Aquinas - Aristotle Or Plato?

[Lil Red]

i'm currently reading Chesterton's short but extremely packed biography of St. Thomas Aquinas. But I'm a wee bit confused. Through this whole biography, Chesterton has been making references to Aquinas "baptizing" Aristotle, that Aquinas' arguments are based in Aristotelian common sense, etc. But then I saw something the other day that talks about Aquinas' Plato-ism. Now I'm confused, because in the biography, it seems like Chesterton is saying that Aquinas is basing his arguments using Aristotle, not Plato.

now, i obviously need some help here, i'm not really very smart when it comes to philosophy. so, if someone can help me out using common sense English, that would be great. thanks.

edit: now I can't find the article I came across, i know it was posted this week on facebook by one of my friends. dang it!

Edited July 26, 2012 by Lil Red

[4588686]

[quote name='Lil Red' timestamp='1343267657' post='2458895']
i'm currently reading Chesterton's short but extremely packed biography of St. Thomas Aquinas. But I'm a wee bit confused. Through this whole biography, Chesterton has been making references to Aquinas "baptizing" Aristotle, that Aquinas' arguments are based in Aristotelian common sense, etc. But then I saw something the other day that talks about Aquinas' Plato-ism. Now I'm confused, because in the biography, it seems like Chesterton is saying that Aquinas is basing his arguments using Aristotle, not Plato.

now, i obviously need some help here, i'm not really very smart when it comes to philosophy. so, if someone can help me out using common sense English, that would be great. thanks.
[/quote]

Aquinas was an Aristotelian but the Aristotle he received did not come from a vacuum but came with the commentary of various Muslim thinkers who were themselves often influenced by neo-Platonism. It was also probably somewhat impactful on his thinking that Augustine was, as I recall, influenced by neo-Platonism. I don't really know. The only Aquinas I've ever read was early on in High School and was very Aristotelian but very narrow (primarily the existence of God and just flipping around, I have very little in-depth knowledge of Aquinas) so I really have no idea how pervasive that potential Platonic influence was or what it regarded.

[Lil Red]

props for trying to help out!

[Lisa]

Aristotle was Plato's student. Even though they did disagree on many points, Plato's thoughts likely had a great influence on Aristotle. It's possible that the author you saw could have been drawing on Plato's original points, which may have been visible secondarily in Aristotle's work.

*I don't know if that helps, and I don't know enough about historical philosophy to go into more detail. But good luck with your endeavors!!!

[CatholicCid]

Here is a summary article you can read on Aquinas, especially point 4, Thomas and Aristotle: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aquinas/

As Chesterton points out, Aquinas is well known for 'baptizing' many Aristotelian terms, adopting them into his own philosophic thinking and writings. For example, the essence/accident distinction utilized in Aquinas' understanding of transubstantiation is Aristotelian language.

At the same time, as the article will point out, Aquinas is not afraid to make use of many different authors and concepts in his search for truth. As such, there are certain Platonic concepts that can be seen in his philosophy as well. Overall, however, I think it would be safe to say that Aquinas gave great prominence to the works of the Philosopher, or Aristotle, in his own works.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Aquinas was brought up in the Augustinian-Platonic synthesis which, since the Fathers, had been the dominant school of Latin theology. Around his time the work of Aristotle, having been reintroduced to western Christians through Arabic interpreters, was being debated in medieval universities. Aristotle was controversial - he even denied a beginning of the universe. Some wanted to condemn his system as of no use for Christian thought, others like St. Albert the Great thought there was much that could prove fruitful. St. Albert, as you may know, became the teacher of St. Thomas, who took up this mantle and developed a systematic explication of the faith using Aristotelian metaphysics.

In some ways Aristotle is just a more developed version of Plato, they aren't mutually exclusive systems. A chief difference is in their idea of forms. Our use of "form" to designate the relationship of the soul to the body, which comes from Aquinas, is Aristotelian. Plato and Aristotle were different stylistically too, Plato being more poetic and Aristotle systematic. If you read Augustine and read Aquinas, you can see a similar contrast.

Anyway, I think Aquinas would tell you he is both Augustinian Platonist and Aristotelian. His system is not a break with his predecessors but something that develops from them organically, taking on the latest science of his day - Aristotle. In the sense that he broke some new ground, you could say he "baptized" Aristotle. He wasn't the first or only one to make use of "The Philosopher," but that's neither here nor there.

Oddly enough, Chesterton didn't actually read Aquinas, but Peter Kreeft says it's the best book on St. Thomas ever written. Interesting man, that Chesterton.

Edited July 26, 2012 by thedude

[Amory]

One of Aquinas' chief influences was Boethius, a 6th century Roman Christian philosopher. Believing (as was common during his day) that Plato and Aristotle were ultimately reconcilable, he combined the ideas of both in his works. As Boethius' [i]Consolation of Philosophy[/i] was one of the most frequently read books in the Middle Ages, Aquinas was very familiar with it and cited it frequently in his [i]Summa theologiae[/i].

Others have already mentioned that (neo-)Platonism was a strong influence on the Fathers of the Church--both Eastern and Western--whom Aquinas read and cited. Even more than other Fathers', Augustine's works are imbued with Neoplatonic ideas, and Augustine was as great an influence on Aquinas as Aristotle was.

[Amory]

By the way, I can't say I was terribly impressed by Chesterton's book on Aquinas when I read it a few years ago. It was lacking in organization, and some of the anecdotes were of dubious historicity. Then again, I can see why some of Aquinas' biographers have decided to spice up his life as he was basically a boring academic who did little but pray, lecture, and write.

Edited July 26, 2012 by Amory

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

The Consolation is one of the best things I've ever read. Boethius, who pre-dated Aquinas by centuries, desired to translate all of Aristotle into Latin, but the Emperor had another fate in mind. It's an interesting "what if?" to consider how theology might have developed had Aristotle been adapted in Christendom in the 6th century and not the 13th. Aristotle was known all along in the Greek-speaking East, but his influence never rose to the level it took on in the system of Thomas in the West.

[Amppax]

The Consolation is on my reading list for this fall. I'm pumped.

[Amory]

[quote name='thedude' timestamp='1343275911' post='2458947']
The Consolation is one of the best things I've ever read.
[/quote]

I couldn't agree more.

[Maria]

[quote name='thedude' timestamp='1343275911' post='2458947']
The Consolation is one of the best things I've ever read. [/quote]
It's pretty amesome, but it frustrated me enormously that he explains towards the end how God can know the future without it making our actions predetermined but ignores the more difficult question of how everything can be directed by divine providence (argued for earlier) without that same predeterminism.

[To Jesus Through Mary]

How is the book? Been thinking about reading it.