause, etc. - to reason about our existence.  These commonalities are accessible by all, unlike the scientific experimentation that goes on behind the doors of a laboratory and are only read about by non-specialists such as ourselves.

Categorizing things is where Adler begins his exploration of Aristotle.  Categorizing is so basic to our human existence that it's practiced by children playing "Guess Who?"

The most basic categories into which we divide things (or bodies, to use Aristotle's terminology) are living and non-living.  All living things (bodies) take nourishment, grow, and reproduce while inanimate objects (bodies) do not.  We can subdivide living bodies into the categories of plant or animal.  Granted, there seem to be bodies on the borderline between living and non-living or between plant and animal; some things (bodies) have characteristics that seem to straddle the dividing line. 

That we have borderline cases is actually good though.  Unless our minds recognized the clear-cut distinctions between something like a rock and a rabbit, we wouldn't have to puzzle over the borderline cases.  But the human mind does recognize these larger categories, and that sets us apart from all other animals!  Other animals show intelligence, but they do not ask one another questions about the nature of things and work to answer them.

Our minds recognize these categories because it is able to discern the nature possessed by all the individual things making up that category, or class.  Artistotle discerned five main classes of physical things and placed them in an ascending order.  Each subsequent class possesses the characteristics of that which comes before it in the chain, as well as some new characteristic that sets it apart:

Inanimate Bodies

1) Elementary Bodies - have weight, occupy space, and are composed of only one element.
2) Composite Bodies - have weight, occupy space, and are composed of two or more elements 

Animate Bodies

3) Plants - have all the characteristics of composite bodies, but also take nourishment, grow, and reproduce
4) Animals - do this, as well as move and employ additional powers of sense such as touch, sight, hearing, taste, and smell.
5) Human beings - in addition to all that has come before, possess rational thought. 


The major differences indicated above, that separate one class of bodies from another, are essential differences.  All the other differences within a class are superficial, or accidental differences.  People have tried to divide our class into many different sub-classes (race, height, hair color, I.Q., place of origin, etc.), but these are all accidental differences.  Rational thought (asking "what" and "why") is the common property of human nature; it's what sets us apart as a class unto ourselves; all the other differences between us are superficial.