Tags
Catholic, Catholicism, Christian, Christianity, God, history, Philosophy, St Augustine, writers
I have been attempting to rehabilitate St. Anselm’s the ontological argument for God. However, no matter how hard I try my own understanding of discovering knowledge is similar to Aquinas’ that it begins with the senses and the recognition of the world. The issue that I’ve developed is that I disagree with St. Thomas Aquinas/Aristotle in regards to universals/forms like beauty and truth. Therefore, my ontological argument has more or less become an epistemological argument for God which is Augustinian in nature and tied to Augustine’s theory of knowledge of Divine Illumination.
I’ve been reading a bit on Divine Illumination and Aquinas’ Aristotelian Agent Intellect synthesis into his first principle of knowledge. And not surprisingly, it appears that there are those who claim that Aquinas makes a strict separation from Augustine in regards to Divine Illumination. However, it’s not a settled debate and Peter Kreeft argues in the Summa of the Summa that Aquinas is more Platonic/Augustinian in his understanding than Aristotelian, albeit many Thomist would disagree with his sentiment–I’ve personally asked one. Nonetheless, I am of the opinion that what Thomas does is merely move the understanding of Divine Illumination to the material sensory of understanding. For instance, two different husbands may look at their respective spouses and believe their own is more beautiful than the other. Some would argue this indicates that Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. However, what appears to be innate from the two husbands is beauty itself. Sure, it’s their senses that tell them what is beautiful, nonetheless, it is not their senses that is the source for understanding the concept of beauty itself. If this is true, then, it would render that not all knowledge is gained through the senses.
The more I think about this interpretation of knowledge with Aquinas’ synthesis on the sense revealing knowledge, the more I agree with it in accord to Augustine’s philosophy of Divine Illumination in regards to Romans chapter 1 and 2 which speak about knowing God “is manifest in them” and the “law written in our hearts,” I firmly agree with Augustine that we’re in possession of certain knowledge by God; however, we’re only moved to discovering by interactions with creation as attributed by Aquinas emphasis on Participation. So, when we judge beauty, for instance, the concept of the beautiful is divinely instilled by God; however, it is through our experience with a sunrise, a mountain, the ocean, or our loved ones that stir the understanding of the beautiful.
Upon doing more reading on the topic, I find this to be very similar to Bonaventure’s assessment. Perhaps, I need to read more Bonaventure. Naturally, the above is just a short examination of my current work. I am at the moment writing a more detailed treatise on the subject of illumination.
It’s good to see you engaging with Plato’s universals, Philip, and I am pleased that the master’s is giving you some intellectual and spiritual stimulation.
How familiar are you with the Enlightenment material on this? Leibniz vs Locke, Kant on a priori constructs necessary for interpretation of reality (noumenal vs phenomenal)?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Honestly, other than superficial knowledge in regards to those particular philosophers, I’m not as comfortable with their works. My interest tends to jump from Descartes to Phenomenalism Scheler.
I know that Locke rejected innate ideas and that he argued that knowledge was gained through sensation. We know ideas and not things.
Personally, I disagree with him that we don’t know things because I believe the senses can perceive the dog standing in front of them and also have the idea of a dog in their mind at the same time. The dog standing in front of us is a primary substance whereas the idea has substance but on its own cognitional existence.
My above thoughts are Thomistic, but it differs into Augustinianism/Platonism as universals I do not think exist in our minds alone. Today, I was thinking of whether I could know anything if I had no senses at all, I think Aquinas/Aristotle have this right, that it isn’t imaginable. Nonetheless, without senses I may not ever come to the knowledge of what is love, but it isn’t the senses that reveal it to me. There is a nuance at play there. I may get a sensation when someone hugs me, but my understanding that that sensation is love comes from something deeper.
Again, I think I would object to Kant’s phenomena/noumena for much of the same reasons. Perhaps, I have to differentiate between ‘knowing’ and ‘existence.’ Just because we cannot know doesn’t mean something either exists or not.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Say, uh, just a couple of quick questions. What is the deal with the flaming heart that guy is holding? And I suppose the guy is a saint(catholic), so the fancy dress hes wearing would be saint style clothes with pictures of , uh,i guess are other holymen and what have you. Just wondering if there are saint costumes. All the other catholic holymen have costumes.
LikeLike
The heart is just symbolism to distinguish him as Augustine. Many bishops wear similar clothes in artist portrayals, so objects are often shown with them to identify them. For example, St. Nicholas is often portrayed with 3 golden balls, which legend has it he have to three daughters who had no wedding dowry. Sometimes these balls are portrayed as oranges which is where the tradition of oranges in the stocking come from.
LikeLike
Thanks for the explanation good brother Phillip. Even though im not a religious person, I still am curious about religious art. For example, I learned that the halo is from pagan Roman art to symbolize deity. And to make matters worster, someone told me the wedding ring was of pagan origin. I cant breath in and out without being accused of being a pagan. What we humans do and think and see is all past down from our fathers, like it or not. There is nothing new under the sun.
LikeLike