What do you think?
Rate this book
Commentary on Aristotle's Metaphysics
The fine editions of the Aristotelian Commentary Series make available long out-of-print commentaries of St. Thomas on Aristotle. Each volume has the full text of Aristotle with Bekker numbers, followed by the commentary of St. Thomas, cross-referenced using an easily accessible mode of referring to Aristotle in the Commentary. Each volume is beautifully printed and bound using the finest materials. All copies are printed on acid-free paper and Smyth sewn. They will last.
870 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1995
25 people are currently reading
252 people want to read
About the author
Thomas Aquinas
2,534 books1,105 followersPhilosophy of Saint Thomas Aquinas, a Dominican friar and theologian of Italy and the most influential thinker of the medieval period, combined doctrine of Aristotle and elements of Neoplatonism, a system that Plotinus and his successors developed and based on that of Plato, within a context of Christian thought; his works include the
Summa contra gentiles
(1259-1264) and the
Summa theologiae
or theologica (1266-1273).
Saint Albertus Magnus taught Saint Thomas Aquinas.
People ably note this priest, sometimes styled of Aquin or Aquino, as a scholastic. The Roman Catholic tradition honors him as a "doctor of the Church."
Aquinas lived at a critical juncture of western culture when the arrival of the Aristotelian corpus in Latin translation reopened the question of the relation between faith and reason, calling into question the modus vivendi that obtained for centuries. This crisis flared just as people founded universities. Thomas after early studies at Montecassino moved to the University of Naples, where he met members of the new Dominican order. At Naples too, Thomas first extended contact with the new learning. He joined the Dominican order and then went north to study with Albertus Magnus, author of a paraphrase of the Aristotelian corpus. Thomas completed his studies at the University of Paris, formed out the monastic schools on the left bank and the cathedral school at Notre Dame. In two stints as a regent master, Thomas defended the mendicant orders and of greater historical importance countered both the interpretations of Averroës of Aristotle and the Franciscan tendency to reject Greek philosophy. The result, a new modus vivendi between faith and philosophy, survived until the rise of the new physics. The Catholic Church over the centuries regularly and consistently reaffirmed the central importance of work of Thomas for understanding its teachings concerning the Christian revelation, and his close textual commentaries on Aristotle represent a cultural resource, now receiving increased recognition.
Saint Albertus Magnus taught Saint Thomas Aquinas.
People ably note this priest, sometimes styled of Aquin or Aquino, as a scholastic. The Roman Catholic tradition honors him as a "doctor of the Church."
Aquinas lived at a critical juncture of western culture when the arrival of the Aristotelian corpus in Latin translation reopened the question of the relation between faith and reason, calling into question the modus vivendi that obtained for centuries. This crisis flared just as people founded universities. Thomas after early studies at Montecassino moved to the University of Naples, where he met members of the new Dominican order. At Naples too, Thomas first extended contact with the new learning. He joined the Dominican order and then went north to study with Albertus Magnus, author of a paraphrase of the Aristotelian corpus. Thomas completed his studies at the University of Paris, formed out the monastic schools on the left bank and the cathedral school at Notre Dame. In two stints as a regent master, Thomas defended the mendicant orders and of greater historical importance countered both the interpretations of Averroës of Aristotle and the Franciscan tendency to reject Greek philosophy. The result, a new modus vivendi between faith and philosophy, survived until the rise of the new physics. The Catholic Church over the centuries regularly and consistently reaffirmed the central importance of work of Thomas for understanding its teachings concerning the Christian revelation, and his close textual commentaries on Aristotle represent a cultural resource, now receiving increased recognition.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
December 20, 2008
Without a doubt one of the most valuable tools in understanding the Metaphysics. Thomas has an amazing grasp of Aristotle's complicated and cryptic writing, and his line-by-line translation and commentary is a crucial tool for understanding both the big picture, and the detail in 'Stotle's thought. That is not to say that Thomas is crystal clear all the time, but if you're struggling with the Metaphysics, this is the most useful tool around.
January 3, 2023
Commentary on Aristotle's Metaphysics by St. Thomas Aquinas
It turns out that Metaphysics is theology.
Aristotle is hard to read. Aquinas is hard to read. Aquinas's explanation of Metaphysics is surprisingly readable. This is particularly true compared to the Metaphysics, which comes often comes across as the cryptic notes I take during trials where a word captures a thought. For me, at least. Anyone else would be baffled. Aristotle often makes his point by stringing together three seemingly unrelated words, e.g., head, fish, and building, as examples.
