MAIMONIDES  1135-1204
 

I. Maimonides is an Aristotelian, but offers a more carefully considered reconciliation.  Aquinas will adopt some of his solutions to the tough issues, and also his methodology in some cases.  Most famous work the Guide for the Perplexed.  Aimed at someone well-versed in philosophy who has trouble seeing how philosophy and revelation can be squared.  He says in the introduction that it's going to be deliberately confusing.
 

II. How does our language apply to God?  N.b. God is 1. Uncaused, 2. Perfect Unity, 3. Absolutely Unlike Creation.

A.There are five types of affirmative attributes we might want to apply to God.  Only one really applies. (H pp.376-378)

1. Defining attribute?  (i.e. nature) E.g. Man is a rational living being.  No. The defining attribute functions as a cause.  (We are what we are on account of the coming together of these properties.)

2. Defining a part of something's nature?  E.g. Man is a living being.  Obviously not.  No cause, and no parts.

3. Attributing an accident (quality)? Good, wise...  E.g. Nicholas is good.  (Not his nature...something added on.) Multiplicity.  Substratum with added on qualities.

4. Relation?  Creation and Creator?

a. No! To be able to state a relationship you must posit something in common between the two relata.  There is nothing in common between creation and God.  It's like trying to find a relationship between "a hundred cubits" and "the heat that is in pepper." (378)

b. But surely there is some common ground between God and creation.  Both at least exist!  Right?  God has necessary existence and we have merely contingent existence, but it's all existence.  Well...no, says Maimonides.  It is not always inappropriate to say "God exists" but the term "exists" is used equivocally.  That means when we apply it to God and to creation it has two entirely different meanings.  God Exists, but His existence has nothing in common with ours.

5. Action.  This is the one positive attribute you can apply to God.  You can say, "God did x."  "God is the cause of y."  But be warned!  You are not saying anything about God in Himself.  (It's not like if you said "Fred made this desk" that would tell you that Fred's the kind of thing that can make desks, he's rational etc....) " God made the world" does not = "God is a world-making kind of thing."  So "God is good" means only "God is the cause of good things".

B. Problem: If He's perfect unity, how can He accomplish all these different actions?  Response:  All in one act.  (E.g. fire)

C. Except for action, attributes must be given a negative interpretation.

1.  "God exists" just means, "God can't not-exist," "God is living" well He's not dead.  We cannot give any positive, unequivocal content to these attributes. More creaturely attributes you negate, the closer you are to God.

2. Is this like the via negativa of Pseudo-Dionysius?  No!  The Ps.-D said you negate in order to show that God is infinitely the attribute in question.  God is not-good, because our concept of goodness falls so far short of what God's goodness consists in.  The gold and silver example. (H 385-387)

 D. To apply these attributes to God is basically to be an atheist...you don't believe in God at all. (The elephant...389-390)

E. But if all we can do is negate, then the wise and learned don't know any more than the stupid and ignorant.  Ah...but they do.  They know to negate!
 

III. The "eternity" of the world. (Discussion interesting both in terms of content and in terms of methodology. Aquinas will adopt this approach.)

A. The three positions (391-393) (Let's not worry about Plato's.  The real contender against our view is the Aristotelean one that the world has always existed, and has always been going on pretty much as it is going on now.

B. Neither side can be proven.

1. Previous Jewish philosophers had tried to prove that there was a finite number of days in the past.  Not successful. (394)

2. Aristotle does not succeed in proving his point either. (Interesting discussion of problems with Aristotelian view of universe based on astronomy.  Close observations discovering anomalies that will lead to heliocentric view.)

C. There's good reason to accept the more literal reading of scripture.

1. Not that one couldn't interpret scripture if reason demanded it. (399)

2. But, Aristotle's argument that things must be going on as they have been because God doesn't change would lead to a denial of miracles!  I.e. a denial of foundations of Judaism, including and especially the giving of the Law.  (The issue is clearly more than just the past number of days.  Fundamental conflict between Aristotle's view and religions of the Book.  There is history.)
 
 
 

IV. Nature of the Law
 
 

A. The Euthyphro Problem -- well, not exactly. (P. 414) Does the Law flow from God's wisdom so that they are aimed at some good end?  Or do they come from His will without being aimed at some end?  (Voluntarism)
 

B. Behind basic commandments there is some reason

1.But note that this does NOT mean that there is some moral order outside of God to which He must conform. He is the creator, and good is a function of the flourishing of the creature.

