The Dumb Ox Speaks: Aquinas, Aristotelian or Neo-Platonist?

*Join us every week for a new video from DSPT!*

The Dumb Ox Speaks is a project of the Dominican School of Philosophy & Theology, engaging contemporary questions at the intersection of philosophy and theology. In these videos, DSPT faculty regularly provide insights based on their experiences of teaching, writing and ministry, as well as highlight the profound relevance of Thomas Aquinas and the Thomistic tradition to intellectual, societal, and spiritual life.

Follow DSPT here:

[reyreyes]

for Aquinas, truth might come from different sources––what matters for him is the truth. As he adivised, "do not consider who says it but consider what is said." Several times he would even correct Aristotle, and would absorb some platonic concepts like participation.

[Platonist]

Without even watching the vid the reason why this question is even posed is because at a fundamental level Aristotle and Plato’s philosophy harmonize. In fact, Aristotle was himself a Platonist. For a whole book of arguments supporting this view see Gerson 2005.

[barnunop]

Thank you for explaining these distinctions.

[JeremyLewisHoff]

Could someone kindly tell me whether I have correctly understood the key differience with how Aquinas understands the resistabillity of grace, contra Augustine?


Augustine sees all grace as intrinsically efficacious (or irresistible), since the creaturely will has nothingness as its only independent source. Therefore the only thing that distingishes sufficient grace from efficient grace is the strength of the impulse from God. Aquinas, however, makes a real distinction between the nature of sufficient grace versus intrinsically effectual grace, since, following Aristotle, the creaturely will is actually informed by being, as opposed to the platonic notion that the creature is devoid of the actual substance of being. This means that sufficient grace must be cooperated with by the will (which has actually been informed by grace) in order for it to go from potency to act, thus grounding the responsibillity of the will to act. Augustine, on the other hand, places all the responsibility to act with the will of God alone. Have I understood this correctly?

[JeffPhilosopher]

Good point— the created universe is not merely emanation from God but expresses a decision by God to create the universe. Thus Aquinas is closer to God as Aristotle’s unmoved mover than to God expressed, as in Plato, by the Eidos. I think that it might have been helpful for the speaker to have mentioned Connaturality bringing together the transcendent with the reasoned natural universe.