Another thing about reading Aristotle is that he had a huge body of work that is interdependent. Aristotle assumes that you've read everything he's written so you will recognize that the essential lynchpin to his argument is found in the Physics or De Anima. Of course, if you haven't, it will seem "like Greek" to you.
Aquinas has the virtue of having read Aristotle's corpus, and so he shares the essential insights from other texts that connect confusingly cryptic thoughts. He also explains what the examples are examples of.
I wouldn't try to read the Metaphysics by itself. The reader needs a guide and Aquinas is a good guide.
That said, I assume that the reader has to be on guard about some of the ideas that Aquinas smuggles into his reading of Aristotle. There are occasions where Aquinas flat out disagrees with Aristotle, such as Aristotle's view that some causes are purely a matter of luck or chance. That is a non-starter for Aquinas, for whom everything is within God's providential control.
The metaphysics starts with a granular look at "ousia" or "substance" with respect to the sensible world. The reader gets a review of the pre-Socratic philosophers of elements, none of which are satisfying since they seem to reduce everything to one undifferentiated type of thing, which does not seem right. Platonic forms, on the other hand, lack causality with respect to things in the world.
Aristotle solves the problem by introducing matter into the equation. Everything can be boiled down into Form, the privation of form, and matter, which is the object on which form and privation work. Form, privation, and matter introduce the notion of "actuality" and "potentiality." Forms are actual; privations are deprivations of the actual; matter is the potentiality for forms and privations. Aristotle is certain that this three-fold arrangement provides a better explanation than his competitors for questions about why things corrupt and are generated.
Then, at the end, with startling suddenness, we are - in Aquinas' view - dealing with theology. The hints were there all along. Aristotle did tell us that everything we read prior to Book XII was the lesser part of the subject and that the dominant part would define the "science" of Metaphysics. Thus, there are three kinds of substances - movable (i.e., changeable/corruptible) sensible things, eternal sensible things, and eternal immaterial things. The first are things like birds and squids; the second are the visible stars; the third are necessary things we can't sense, i.e., God and divinities.
Where does this breakdown come from? I don't know. Maybe from "On the Heavens"? Maybe from "De Anima"? This is the kind of thing that makes Aristotle frustrating.
Aristotle certainly views the eternal insensible as necessary. Any system without them lacks a starting point and is subjected to the self-refutation of eternal regression. So, the eternal insensible are necessary as the "unmoved movers." They start the motion of things and keep the motion in play.
Aristotle seems to refer to the unmoved movers as God, at least the unique first Unmoved Mover ("UM") that moves the first heaven - that which holds the stars or at least coordinates the order of the universe as a whole. This UM (all UMs in fact) must be without matter because matter corrupts, and nothing eternal can be allowed to corrupt. Matter is also potential, and nothing eternal can have potential because potential includes the potential not to be.
Turn the switch of being off, and what will turn it back on?
So, the UM is pure actuality without potential, which makes it perfect and, therefore, good.
But what is it - the answer seems to be that its substance is "intelligible." The UM is thought thinking itself. For Aristotle, there is nothing better than active thinking, and there is nothing better to think about than perfection itself.
It was not clear to me why God had to be thought. The answer might be found in De Anima.
At least, this is my sense of where we ended up. There was a lot in the Metaphysics that was incredibly obscure. I left a lot on the "reading room floor" since I didn't understand it and couldn't fit it into what I thought I understood. There were passages that read like Gnostic mumbo-jumbo.
I read Metaphysics for the Online Great Books reading program. I happened to be reading James Dolezal "All that is God" where Dolezal, a Calvinist theologian, critiques modern, liberal Calvinist theologians for undermining or rejecting doctrines like the "simplicity of God." What was interesting in reading Dolezal in the context of Metaphysics was seeing the seeds of "divine simplicity" in Metaphysics. The UM is "simple" because it lacks matter and therefore lacks parts and potential. This is the way it must be, according to Aristotle (as read through the Angelic Doctor), and here we are, 2,500 years later, still dealing with the issue.
My recommendation is that if you really are going to read Metaphysics, you should get a group, find a leader, and tackle it week by week. It is a tough slog to an uncertain outcome.
You need reinforcements for that kind of trip.
It turns out that Metaphysics is theology.