2. Good of the soul and body.  Sometimes it's obvious (don't steal) and sometimes it's not.  In the specific details there may not be a reason why things are one way rather than another.  E.g. it is a good religious observance to make sacrifice, but why a ram rather than a lamb?  Why this many doves?  There's really no answer to these questions. (416).

C. Good of soul = aquisition of knowledge which is what leads to eternal life. (417).  More important.

D. Good of body = health and welfare of body, hence includes all the rules of social order.  First in nature and time, i.e. have to take care of body before can seek good of soul.
 
 

Thomas Aquinas 1225-1274

Introduction to the 13th century in the latin west

Three extremely significant developments

I. Aristotle

A. Through contacts with Muslims in Spain and Italy.  Along with work of Avicenna etc.

B.  Better versions from the Byzantine Empire, so the latins can translate from the Greek.

C.  So you get a lively debate and a broad spectrum of opinion on Aristotle

1. Latin Averroists
2. Moderate Aristotelians like Aquinas
3. People who think Aristotle is just wrong and dangerous.
 

II. Rise of the Great Universities

A. Up until now we've had schools attached to monasteries and cathedrals all over, but now we find students and teachers congregating in independent universiteis which receive their charters from the Pope or from a Ruler.  e.g. Oxford.  Most important is Paris.  Everybody who was anybody studied and/or taught at Paris.  Members of university not under jurisdiction of lacal authorities, but under jurisdiction of the university.

B. Important for science as we know it. An institutional and communal setting in which the findings of the present generation can be passed on.

C. Important for philosophy because the mehods of teaching will be influential on way philosophy will be written.

1. Read and comment upon important works.

2. The disputatio -- public debates, pro and con a disputed issue.  Advantage is you bet all the objections out on the table and try to answer them.  So when they write philosophy they'll follow this pro and con method.  (See book!)
 

III. Rise of the Mendicant Orders

A. Franciscans, Spiritual renewal, renunciation of worldy goods e.g. Bonaventure, Scotus, Ockham

B. Dominicans.  Founded by St. Dominic as a teaching order with the purpose of reconverting the Albigensians in Southern France. Aquinas
 

Aquinas 1225-1274

I. Most important thinker in the Western World between Augustine and the so-called "Age of Reason"

A. Catholic Church

B. In general...especially ethics (but people seem to be reconsidering Aristotelianism...)

II. Early on he wants to become a Dominican.  His family (as usual) wants him to be rich and powerful.  In those days in Italy if you were super smart and you wanted to be rich and powerful you became a Benedictine.  They actually kidnapped him and locked him up for a year, but he was stubborn.  They finally had to release him.  He becomes a Dominican and the rest is history.
 

III. Aristotelian

A. Cleans up Aristotle in that he recognizes that some of those works attributed to Aristotle were not really his.

B. Says things that get him into trouble.  (Condemnation of 1277 the Bishop of Paris condemns a number of propositions including many of Aquinas').

C. But he is much more critical in his adoption of Aristotelian views than e.g. Averroes

1. no adversarial relationship between Aristotle and revelation, and
2. not going to say that Scripture must just bow to Aristotle.
 

IV. Faith and Reason

A. Philosophy (reason alone) and theology (reason aided by revelation) so they are distinct disciplines, but truth is truth and they'll never disagree.

B. Philosophy can get you far along the road of religious faith.  You can, e.g., prove that God exists.

C. Why do we need revelation?

1. Not everybody has the time or the talent to pursue philosophy, so God just tells us a bunch of things it might be difficult for us to arrive at on our own.

2. Some truths that are necessary for salvation cannot be proven through reason alone, e.g. the Trinity, the Incarnation.
 

The Existence of God

I. Is it self-evident?

A. Objections (It would seem so because...)

1. innate knowledge...happiness
2. Ontological argument
3. Argument from Truth

B. But Thomas says, No.

1. A thing can be self-evident in two ways; in itself but not to us, or in itself and to us (e.g. a triangle).

2. God's existence is self-evident in itself in that it is God's very nature to exist.  God =Pure Being "I Am Who Am."  But not to us.  We don't immedieatly know the essence of God.  It has to be demonstrated through whats known to us through God's effects.  We have to start with sense knowledge of the world.

C. Response to objections

1.  true we desire ultimate happiness, and true ultimate happiness is found in God, but we may not really see that that's the case.

