Monday, January 28, 2008

the angelic doctor

what is the sound of a philosopher thinking?

in the ORDO
the day to day manual of liturgical
information
this day is dedicated to
a presbyter, religious and
doctor of the church

"the proper object of the intelligence is being: 'not
only essential or quidditive but existential.' "

The entire thought of ST Thomas
"seeks existence itself, though not,
as is the case with practical philosophy,
to produce it, but to know it."

"thomistic philosophy is an existential philosophy"

---3 quotes of Jacques Maritain


where then does human knowledge find its home?
when is it in the presence of its own object?
only at the point
where it comes in contact with the sensible
and although it does not here
totally penetrate the real
because the individual as such
implies or presupposes matter
and is therefor beyond expression
still reason is in control of the field
in which it is workinig

in order to describe man
that is the human composite
to describe the animal and its operations
the heavenly bodies and their powers
mixed bodies or the elements
rational knowledge remains proportioned
to the order or rank of the objects it is exploring
although its content is incomplete
it remains positive

what is original and truly profound
in thomism
is not an attempt either to
establish science more solidly or extend it
st thomas places
the proper object of the human intellect
in the sensible order
but he does not consider the study of this order
to be the highest function of the knowing faculty

the proper object of the intellect
is the quiddity of the sensible

but its proper function is to make
the sensible intelligible

from the particular object
on which its light falls
it draws something universal

it can do this because this particular image
carries the divine image
naturally impressed upon it
as the mark of its origin

the intellect is
in the proper sense of the term
born and made for the universal

hence its straining toward that object
which is by definition
vigorously inaccessible
the DIVINE BEING

here reason knows very little
but what little it knows
surpasses in dignity and value
any other kind of certitude

--ETIENNE GILSON
"THE SPIRIT OF THOMISM"


every act of thinking
indeed every act
carries with it
something of the metaphysical
something of the mark of humanity
distinguishing itself
from all other kinds of being

the divine spark

3 comments:

sally said...

i will confess that
much of this
is over my head

what is the distinction
between "essential" and "existential"?

Is Gilson saying (among other things)
that the reason we can use our intellect
to gain understanding of the universal
from sense perceptions of the particulars
is that the particulars are made
in the image of the universal?

Is this, in a way, Thomas's defense
of science against Hume's later
critique of induction?
Is he saying that the fact that
induction works as well as it does
is because the particulars
carry within themselves
the ordering principles of the divine?
Or that the use of induction implies
a certain degree of faith
in the well-orderedness of the universe?

Or am I completely off track?

jh said...

speaking of essence
we speak of "what"
something is

speaking of existence
we say merely
that it "is" something
it exists

after Kant (or some might say
descartes)
philosophy did an about face
classical greek
and scholastic philosophy maintained
essence precedes existence
the modern rationalist trend
reverses that
existence precedes essence

gilson propounds his tireless
theme
all manner of things
properly apprehended
possess the "metaphysical"
character
a form that is knowable
albeit
not reproducable
by human effort
other than by imitation in art
and this accounts for
the knowledge in the human mind
which is cognizant of forms
because we know
a horse is a horse

the essence of things
bespeaks a mysterious creation
our knowledge of particulars
would be impossible
without
metaphysical knowledge
pre-established in another mind
of the universal
which carry the wondrous mark
of something divinely made

but do those forms actually exist in the mind?

or how else would we
know?

it may be a bit too much to say
"our knowing of anything is a metaphysical act
and therefore begs the question
-from whence cometh this"

to know any thing is to have a preconceived
idea as to what it is or might be
and that is both a very physical
sensible operation and a metaphysical act

the epistemological argument here
or "how do we know?"

is that the mind rises to the given
in a way that is at first very unscientific
it is more wonder

to really know existence is to allow for the truth of the idea
"i did not make this"
and even to suspend scientific
presuppositions or theories
about how something came to be as it is

we can be certain that a thing exists
and we can give it a name
and establish its essence
its whatness quiddity

but the intellect strives beyond that
even scientific intellect
strives to unlock
invisible secrets

thomas looking at modern
inquiries into the genome
or subatomic particles or waves would
smile bemusedly i think
and say
they are seeking god

yes the highest function of the knowing faculty
is the theological

humes critique of induction is
something else
i am not prepared to recount it right now

if thomas is defending anything
it is the natural tendency
of the intellect
to want to know everything
and the origin of everything

what we can "know" of god
no matter how poor the effort
is of more value for the mind
than the accumulation
of data
and judgments made
by deduction

he never said this
but he implies
to seek god in all perception
and cognition
is the greatest practicality

thomas does not defend science as such
more to the point
he defends the true dignity
of the human intellect
as the image and likeness of god

you're great
you never quit
i like that about you

David-Baptiste Chirot said...

John--many thanks for your comments--
my pessimism also grows ever deeper--
yes--i read shock doctrine i think one of the best books i have read in a long time--
a lot of things which had puzzled me when they happened suddenly all made all too much terrifying sense! on reading the book--naomi klein is brilliant--
thanks for writing!!