Aristotle is hard to read. Aquinas is hard to read. Aquinas's explanation of Metaphysics is surprisingly readable. This is particularly true compared to the Metaphysics, which comes often comes across as the cryptic notes I take during trials where a word captures a thought. For me, at least. Anyone else would be baffled. Aristotle often makes his point by stringing together three seemingly unrelated words, e.g., head, fish, and building, as examples.
Another thing about reading Aristotle is that he had a huge body of work that is interdependent. Aristotle assumes that you've read everything he's written so you will recognize that the essential lynchpin to his argument is found in the Physics or De Anima. Of course, if you haven't, it will seem "like Greek" to you.
Aquinas has the virtue of having read Aristotle's corpus, and so he shares the essential insights from other texts that connect confusingly cryptic thoughts. He also explains what the examples are examples of.
I wouldn't try to read the Metaphysics by itself. The reader needs a guide and Aquinas is a good guide.
That said, I assume that the reader has to be on guard about some of the ideas that Aquinas smuggles into his reading of Aristotle. There are occasions where Aquinas flat out disagrees with Aristotle, such as Aristotle's view that some causes are purely a matter of luck or chance. That is a non-starter for Aquinas, for whom everything is within God's providential control.
The metaphysics starts with a granular look at "ousia" or "substance" with respect to the sensible world. The reader gets a review of the pre-Socratic philosophers of elements, none of which are satisfying since they seem to reduce everything to one undifferentiated type of thing, which does not seem right. Platonic forms, on the other hand, lack causality with respect to things in the world.
Aristotle solves the problem by introducing matter into the equation. Everything can be boiled down into Form, the privation of form, and matter, which is the object on which form and privation work. Form, privation, and matter introduce the notion of "actuality" and "potentiality." Forms are actual; privations are deprivations of the actual; matter is the potentiality for forms and privations. Aristotle is certain that this three-fold arrangement provides a better explanation than his competitors for questions about why things corrupt and are generated.
Then, at the end, with startling suddenness, we are - in Aquinas' view - dealing with theology. The hints were there all along. Aristotle did tell us that everything we read prior to Book XII was the lesser part of the subject and that the dominant part would define the "science" of Metaphysics. Thus, there are three kinds of substances - movable (i.e., changeable/corruptible) sensible things, eternal sensible things, and eternal immaterial things. The first are things like birds and squids; the second are the visible stars; the third are necessary things we can't sense, i.e., God and divinities.
Where does this breakdown come from? I don't know. Maybe from "On the Heavens"? Maybe from "De Anima"? This is the kind of thing that makes Aristotle frustrating.
Aristotle certainly views the eternal insensible as necessary. Any system without them lacks a starting point and is subjected to the self-refutation of eternal regression. So, the eternal insensible are necessary as the "unmoved movers." They start the motion of things and keep the motion in play.
Aristotle seems to refer to the unmoved movers as God, at least the unique first Unmoved Mover ("UM") that moves the first heaven - that which holds the stars or at least coordinates the order of the universe as a whole. This UM (all UMs in fact) must be without matter because matter corrupts, and nothing eternal can be allowed to corrupt. Matter is also potential, and nothing eternal can have potential because potential includes the potential not to be.
Turn the switch of being off, and what will turn it back on?
So, the UM is pure actuality without potential, which makes it perfect and, therefore, good.
But what is it - the answer seems to be that its substance is "intelligible." The UM is thought thinking itself. For Aristotle, there is nothing better than active thinking, and there is nothing better to think about than perfection itself.
It was not clear to me why God had to be thought. The answer might be found in De Anima.
At least, this is my sense of where we ended up. There was a lot in the Metaphysics that was incredibly obscure. I left a lot on the "reading room floor" since I didn't understand it and couldn't fit it into what I thought I understood. There were passages that read like Gnostic mumbo-jumbo.
I read Metaphysics for the Online Great Books reading program. I happened to be reading James Dolezal "All that is God" where Dolezal, a Calvinist theologian, critiques modern, liberal Calvinist theologians for undermining or rejecting doctrines like the "simplicity of God." What was interesting in reading Dolezal in the context of Metaphysics was seeing the seeds of "divine simplicity" in Metaphysics. The UM is "simple" because it lacks matter and therefore lacks parts and potential. This is the way it must be, according to Aristotle (as read through the Angelic Doctor), and here we are, 2,500 years later, still dealing with the issue.
My recommendation is that if you really are going to read Metaphysics, you should get a group, find a leader, and tackle it week by week. It is a tough slog to an uncertain outcome.