2. Can't move from the mental to the actual

3. Existence of truth is self-evident, but not Primal Truth.
 

II. Reason can prove God

A. Start with this world as the effect and argue back to God as the cause. (That means all the proofs start with what Aquinas takes to be claims which are shown through sense observation. He's an empiricist.)

B. Eternity of the World.

1. He agrees with Maimonides. Can't be proven either way. As a Christian he believes there's a first day, but here he's doing philosophy. None of these proofs begins with the assumption that the past is finite, and none concludes to that view, either.

2. His proofs assume the possibility of  preeternity.  (If you assume the world had a beginning then you've got God without half trying.)
 

III. The five ways

A. First way...proof from motion...Is this God?  (Need all 5)

B. Second way...there must be a first cause for the existence of things.  (Basically Avicenna's proof)

C. Third Way...A necessary being having its necessity from itself.

1. The Proof:

 1. There are things that are possible to be and not to be.

 2.  It is impossible for these always to exist for that which can not-be at some time is not.

 3.  If everything can not-be then at one time there was nothing in existence.

 4.  If this were true then nothing would exist now.   (Which is absurd!)

 5.  Therefore there must be something not merely posible, i.e. which can fail to be.   There  must be a necessary being.

 6.  Every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another or not. (Taking  account of Avicenna's cosmos.)

 7. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity  caused by another (mirror analogy again).

 8.  Therefore there must be anecessary being having its necessity of itself, and this all men  call God.
 

2. Underlying assumptions.

a. The world could be everlasting...there may be an infinite past.

b. If a certain kind of thing or event is possible, then, given an infinite amount of time it will happen.  (That explains premises 2 and 3.)  Note that this is the metaphysical understanding of "possible" not the logical understanding nor the scientific understanding.  E.g. flipping the coin.)

c. Nothing comes from nothing.  (explains 4)

3. Is this necessary being God?

a. Epicurus used the same argument to prove the eternity of atoms.

b. But atoms are possible in that their non-existence is conceivable...(Epicurus might say no. Impasse?  Which seems more plausible?)
 

D. The Fourth Way.  There is an ultimate source for all value.

1. The Proof:

 1. There are gradations in the values of things.  (E.g. Mother Theresa is better than Adolf  Hitler.  This is an objective fact, not a subjective judgement.)

 2. We recognize this gradation through comparison with a maximum. (Again, objective.   Not an intra-mental phenomenon.)

 3. This maximum is the cause of the value in things.  (Things are more or less good  depending on how well they reflect this standard.)

 4. Therefore there is an absolute standard for value.  And this...
 

2. An alternate version quite popular in the 19th and 20th centuries, If there is no God then there is no objective moral order.  But if A implies B, then not-B imples -A, so if there IS an objective moral order, then there is a God.

-- Objective moral truth must have...

1.... objectivity...a reality independent of human opinion.  A source outside of us.

2.... normativity...there's a reason to be good.  "You ought..." implies a reason to act.  So it's got to make a difference to you whether you're good or bad.

3. Problems?

a. We can deny the first premise.

b. Source for values other than a transcendent standard? Well, God is a "bigger and better" source than other possibilities, e.g. pleasure, the satisfaction of desires etc.
 

4. Note that at this point we have something that really begins to look like God.
 

E.  The Fifth Way.  The Teleological Argument. Design requires a designer.

1.  Different from Intelligent Design Arguments:

    a. ID: pick some particular element in the universe and then note that "science as we know it" cannot explain it, and that a transcendent designer is a better         explanation. E.g. Irreducibly Complex Systems.

    b. Two Standard criticisms:

        i. We don't need a divine designer. Aliens or gameplayers would do the job.

        ii. ID arguments point to a "God of the gaps".  We can always assume that scientific advances will provide a scientific explanation for the presently unexplainable. Aquinas would likely make this argument because he is committed to secondary causation and the practice of science, and the idea that God must step in and tinker would not appeal.

--Aquinas, on the contrary, is not appealing to some particular instance of an apparently designed object.  It's the fact of order AT ALL that's the issue.--

2. The Proof:

 1. There are things which lack knowledge but nevertheless act for an end. Things behave in a consistently repititious way  -- i.e. there are natural laws ["order" for short -- which...

    a. produce objects -- i.e. "obtain the best result" [Stuff is GOOD!!!]

    b. [this order is contingent, merely possible, could have failed to be, therefore it needs a cause, and a cause capable of causing it.]

