On the reception of Aquinas, doctrine of God, etc.

[Eyedoc84]

I am not well-read on Aquinas at all, but I want to inject a point that I’ve seen lead to mistakes in reading other writers as well.

Using one’s language is not the same as thinking the same thoughts. So when you see the Reformers use Aristotelian or Thomistic words/categories does not mean they were Aristotelian or Thomistic in thought. I’m not making the case one way or the other, but they were interacting with and utilizing the language of their day.

 

[Taylor]

Can you give an illustration where we are currently using substance categories where other categories would be better?

Illegal substance categories—narcotics, methamphetamines, etc.—would be a good example. I think we should use better substance categories, like vitamins, minerals, and protein.

 

[Charles Johnson]

A huge portion of the terminology we use in theology proper can be traced back to Plato and Aristotle, in the same sense or a closely related one. Calling God "simple" is just one example. Both were wrong about plenty of things, and even Aquinas would disagree with Aristotle on a lot, but it simply is not possible to remove every trace of the Greek philosophers from theology without falling into heresy.

 

[RamistThomist]

I am not well-read on Aquinas at all, but I want to inject a point that I’ve seen lead to mistakes in reading other writers as well.

Using one’s language is not the same as thinking the same thoughts. So when you see the Reformers use Aristotelian or Thomistic words/categories does not mean they were Aristotelian or Thomistic in thought. I’m not making the case one way or the other, but they were interacting with and utilizing the language of their day.

Noted, but when they are using terms like pure act, potency, and the like, it is pretty clear.

 

[jwright82]

Can you give an illustration where we are currently using substance categories where other categories would be better?

Yes and no. I uphold the creeds and their language. I think aspect thinking along Dooyweerdian lines is better at explaining everyday things. As to your question, if I buy a bottle of water and I think in terms of substance metaphysics, us philosophical minded are horrible at this, I might be inclined to ask what is the substance of this water?
How does it hydrate me? By its substance or everything else? Since we can only answer by "everything else" it seems superfluous to include substance as a category of thought. Since I can't know what the substance is why not reject it for ordinary things?
Aspect thinking allows me to examine the everyday things from different perspectives to come to a fullest knowledge of the thing.

 

[jwright82]

I am not well-read on Aquinas at all, but I want to inject a point that I’ve seen lead to mistakes in reading other writers as well.

Using one’s language is not the same as thinking the same thoughts. So when you see the Reformers use Aristotelian or Thomistic words/categories does not mean they were Aristotelian or Thomistic in thought. I’m not making the case one way or the other, but they were interacting with and utilizing the language of their day.

I completely agree. Good post!

 

[jwright82]

A huge portion of the terminology we use in theology proper can be traced back to Plato and Aristotle, in the same sense or a closely related one. Calling God "simple" is just one example. Both were wrong about plenty of things, and even Aquinas would disagree with Aristotle on a lot, but it simply is not possible to remove every trace of the Greek philosophers from theology without falling into heresy.

I completely agree. We can't remove everything from theology without them. But can we do philosophy without them is my question?

 

[RamistThomist]

I completely agree. We can't remove everything from theology without them. But can we do philosophy without them is my question?

Sometimes. On one hand we shouldn't reinvent the wheel, but on the other if x is better at explanation, then by all means go with it. But back to your aspect-thinking, I think if we try to do Christology or Trinity without substance language, we are in trouble.

 

[jwright82]

Sometimes. On one hand we shouldn't reinvent the wheel, but on the other if x is better at explanation, then by all means go with it. But back to your aspect-thinking, I think if we try to do Christology or Trinity without substance language, we are in trouble.

I agree. We should not tamper with the language of the creeds. Substance language is what we use to talk about those things but every day objects may be better talked about in aspect language. When it comes to our Reformed and Catholic heritage we shouldn't reinvent the wheel. But when Substance language breaks down in describing everyday things we should find an alternative, I propose aspect thinking.

 

[RamistThomist]

I agree. We should not tamper with the language of the creeds. Substance language is what we use to talk about those things but every day objects may be better talked about in aspect language. When it comes to our Reformed and Catholic heritage we shouldn't reinvent the wheel. But when Substance language breaks down in describing everyday things we should find an alternative, I propose aspect thinking.

That's fine. I agree. The great Roger Scruton once asked which was better to capture the essence of gold, its atomic weight or its Platonic form? (Obviously the former).