From the perspective of existential
Thomism, and following Aristotle’s philosophy
of being (metaphysics) as the
nucleus and keystone of the whole philosophy,
seeking there the most important
claims of St. Thomas, the article
asks the three following questions:
1) What is the novum of Thomistic
metaphysics?
2) What was Thomas’ way of thinking
that led him to formulate the thesis
that existence is the act of being?
3) Would anyone else have discovered
the uniqueness of existence if
Thomas Aquinas had not done it?
The answers to these questions were
formulated in reference to Gilson’s
views and his concept of the history of
philosophy and to the study of the concept
of being in the texts of Thomas
Aquinas and the historical sources of
that concept.
1) Thomas proposed a new understanding
of the structure of being, in
which existence is the act that makes
essence real and constitutes being’s potency,
together making a real individual
being. Thus, Thomas formulated
a new existential theory of being, overcoming
the limitations of Aristotle’s
theory, and consistently explaining the
issue related to esse (a problem that Avicenna
and his followers - Parisian theologians
of the 13th century could not
solve).
2) Thomas Aquinas - with the help
of Avicenna’s metaphysics - outdistances
Aristotle’s essentialism, perceiving
being as composed of existence and essence.
Then, examining thoroughly the
proposition of the Arab philosopher, he
sees there inconsistency of attributing
the position of accident to existence.
According to Avicenna the element of
being considered as the cause of the reality
of being became - at the same time,
as the accident - an unimportant component
of essence. That is why Thomas
Aquinas recognized that existence is the
act of everything that makes essence,
which transcended Avicenna’s theory,
and thus he formulated his own existential
version of the metaphysics of being.
3) It seems that nobody else but
Thomas Aquinas would have put up
a thesis that existence is the first act of
being. And what would have been if
Thomas Aquinas had not done it? It is
hard to say as we have no historical data
to let us discuss it. Similarly, it is impossible
to answer this question even
assuming Gilson’s thesis that the detailed
claims of a given philosophy are
the conclusion of the set of principles
adopted at the beginning because
Thomas did not have such a set of principles
as at the starting point he modified
the principles of Aristotle and Avicenna.
Would someone else have made
the same modifications, thus creating
a “Thomistic” set of principles? The history
of philosophy analyzes the things
that actually happened and left their
mark; it has no interest in things that
did not take place and leave any trace.
This could be an area for historical and
philosophical fantasy, if it ever exists,
but we try to stay in the field of the history
of philosophy.
Ta witryna wykorzystuje pliki cookies do przechowywania informacji na Twoim komputerze. Pliki cookies stosujemy w celu świadczenia usług na najwyższym poziomie, w tym w sposób dostosowany do indywidualnych potrzeb. Korzystanie z witryny bez zmiany ustawień dotyczących cookies oznacza, że będą one zamieszczane w Twoim komputerze. W każdym momencie możesz dokonać zmiany ustawień dotyczących cookies
Informacja
SZANOWNI CZYTELNICY!
UPRZEJMIE INFORMUJEMY, ŻE BIBLIOTEKA FUNKCJONUJE W NASTĘPUJĄCYCH GODZINACH:
Wypożyczalnia i Czytelnia Główna: poniedziałek – piątek od 9.00 do 19.00