 2. To act towards an end requires design.

 3. Irrational things must be directed by some intelligent being.

 4. Therefore there is a designer for the universe...and this all men call God.

3. Aquinas' proof immune from problems with ID

a.  Not a "God of the gaps" since the issue is the entire orderly system, not some small thing within it.

b. Suppose we invoke a gameplayer as the cause of the system? Either it's a merely contingent being, in which case we have to have a cause for it,  or it's a  being which is necessary per se, and if the latter, this all men call God.
 

Naming God

I. The Problem:

A. We're finite

B. Specially hard for Aristotelians.  All knowledge starts with the senses.  We get our understanding of terms like "good," "wise," etc. from looking at creatures.  Unlike Augustinians like Bonaventure, not divine illumination, no  mystical vision of God, unless God works a miracle on us!

The question is: Can any name be applied to God substantially?  That is, can we really talk about what God is like in Himself?
 

I. Maimonides' view: Positive attributes either negate, or say God is the cause of this or that.  Thus, "God lives." would mean... (H p.528)

a. He's not inanimate, or...

b. He's the cause of living things.
 

II. That can't be right.

 a. If it were there would be no reson why some names are more appropriate than others.  E.g. It doesn't seem appropriate to say, "God is body."   But it would be appropriate if all we meant was, "God causes body" or "Well, He's not pure potentiality."

b. It's against the intention of those who speak.
 

III. Words mean that perfection as we see it in creatures pre-exists in God. (The Fourth Way) This means we really can say something positive and meaningful about the nature of God.
 
 

IV.  Can we speak univocally?  That is, can our words have just the same meaning when applied to God as when used of creatures?  No!

A. God is perfect...finite (imperfect) v. infinite (perfect)

B. God is cause...creature is effect

C. God is absolute unity...God just is whatever attribute the creature has.  Nicholas may be good in the sense that he's got goodness, but God just is goodness itself.  God is all perfections, and they're all one in Him.

V.. Does that mean we have to be speaking equivocally?  Either meaning is the same or it's different, right?  Yes but we do say things meaningfully about God.  There's a middle option.
 

VI. We can speak analogically.  The meaning is not exactly the same, but is related.

A. finite to infinite, caurse to effect, is to merely has...yes but the difference is greater than this.  Each of these could retain an element of univocity.

B. Analogy of proportion...meaning is related, yet genuinely different.

E.g. "Healthy" horse - primary;  urine, medicine, exercise - secondary.

"Good" God;  Nicholas, pizza, courage.  God is primary in order of reality.  He is the really Good, which other goods reflect and depend on.  But in the order of understanding the creatures are primary.  We move from creatures to saying something meaningful about God.
 

Problem: If the meanings are so different...can we really understand something about God?
 
 

The Soul

I. By way of comparison...

A. Platonic dualism: 2 things, and the real you is your soul.  The body is a prison. (Avicenna, Descartes)

B. Augustinian dualism:

1. 2 things, both are quite good.  In Augustine's view this is one of the key differences between the Christian world view and the Neoplatonic view.

2. You are the combination of the two, and you're not really a whole human being without the body.

3. Resurrection of the body.

4. Certainly the body can be a pain in the butt in virtue of its appetites which can drag the person down, almost a war between body and soul... but this is not the body's fault and it is not the natural and original condition of mankind.

---Original Sin (worth a mention here because it is important in the philosophy of all the medieval Christian thinkers and will play a role in explaining Aquinas' politics)-----

The original people, Adam and Eve, were made good by God.  Soul in control of body.  They sinned (the fall), lost the proper order of things.  We've all inherited this miserable condition of disorder and ignorance.  But this is the fault of the soul, pride, nothing wrong with the body except that the soul has ceased to be in charge as it ought to be.
 

II. Aquinas' view: Even more intimate connection between soul and body

A. Hylomorphism: All corporeal things are composed of form and matter.  Form gives essence and matter individuates.  (W/out matter only one member to a species...the angels.)

B. Human soul is the form of the human being.  Because it has powers which transcend the body it can survive the death of the body, but this disembodied soul is not the whole person. It's not even exactly a discrete substance (as Augustine would have said).
 

1. Soul "constructs" body...what vivifies and guides the development of the body.

2. Body allows for individuation.

3. No knowledge without body.
 

III. Against Averroes on the unity of the active and passive intellects
 

A. Obj. 3, p. 543 If it's received into an individual it isn't universal

 Response p. 545-546 With the nature in the object this is true because it's ‘tied' to matter,
 which individuates, but in the intellect it is abstracted from matter.  And note that if  Averroes were correct it wouldn't solve the problem because even if there were only one  intellect it would still be a single intellect receiving the universal...as if there were only one  person.

