Stephen Scheidell

1. What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?

The key difference between Augustine and Aquinas on the relationship of reco!
"oman philosophies to #hristianity rests in how distinct$ i.e. autonomous$ they saw the
two disciplines of philosophy and theology.
Augustine made no clear distinction% one cannot read his philosophical ideas without
frequenting his theological writings. &or him$ reason had a two!fold part to play in
relation to faith ' remo(ing intellectual barriers so that one might come to faith$ and once
one has come to faith$ reason is employed again to penetrate the )data) of faith so that
one can come to understand *)faith seeking understanding.)+ The ultimate end for
Augustine is that one might use reason as a stepping!stone to faith$ and that one might
finally arri(e at mystic union with od. *This ultimate end finds itself again as Aquinas,
beatific (ision.+ To take the intellectual ascent toward understanding od$ would be
incomplete until one takes also the spiritual ascent (ia faith by grace.
Since Augustine made no clear distinction between philosophy and theology$ his
approach allowed him to in(estigate man in the concrete. While typically philosophers
treat of natural humankind and theologians deal with questions of humankind,s
supernatural soul$ Augustine,s approach led him to study humankind as is ' fallen and
redeemed by di(ine grace.
Aquinas$ on the other hand$ argued that the two )sciences) be kept separate.
-hilosophy begins with what the mind can grasp in its natural state$ whereas theology
begins with di(ine re(elation. .n other words$ philosophy takes authority from human
reason% theology takes authority from re(elation. &or Aquinas$ since the two begin with
separate points of authority$ they cannot be melded into one science. /uman reason must
always be sub0ect to re(elation. This distinction pro(ides a form of safeguard for both
disciplines ' finite human reason may only go so far$ and di(ine re(elation is kept from
the meddling of human reason.
This is not to say$ howe(er$ that the two disciplines ha(e no relationship to each other.
While Augustine focused on using reason to understand what one accepted by faith$
Aquinas might be likened to St. Thomas the apostle in that by pushing through doubt
intellectually$ he becomes all the more willing and ready to accept #hrist. St. Thomas$
after settling his doubt$ cried )1y 2ord3) first among the apostles. &urthermore$ he came
closer to *what Aquinas titled beatific (ision+ in physical life than anyone ' he alone
touched the scars in the hands and side of the glorified body of #hrist. Simply put$ St.
Thomas the apostle and Aquinas used reason as a tool to arri(e at faith. .n Aquinas terms$
philosophy ser(es as a handmaid to theology.
While .,m more inclined toward Aquinas, approach of distinguishing disciplines from
competing authorities$ Augustine,s ability to study humankind in the concrete offers an
e4cellent critique for Aquinas$ who by separating the fields must consider natural human
(ia philosophy and supernatural soul (ia theology. "ather than arguing that one (iew is
more compelling than the other$ . would prefer to argue for a melding of the two$ that we
might understand humankind in the concrete without ha(ing human reason o(erstep its
territory$ while also clearly lea(ing the relationship as part of the single process of
coming into union with od. . see the relationship between the two as a two!part line
*shades of -lato?+ like the following5
6A6!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!676!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!6#6
/uman reasoning may take us from 6A6 to 676 at which point$ di(ine re(elation
*originating at 6#6+ guides us to od from 676.
~
8. What is the problem of uni(ersals?
Aristotle,s definition5 )What is predicated of se(eral things.)
The problem of uni(ersals arises from competing metaphysical (iews$ "ealism *that
uni(ersals e4ist in particulars and are apt to be understood+ and .dealism *that uni(ersals
e4ist only in the mind and are unfounded and useless for understanding reality+. 7oth
(iews in their early stages led to difficulties. .f uni(ersals e4ist in particulars we ha(e
difficulty e4plaining the wide di(ersity of thing e(en under the same genus. .f they do not
e4ist$ by what means can we understand particulars in relation to other particulars?
7oethius answered the dilemma by way of the mind,s abstraction$ whereas Abelard
ga(e a linguistical response$ saying that words are uni(ersal$ not things.
7oth 7oethius and Abelard offered strong critiques of "ealism. 9ne argument
7oethius used e4plained that a uni(ersal genus cannot reside as a whole in each particular
simultaneously. .n *711!1:+ he argues that for the genus to remain wholly in each
particular$ it must be multiplied by as many times as it is found in particulars. /owe(er$ if
the genus is many$ then another genus must be placed o(er that one$ then another o(er
that$ and so on.
Abelard argues that "ealism abolishes all essential di(ersity amongst particulars
*A8;+. To use the genus of animal for e4ample5 .f the essence animal is found in each
particular$ then differences like irrational and rational would only be ad(ening forms of
the same essence. This results in the odd conclusion that an irrational animal 7rowny is
essentially identical with rational animal Socrates. What di(ersity remains if e(en
7rowny has the same identical essence as Socrates?
7oethius rests his mind by striking a middle!ground between .dealism and "ealism
by his theory of abstraction. /e argues that uni(ersals subsist in things$ but are grasped
by the mind. *A:1+5 )Species is< nothing else than the thought gathered from the
substantial likeness of indi(iduals<. =>ni(ersals? subsist therefore in the realm of
sensibles$ but are understood apart from bodies.) The mind con0ures a )likeness) gathered
from particulars$ and this )likeness) is the uni(ersal.
Abelard took the most nuanced approach by throwing aside altogether that things are
predicated of others. /e argued *A@A+ that words alone can be predicated of things. After
establishing this$ he narrowed the uni(ersal further *ABC!BD+ by saying that a word on its
own con0ures a confused image in the mind. )1an) does not signify anything specifically$
but )man is walking) situates in the mind a precise concept that can be predicated of
se(eral men who walk. Such a uni(ersal signifies truly by naming the particulars *A1DA+.