Aquinas I

by Thomas Aquinas, Fathers of the English Dominican Province (Translator), Daniel J. Sullivan (Contributor)

Contents:
The Summa Theologica, Volume 1
First Part (Complete)
1. Treatise on God
2. Treatise on the Trinity
3. Treatise on the Creation
4. Treatise on the Angels
5. Treatise on the Work of the Six Days
6. Treatise on Man
7. Treatise on the Divine Government

Second Part
Part I of the Second Part (Complete)
Prologue
1. Treatise on the Last End
2. Treatise on Human Acts

Genres: Philosophy, Religion, Theology, Christianity, Catholic

826 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1273

About the author

Philosophy 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.

Reviews

[Darwin Ross · Rating 3 out of 5]

This dense work is probably good for what it was. What it is now most certainly is out of date and, thus, irrelevant. Although the two ignore the fact, philosophy and theology depend upon accurate science to even begin to make their cases. Were Aquinas writing today, he would modify many of his contentions and examples, because he would have a better floor of reality upon which to stand.

He refers often to the science and physiology of the time, such as"wetness" to the brain; "contraction" and "expansion" of the heart, due to "heat" and "cold;" the relation of "bile" to emotions; etc. Good Hippocrates and Galen references, to be sure, but nonsensical for today. Also, he depends upon archaic definitions, categories, and hierarchies of scholastic philosophy that no longer apply, being largely metaphorical rather than real.

Aquinas is masterful in marshaling his material, however. The first thing one notices is that he is punctilious, while wide-ranging, not leaving out any impinging details. Second, one notices that he is extremely logical. Summa Theologica is a freight train: one car leads to and pulls the next, in an unstoppable momentum.

I don't know if Aquinas started the approach he uses, beginning by adequately and fairly stating the opposing case, then dismissing it. The approach is still taught today in European schools, when writing essays. Unlike American students, who must have a formulaic five-paragraph essay, featuring an introductory paragraph, three sub-topical paragraphs, and a concluding/summarizing paragraph, European students can give a history of what has brought us to where we are, state the opposing case as it now stands, then dismantle it, while making one's own new case (allowing for the kind of a thesis-antithesis-synthesis struggle described by Hegel) - using as many paragraphs as necessary to effectively do this.

Unfortunately, the consist that Aquinas has arranged moves along two rails that take it in the wrong direction. Rail one: he cannot give up on a bifurcated anthropology (immortal soul trapped in a body - although asserting a preference for the holistic Aristotle over the dualistic Plato). Rail two: he cannot dispense with trinitarian theology (God is three-in-one, yet only one, but still three). Most Christians today cannot get back to the proper station, because this train has taken them too far afield.

The melding of philosophy and Christianity, as constructed by Aquinas, is deeply flawed. Not only have philosophers largely given up on the scholastic philosophy in which Aquinas was immersed, as I mentioned above, but Christian theologians and Bible scholars today question the long-held notions that humans have an immortal soul that goes on to heaven or hell after death, as this is not a teaching of the Old Testament, nor, following its lead, the proper interpretation of the "psyche" passages of the New. Pick up any respectable, in depth Bible commentary and you will see what I mean.

Now that I have read the first of these two, I must tackle the next Aquinas volume in the Great Books series. Unless you are studying to become a Roman Catholic priest, I would recommend avoiding the Herculean task of reading Summa Theologica. I wish that I hadn't undertaken it (but I decided long ago to read all of the volumes of the Great Books, so as an act of discipline, I continue).

[William Crosby]

Aquinas can be very, extremely thorough and obsessive in going over every particular point and its variations. In this sense he reminded me of Aristotle (whom he used frequently as a source along with Augustine). I initially tried to read every word, but finally resorted to reading the main premise (or article) and the "on the contrary" and "I answer that" to get the main gist of his arguments. If I wanted more elaboration I would go to the Objections and Replies, but mostly I ignored those.