B. Obj. 4, p. 544 If there were many intellects, what you understand will be different from what I understand, and hence we'll each have our own unique understanding and there won't be a universal.

 Response p. 546    A: "Whether intellect be one or many, what is understood is one."  The  dog exists objectively.  It really has canine nature (though individuated) as objectively  there in the dog.  If we all understand this or that dog as a dog, we're understanding the  same thing. (H 546, Reply to Obj. 4.)

Universals: "Intelligible species": He's a moderate realist.
E.g. canine nature exists...

A. As a concept in the mind...where it is universal.

B. As the form of the particular dog...where it is individuated through matter.

So is the universal one or many?  Yes.  Dogness is just dogness.

C. As an exemplar, a Divine Idea in the mind of God.

1. We know it's there because we know that God made the world rationally,...but

2.  As human knowers we don't have and we don't need access to these Divine Ideas. (v. Avicenna, and the more Platonic thinkers in general).  We can talk about universals, both as existing in objects and as known by us, without talking about God.

Epistemology

I.  (As usual...) To understand something requires that we possess the universal.  But ( Aquinas is an Aristotelian...) all knowledge starts with the senses, and all the senses give us is the particular individual.

II. Aquinas' doctrine of abstraction

A. The object affects my senses

B.  I receive an image of the physical object (phantasm).  It is received by my passive intellect...a faculty of my own mind.

C.  I have my own agent intellect which is capable of picking out (abstracting) the form and impressing it on my passive intellect.  And that's all I need to know the object.

III. Question:  Are the primary objects of human knowledge these abstracted universals?  I.e. is what we know the furniture of our own minds? (555)

Pragmatic answer: No.

 1. We do in fact do science.  Science is about things in the world, not about the contents  of our minds.

 2.  This would lead to scepticism.  "Whatever seems is true."  If what we're "knowing" is  impressions in our own minds, and if my impression contradicts yours, they're both "right"  as far as "right" means anything because all we're talking about is how things appear to  us.

 3. These intelligible species are that by which the intellect understands the things actually  out there in the extramental world. (We can understand the forms in the mind, too, when  we go through all this rigamarole, but you can understand this dog here, by means of your  abstracted universal of dog nature, without having an inkling of all this other stuff.

Free Will

I. Determinism, Indeterminism (libertarianism, self-causation) vs. Compatibilism...definitions.

II. The three kinds of necessity

A. natural and formal : That a thing must be follows from an intrinsic principle.  Logical and empirical or metaphysical necessity (the latter = given the nature of the thing some things follow necessarily.)

B.  necessity of the end, utility.

C. coercion.

III. Will cannot operate through coercion...to will is to be inclined towards something.

IV. Will can will by natural ‘necessity'...and in fact we do naturally and necessarily desire happiness, we could not do otherwise.

V. Freedom?

A.  If we see different means to achieve the ends we can choose between those means.  So there's no necesssity here.  (Must there be one we want most?)

B. If we recognize that there is only one means to the desired end then we will inevitably choose that means.  E.g. beatific vision.

C. But in the final analysis, if it's the intellect that recognizes the better option, and the will won't be moved to choose unless such an option is presented, then Aquinas is a compatibilist, and [at least in the view of your professor] that seems to make the ultimate cause for the choice not the agent but God.  (Even if we say that you have some responsibility for how your intellect judges due to past choices, the first choice you ever made was "determined" by intellect, ...)
 
 
 
 
 
 

Ethics (Extremely influential through Catholicism.)

I. What is the goal of human existence?  Happiness!

A.  Eternal happiness in contemplation of God is ultimate, supernatural,  goal.  Happiness here and now is intermediate goal.  Lead the good life here and now in preparation for eternal bliss.  We can lead the good life here and now through our natural human powers.  In order to achieve salvation need Grace.  (Note the dual nature of the human condition.)

B. Ethics is about how to get happy.  Point of being good is to be happy.  Definitely not an altruistic ethic...but it will turn out that it's not selfish either.