You need reinforcements for that kind of trip.
May 11, 2024
"Et hoc est quod concludit, quod est unus princeps totius universi, scilicet primum movens, et primum intelligibile, et primum bonum, quod supra dixit Deum, qui est benedictus in saecula saeculorum. Amen." Et ita Doctor Angelicus Philosophum baptizavit, non tamen contra voluntatem eius, sed sic aspirationem eius complevit. Nam sicut S. Augustinus dixit quod nonnulli pagani de facto sancti erant, inquantum unum verum Deum recte adorabant, itaque Eum Philosophus adoravit vere, quod patet praesertim in Metaphysica Libro Λ in quo dixit animam eius Prima Substantia desiderare. Igitur poeticus etiam fiebat narrans ineffabile miraculum Dei felicitatis, et etiam quomodo adhuc mirabilior. Propterea S. Thomas quidem discipulus Aristotelis erat, quia intellixit et manifestus fecit quod magister sole contemplavit.
February 21, 2024
What can I say? It is a commentary, however, it is a helpful commentary for understanding Aristotle’s arguments in Metaphysics.
October 2, 2019
O formato expositivo de Santo Tomás torna a leitura desse livro mais didática. O texto da metafísica é dissecado ponto a ponto, com elucidações e referencias a outros livros do próprio Aristóteles e de alguns trechos de outros autores, como Cícero e Averróis. Explica de forma simples e direta a teoria das quatro causas de Aristóteles. Também comenta sobre as doutrinas numéricas dos Pitagoricos, com clareza.
Santo Tomás salienta os pontos de Aristóteles para refutação de Platão, que considerava as espécies (participação nos entes, separada do mundo sensível) como causa do ser, mas como não conhecia corretamente as 4 causas, ignorou o movimento (eficiente) necessário para que as coisas particulares que participam das espécies a adquiram.
Explica que "o infinito nas formas é infinito em ato e não em potência, como é infinito em potência na divisão da linha", ou seja, se as formas fossem infinitas elas não seriam inteligíveis. Deduz junto de Aristóteles que a ciência que procede pela causa final é a mais importante, como exemplo, navegar é mais importante que construir navios. O ato de conhecer é causado por aquilo que está em ato, e não em potência.
Adentra em explicações mais elaboradas sobre se a espécie é mais princípio do que o gênero, um pouco confuso nos escritos de Aristóteles.
Comentando a busca pela verdade e se ela pode ser apreendida dos sensíveis, conta que Crátilo (nome de horrível diálogo platônico sobre as palavras), pensando que nada era verdadeiro determinadamente, não mais falava, pois a verdade que ele pronunciaria já desapareceria antes do fim de seu discurso.
Traz a explicação de Avicena à respeito da causa eficiente, sendo 4 sentidos, a que aperfeiçoa (ex: construtor na casa), a que dispõe (prepara a matéria para a forma, ex:aquele que corta a madeira) , a que auxilia (quem auxilia o rei na guerra age em vista do fim do rei) e a que delibera.
Na definição de Aristóteles sobre potência e possibilidade e seus inversos , resume os 4 a um único sentido, o de "princípio de mudança em outro, enquanto é outro".
Oa acidentes têm ser apenas por serem inerentes ao sujeito, ou seja, a quididade deles depende da do sujeito. Os acidentes somente têm o ser perfeito enquanto existem no sujeito bem como o as formas têm ser perfeito enquanto existem em suas próprias matérias.
No livro VIII explica os conceitos de Aristóteles que elucidam que um corpo vivo não é causa material de um corpo morto, por exemplo, mas sim uma diferença que ocorre por conta de ato e potência. O corpo morto é o corpo vivo que passou por corrupção.
Tomás explica que o ato pode proceder à potência no sujeito, em potências racionais, ao contrário das potências sensitivas, e que nem sempre o ato é o fim da potência. Todos os seres eternos estão em ato, sendo anteriores aos corruptíveis, segundo a substância e a perfeição.
Uma ciência é tanto mais nobre quanto mais nobre é o seu cognoscível.
O livro é muito longo, mas isso é mais por culpa de Aristóteles, que fez um tratado enfadonho e sem objetividade, fazendo Tomás de Aquino ter que dissecar várias vezes as mesmas coisas, avançando muito pouco em cada capítulo.