II.  So how do we lead the good life?

A. Eternal Law.  God governs everything.  He has Exemplars in His mind...how everything should behave.

1. All creatures have natures.  The good life, the happy life, for a creature is the one which allows it to perfect its nature, to become a mature member of the species, best example of its kind that it can be.  Everything imitates God by moving from potentiality to actuality.  Remember Aristotle's final cause?

2. True for human beings, too... Happiness = perfecting our human nature.

B. Natural Law.

1.  We're rational, social animals.

2.  Built-in guide posts.  Natural desires which in large part constitute our natures. (H 573)

a. With all things...self-preservation.

b. With other animals...procreation, care of the young.

---as rational beings---

c. Desire for society...This is why the ethics is not selfish.  You are by nature a social animal.  Living in society is necessary for you to achieve fulfillment.  If you harm your society, you're harming yourself.  (Versus contract theory which implies that we are essentially discreet individuals who can choose to be in a society or not.)

d. Knowledge...Nick, "What are things made of?"

3.  We are supposed to fulfill these desires.

4.  However, unlike animals who just act from instinct, we're rational beings.  We have to figure out what's the best way to fulfill these desires.  And that's what ethics is.   E.g. sex only within monogamous marriage...health? good of society?  psychological?

a. Empirical (Moral order found in Scripture can be explained in terms of natural law)

b. Now you know what "unnatural" means.
 1. Not, "Nobody wants to do that!"
 2. Not, "Lower animals don't do that!"
 3. Not, "Artificial or man-made"
--- But, "Not conducive to your health and happiness as a human animal." (E.g. The yummy-looking dirt.)
 

II. Is the Natural Law the same for all?

A. On most fundamental level, yes...we're all human beings.  Basic universal principles (e.g. no incest.)

B. This doesn't mean that every individual or every society must act just the same.

1. Many ways to achieve a proper goal...pizza versus grubs.

2. Different situations (return what you've borrowed...unless...)
 

III. Can the Natural Law be changed?  Yes and no.

A. You can add to it...in fact you have to.

1. You have to make provisions for applying the basic principles to particular societies...the Human Law.

2. In order to achieve the ultimate goal of the human being...salvation...need moral law which transcends the Natural Law and which you could not discover by unaided reason.  Divine Law which directs you to your supernatural goal.  Inculcating virtues like faith and hope.

B. You cannot subtract from it...that is you can't make it be the case that a basic moral principle holds today but not tomorrow.  Even God cannot "subtract from" the Natural Law.  If we are a certain kind of thing, then what is good for us just follows from what we are.  If we are humans then we have to do human sorts of things.  Denial of voluntarism.  It is not that an action is good just because God commands it.
 

IV. Human Law: The laws actually promulgated in a particular society.  (Note that the state is not the highest authority.  There is a moral order above and beyond the decisions of the state.  This is a view we tend to assume in this country, but it is not one that has been universally accepted.  Marxists, for example, see the state as the highest authority.  Once you've got the right, i.e. socialist, state there's no law or morality above or outside of it.  All sorts of practical consequences.)

A. Come from the Natural Law...make basic moral principles applicable to a given time and place.

1. E.g. I-95 here in northern Delaware...drive 55.  Preserve self and others.

2. Same everywhere?  No.

a. Different situations.  You can drive 65 once you're into Maryland.

b. Particular rule is arbitrary...just so there is some rule.  In England drive on the left.

B. Must you obey every law written down on the books?

1. Unjust laws with respect to worldly matters...laws which are not derived from the Natural Law are no laws at all.  They are not binding in conscience...i.e. you don't have an intrinsic obligation to obey them.  Though in the vast majority of cases I should obey even a bad law in the interests of preserving peace and the rule of law.

2. Unjust on divine matter...e.g. a law requiring idolatry...must disobey.

3. Just laws.  Made for the generality of cases.  Occasionally there will be the weird, anomalous situation in which you should disobey.
 

Political Theory
 

I. The state is a natural institution.  (Very different from Augustine.  Much more optimistic)

A. Man is by nature a social animal...we must live in societies to fulfill ourselves (Augustine wouldn't mind that...)

B. There has to be a group within the state whose job it is to take thought for the common good, that is, to see that things are organized to everybody's benefit.  So there would have been a state even without the fall.
 

II. Church and State

A. the state is a legitimate institution ordained by God with its own proper goals and jurisdiction.  Goal is to secure common good of the citizens

1. peace

2. harmony in the actions of citizens

3. adequate provision for needs of life

B. Goal of Church is a superior goal and in the final analysis the Church is a superior institition to state, but still Church should not interfere in business of the state.   By the same token the state must recognize that man's final goal is supernatural and not interfere with Church.
 

III. The Ruler (How much power and what justifies his authority)

A.  Power is limited...we've already seen that you can disobey human law which doesn't reflect natural law.  (If "divine right of kings" is intended to mean that the king has absolute authority then none of the medievals will defend it.)

B. What legitimates authority of ruler is that he is in fact ruling for the good of the people, there are suggestions that he receives his right to rule through the people.

C. Tyrant?  Someone ruling for his own benefit...not for the good of the people.  It's legitimate to overthrow him, if...

1. Situation is so bad that to retain the status quo is worse than all the terrible harm that revolution will cause.

2. You have a good chance of winning.  (If you lose, the tyrant will just get worse.)

3.  You are assured of replacing your tyrant with something better!
 

IV. The types of government, and the best form.

A. Three good:

1. law-abiding democracy

2. aristocracy (rule by the few best...best in the sense of those who have the talent and the will to rule wisely...Not e.g. the British royal family.)

3. monarchy (rule by the one best.) (N.b. no reason why it should be hereditary.  Elect a monarch)

B. Three bad:

1. demagogic democracy (lawless mob-rule)

2. oligarchy (rule by the few richest, most powerful...)

3. tyranny (rule by the one..the guy who's ruthless enough to grab power.)
 

C. Best form:

1. In theory...a monarchy because you would get unity of action with one person running things.

2. In practice...

a. Hard to get a really great monarch, and even if you do it's hard to find another to suceed him, so there are practical problems with monarchy.

b. Mixed constitution...a monarch, but also aristocracy (spread power around) and some democracy in that some officials should be elected by the people.
 

STUDY GUIDE

Maimonides

-- Naming God

What are the three underlying presuppositions?

What are the five affirmative attributes? Why can't the first four be applied to God. What does the causal attribute mean?

How can attributes be applied negatively? How does this differ from Pseudo-Dionysius understanding of negative attribution?

-- The Eternity of the World

What are the three basic positions?

Can any of them be proved philosophically?

Which should the Jew (or Christian or Muslim) accept? Why? (2 reasons: evidence of Scripture, but more importantly, dire consequences if we go with Aristotle.

-- The Nature of the Law

Does the Law come from God's wisdom or His will? What does the question MEAN?

Is there a reason behind every divine commandment?

What are the goods which the Law aims at? Good of soul, and good of body.  Former is more important, but latter is first in nature and time. Explain.
 

Thomas Aquinas

-- The existence of God

Is the Existence of God self-evident?

Three arguments why it would seem so, and Aquinas response to the three.

The Five Ways! (Be able to spell each one out, justifying all the premises and explaining underlying assumptions. Be able to discuss criticisms inso far as they came up in class.)

Fourth Way: 19th and 20th century "version".

Fifth Way: Distinguish it from standard Intelligent Design arguments. Is evolution a problem?
 

--Naming God

 Maimonides analyses (causal and negative) can't be right.  Two reasons.

 Univocity? Explain. Why Not?

 Equivocity? Explain.  Why not?

 Analogy.  Explain.  Analogy of proportion.  Problem.

--Soul

 Hylomorphism, survival after death of the body

 Against Averroes on the unity of souls. Reply to obj. 3 (Averroes' proposal doesn't solve  the problem). Reply to obj. 4 (Unity of universal guaranteed by form in the object)

--Epistemology

 Abstraction. Starts with observation.  Role and nature of passive and active intellect.

 "Are the primary objects of human knowledge these intelligible species?" Meaning and  importance of question.  No: two (pragmatic) reasons.
 

--Free Will

 Determinism, Indeterminism (libertarianism), Compatibilism

 Three types of necessity.  Will can will "necessarily" in two ways.  Freedom to choose the  means to the end.  The problem.

--Universals

 Moderate realist: Three "places" and manners in which the form/universal exists.  Since  Aquinas believes in Divine exemplars, why not say he's an extreme realist?

--Ethics

 Natural Law.  Basic idea.  Selfish?  Empirical.  Meaning of "unnatural."

 Is the natural law the same for all?

 Can the natural law be changed?

 Human law.  Must every law on the books be obeyed?

--Political Philosophy

 The state is a natural institution.

 What legitimates and limits the authority of the ruler?

 The tyrant.  When to throw him out.

 Types of government, good and bad.  Best in theory.  Best in practice.