Santo Tomás salienta os pontos de Aristóteles para refutação de Platão, que considerava as espécies (participação nos entes, separada do mundo sensível) como causa do ser, mas como não conhecia corretamente as 4 causas, ignorou o movimento (eficiente) necessário para que as coisas particulares que participam das espécies a adquiram.
Explica que "o infinito nas formas é infinito em ato e não em potência, como é infinito em potência na divisão da linha", ou seja, se as formas fossem infinitas elas não seriam inteligíveis. Deduz junto de Aristóteles que a ciência que procede pela causa final é a mais importante, como exemplo, navegar é mais importante que construir navios. O ato de conhecer é causado por aquilo que está em ato, e não em potência.
Adentra em explicações mais elaboradas sobre se a espécie é mais princípio do que o gênero, um pouco confuso nos escritos de Aristóteles.
Comentando a busca pela verdade e se ela pode ser apreendida dos sensíveis, conta que Crátilo (nome de horrível diálogo platônico sobre as palavras), pensando que nada era verdadeiro determinadamente, não mais falava, pois a verdade que ele pronunciaria já desapareceria antes do fim de seu discurso.
Traz a explicação de Avicena à respeito da causa eficiente, sendo 4 sentidos, a que aperfeiçoa (ex: construtor na casa), a que dispõe (prepara a matéria para a forma, ex:aquele que corta a madeira) , a que auxilia (quem auxilia o rei na guerra age em vista do fim do rei) e a que delibera.
Na definição de Aristóteles sobre potência e possibilidade e seus inversos , resume os 4 a um único sentido, o de "princípio de mudança em outro, enquanto é outro".
Oa acidentes têm ser apenas por serem inerentes ao sujeito, ou seja, a quididade deles depende da do sujeito. Os acidentes somente têm o ser perfeito enquanto existem no sujeito bem como o as formas têm ser perfeito enquanto existem em suas próprias matérias.
No livro VIII explica os conceitos de Aristóteles que elucidam que um corpo vivo não é causa material de um corpo morto, por exemplo, mas sim uma diferença que ocorre por conta de ato e potência. O corpo morto é o corpo vivo que passou por corrupção.
Tomás explica que o ato pode proceder à potência no sujeito, em potências racionais, ao contrário das potências sensitivas, e que nem sempre o ato é o fim da potência. Todos os seres eternos estão em ato, sendo anteriores aos corruptíveis, segundo a substância e a perfeição.
Uma ciência é tanto mais nobre quanto mais nobre é o seu cognoscível.
O livro é muito longo, mas isso é mais por culpa de Aristóteles, que fez um tratado enfadonho e sem objetividade, fazendo Tomás de Aquino ter que dissecar várias vezes as mesmas coisas, avançando muito pouco em cada capítulo.
October 17, 2016
This brilliant commentary establishes once again the greatness of Aquinas as a teacher. He is clear and methodical, systematic and orderly. He leaves nothing important open to debate, but rather resolves them by means of syllogisms which his critics will have to address before they can be said to have genuinely answered him. I do not think that there will be many efforts made to do so; I am no historian of philosophy but I seriously doubt that there have been many (if any) serious efforts made at refuting Aristotle's Metaphysics as interpreted by Aquinas.
The fundamental point is this, with which Aquinas concludes his Commentary: "Aristotle’s conclusion is that there is one ruler of the whole universe, the first mover, and one first intelligible object, and one first good, whom above he called God, who is blessed for ever and ever. Amen."
I highly recommend this book to students of Aristotle and Aquinas. Note that this is *not* a book for beginners or those who are utterly uninitiated in the philosophy of Aristotle and Aquinas. I don't consider myself an expert by any stretch of the imagination but I have read most of Aristotle (twice) and likewise I have read most of Aquinas's major works (the two Summas) two times as well, and I consider this a difficult (but possible) book to read. It must be read with attention.
The fundamental point is this, with which Aquinas concludes his Commentary: "Aristotle’s conclusion is that there is one ruler of the whole universe, the first mover, and one first intelligible object, and one first good, whom above he called God, who is blessed for ever and ever. Amen."
I highly recommend this book to students of Aristotle and Aquinas. Note that this is *not* a book for beginners or those who are utterly uninitiated in the philosophy of Aristotle and Aquinas. I don't consider myself an expert by any stretch of the imagination but I have read most of Aristotle (twice) and likewise I have read most of Aquinas's major works (the two Summas) two times as well, and I consider this a difficult (but possible) book to read. It must be read with attention.
Read
November 26, 2023very good.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews