pieper - the silence of st thomas

8/17/2019 Pieper - The Silence of St Thomas

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/pieper-the-silence-of-st-thomas 1/130



HE S I LENCE OF S HOMA



OSEF PEPER

THE SILENCE OF

ST. TOMAS

Tee Ess

T R A N S L A T E D YJ O H N M U R R A Y S . J

A N D A N I E L ' C O N N O R

R RR C

CC



Copyright© by Pantheon Books Inc.REERY L ED

By aangemn with Panhon Book nc

Sond Pntin, ginal Gen Tt:Ub Ths vn ui

Pilsphi NgtivaKosel Verlag, Muc

Mufcred in the UA



T E T S

H Life and WorHi PersonaityHi Conception of the Word

The End s Sence

erceiig the Unexpressed The idden Key: Creation "To e True Means to e Creatiey Though o

hing Can e Known ecase They Are Create 5hing e Unfathomabe ecase They e

Create 57

Hope he Stcture of Creatrey Knowedge 68

hat Teiess? What s homsm? o

rom Kerkegaard to Sartre Distrst of SytemaPhosophy 8

hom Aqinas egatie Phiosophy ote on Create Thn an act



Inexhable LightTe End of "Pue PhosphyTomism Atttde

Tt and TimeessoscriptConological TableNoes Noes Notes

102

1051081 141 1 8120



ON THMAS QUNA



IFE AND WOK

A chance eusal f any f ugusne's wngs,even a page fm hs ms absac wk, On teTnt, wil cnvey he unmsakable mpessin:hs was hugh and wen by a man esh and

bld Bu le smene ake a smia gimpse nhe tgh sucue f he Summ Teooc f SThmas Aqunas, and he will be emped ask:Wee hese senences ealy se dwn by a lving

man did n ahe he becve cnen mlae sel undsubedneihe blued n wamedby he beah f a livng inke? he val dcs f Augusne's hnking neve allw f

ge hei suce n hs esnal lie, fm whichhey spng fh lke he bls!m fm is andsem u e anguage S mas suggess isgn n a livng mind as lie cysal suggessthe essenal liqd fm whch is fmed

Ye ny n supecial inepeain wuldne ine fm e unubled and unuied seeni e wk a e au himelf lived feedm fm ue ne ubancs O



n Thms uin

he hand, s ceanly clea ha he SummTeooc can nly e he wk f a hea funda

menally a peace S hmas dd n dscve anmap u hs maesc ulne f Chsan eachng he slence f he clse cell I was sme dyllc spee f eemen cu fm h

happengs n he wld ha he lived u hs lfeSuch pesenans, as unue hsy as hey ampemssly spled, n nly cl, ahecl many paculas he cnvennal ps f hmas hey fequenly hav an eec

gaphcal sudes whch make hghe clams occuacy.

he ey fac ha a wk f such npeuecy n such eep, adang peac cul

gw fm a f whch, fa fm eng unlecnsumed self n sfe, gves an nsgh nohe specal qaly f he man Hs wk, ncdenaly, shws mmedae een nd evdence f

uspeny cmbave ca mnd, wc,hweve, even n he hea f ale, was neve dced fm he nms f uh and le and cnsequenly neve ls s fundamena peace hwng On te Peecton o te Stul Le

gnang n hs fyh yea, ends w hfllwng _d: If anyne wshes wegans s, I w wecme F ue and falsew n n bee way be evealed and uncveed



n Thoms quin

th resstce to codcto, ccordg tothe sayg: Iro s sharpeed by o (Prov

: 17) A betwee us ad them may o juge,Who s blesse ete Ame "

Cout Ldu of Aquo, Lord of Loretto delcasro, was oe of the os oya vasals of theohestaufe Eperor Frederck II Dur theyars of te sharpest suggle betwee Eperord Pope hs yougest so Thoas was preparghself for oce both reote ad supero o

the coctte pesy oce of preachg thetut e w sudyg at the Beedcte Abbeyof ote Casso whch at that te also seeds pera castle, suaed o the border be

ee ohesaufe ad papa terrtory derthese crcumstaces, Thoa could hardly· expect secure lfe sheltred from exteal dsurbacesd dagers

I the rst mohs of the year 2 wherederck II wa excomucated, ote Cassocame decy to the zoe o bate. The garrsoof he castle, ha of whch had to be suppored bythe abbey, w ore tha doubled The forca

tos were expaded by order of the Eperor hm self, who had rst etered hs Sca kgdotwety years prevously at ths very spot I thsse ar, the oks had to leave ther moaster



n Thm un

ong their company was the fteenyearohomas Aqunas.

his exodus led he boy to Naplesto the e-ginning of his paricular desty it took h per-anently out of seclusion and thrust into theheated center of all the intellectual battles of tha

ime. he Unversity of Naples, founded i heyear of Thomas's birth, was the rst "pure staeunivrity,not a "school for seminarians bu aschool for iperial ocials.1 Frederick II had de-signed it to work against the Church. Here, ac-cordng to custom, Thomas studied the "liberaarts. What is most important is that, under thtutelage of the rshman, Peter of ibernia, he e-came acquainted with the writings of Aristote

which were at that time extremely suspect in thhurch. "istotelian! was an abusive epithet ith mouths of the orthodox, comparable to -ilist, freethiner, man of the "Enghtenmen. I

was n aes, to, that te me tat uba"youth ovement, which was lling the rans ohe rst generation of the mendicant orders, wrst kndled in the heart of the young nobema.

hese two words, "Aritotle and "endicantsdicate te two most important disputes which th rt haf o the thirteenth centy rockhrstendo wth a pssionate vioec w c

6



n Thm un

carcely understand Both Arstotl and the ed-cant orders stood in the idst of a stor f ap-

provals and ejections At the tie when Thoacae to aples, hadly a decade and a half afte thedeath of St Francis of Assis 1226), the twoendicant orders had not yet achieved any generrecognton On the contray, all papal recogntonsand privlege could not prevent the representatveso the establshed societythe teporal lords, thersng, uban iddle class and the secular clegyro callng these rearkable new "poo en

"deented (whch was partly understandable),and even "heretical or "sons of the AntChristTh, of course, did not ste the upsurge of theoung spiritual oveent, nourshed as it wa y

o any sources, aong the the fundaenta s-torical pulse of the tesAbove a t attracted, a they were ts ghtf

ortion, young en of oble irth We also ko

at both the Franciscan and the Doica con-ents Paris received any recrts fro the st-ent ody Te records ae sila for te n-ersity of Bologna, and qute probably the saeas te of the Unversty of Frederick at

aples For a these young en, vents such a tollowing ust have been like the illuination ofen ighing and a char to capture the n ea a proessor a th U



n Ts uins·

vety of Pars, Jean of St Gles, was deverng ecture on evangelcal poverty n the Dominca

Prory of St. Jacques. As he spoke, he was so car-red away by hs subject that he broke o hs lec-ture and begged the Pror for the habt. Then, him-self become a Domncan, he went on to sh hs

ecture Oe could consder ths report legendary,were t not a fact that n ths very way the Domn-cans acqured a cha, ther second, at the Un-versty of Parsa char whch Thom Aqunasw to occupy tenty years later.

he ower nherent n all these new thngs drewthe young beral arts student rresstily to thdscussons and forced hm to a decson. At the ageof twenty, hom entered the Order of St Dom-

nc whch combes the deal of poverty wth thatof study.

In more than one way ths dcson must haveen a provocaton to Frederck I, snce homas

was the son o one o hs vassas An t s pobablethat to Count Landuf of Aqunowhose brotherwas abbot of poerful Mote Csno, and whodoubtless preferred to thk of hs son rather as asuccessor to ths almost prncely oce than as

mendicant frarthe whole mendcant order mov-mnt must have appeared as somethg postvelyfro and dsrepuable, a judgment whch hshole famy was lkly to concur



Ths uin

d thugh t wuld be bsud t see Thmass decisin mives f iics, even ec

clesiasical liics (he yung man had edylmsed he sueiiy f tuh ve wldlywe), in he dising mi f mids dmied by we liics his enance in mendicn de migh easiy hve been cnsued as decisin agains he Eme nd f he Pe, swhse icua fiends nd s he new cmmuniies f Fanciscans nd Dminicns wee eded ccdingy, e hase wih which the

ias Peches sed hmas u f he imeildisic nd w fm his fmily is hughlyndesndabe. hey

sen him fhwih n he

wy t� ad ais.

Bu hms did n ive s easiy he lcef his fuue fme. n he wy he was cued byhis bhs nd hed isne ee ae mny indicins h his was dne wihu he cnset

even te ssisance f he Eme himself. Iny case, Pe Inncen V esed usuccessuy e Empe agans s ac vence.hmas ws imisned in his fe's casle f SGivnni f ve yea unil, wih he id f hs

sise, e nay succeeded in making his esce.He esumed immeaely he ineued jey

to Pais I is newhy h mas's tvelicomnin, Jhnnes eunicus, en Me



n Th uin

eneral of the order, and later his teacher, Albethe Great, were both Germans Johannes eutoni

as a Westphalian from the ecclesiastical dis-ict arond Mnster n this same year 1 4 whenhomas oved on to France, a General Conciwas eig sembled at Lyos, which dethroned

meror and disinherited his le While thisthreateg stor brewed i the West, hom ar-rived i Paris, a city so eminently the metropolis ofheologia studies that Scholastic research couldlai tha i he entire medival era no SummTelgc was written which does not relate to iversit near Notre Dame Cathedrl

homas ond the Friars Preachers of St Jacqes recarious situation hey, as ell as th

sans, ould hardly show themselves i thsee withot being insulted or attacked. heKg France, Sait Lois later o become

e St hom, who was some en years his

o ad oun t necessay to eta a oyaar to the convent to protect it agaist assault In whol order, special prayers wer prescribedegging od to ut an end to this evil, which wasrywhere rampant, ut particularly acute in Paris

homas, he only a little over twenty, and e-aus of his strength, his slow movements nd haracteristic silence, dubbed by his fellow studets b ox, robably di not suer nly

0



n Thos in

fm hse ccumsances hugh, f cuse, theyd nt cnvey he idylic icue f a eaceful

cse cell.

even f que anhe s mus have claimedhs ene aenn: In he yea f Thmass ava,

lbeus Magnus bean each n Pas Thefiendsh ha develed u f his encune fmase and uil and he fuifulness f hei mmn wk wee change he inelleual face fhe Wes few yeas afe he s meeng, n1248, he yea n which he fundain sne fClgne Cahedal was lad, bh lbe andThmas wee ansfeed Clgne lbe wasnsuced esablsh hee a cllege f he Fias

Peaches F Thmas, hese yeas held he gf fffu silence and nellecual ening The halfway mak f his say n Clgne ccded wh healfway mak f he cenuy f Thmas, i was

leady he halfway mak f hs life.The yeas Clgne wee ended by eem e ase enea, hannes Tucus, nwhch Thmas was summned eae himselff a eaching assignmen whch led h back Pais Meanwhile, a he Univesiy f Pais, held bae beween he secula clegy and he mencans had bus new ame I was nw aale eween s f eachng as well f

1 1



n Thms uins

teaching chais. And it was a battle not always honoably waged. The headstong defendes of the

aditional foces, led by the pugnacious Williaof St. Amou, made use of vey questionable eapons. Lies, calumny, falsication, and slande eeby no means uncommon. But on the othe hand it is

lso epoted that the omican scholas teoizethe pofessos of the secula cleg and even heecto of the uivesity wit thei pessue tactics.This was the whilpool into which Thomas asetuing

A new pesonal contct awaited him, with theFancisan Bonaventue. t is tue that the old an-nals mae scant mention of a fiendship betweenthese two saintly teaches of Chistendom. Ye

thee is a compelling tuth in the though that thesetwo geat ones, above the feuds of thei followeswee lined in fiendship. Thomas and Bonaven-tue, who had enteed thei espective odes in th

m hv a ha h mtying situ�tion. Both me, as mendicants, had beeefused pemission to begin an independent teachg cous at te univesity. As the esult of aexplici papal ode, both wee nally ganted pe-ssion o the same day.

t seemed at st that, fo Thomas, the peis-sion aone wou not e enough, o the nivesitboycotted his inaugua lectue. And late on

1 2



Ths ui

g ne of hs ectures, a oca of the phosophica facuty ad a foowr of Wam of St. Amou

who had mahe be baished), got u adoudy rected a oem ampoog te medcatst, such hapegs coud ot prevet Thomarom becomg oe of the most beoved ad cee-rated teacers at te Pars uvrsty

In tese stormy eary years of hs rst teachgassgme, Tomas composed s rst work, OnEssnce nd Estence, a work with the sarp car-ity of a moutan aorama. Te osy ad ds

gracefu tempest of srfe ad jeaousy wch hehad to work ad no bee abe to coud te mirof sge sentece. The arst, amost conte-orary, bography of Tomas, wch w wrtten

y am of Tocco, Pror at Beeveto, etonsrepeatedy his eormous power of cocetrato.ie e was wrtng te Summ Cont Gentes, requenty seemed hs seses were nubed

Once, wie ctatg at nght, he d no notcehat he cande he was odg ad bued downad se s ers

Te Summ Cont Gentes, wc spite ofits tite s anytg but a poemca work, was wri

en Itay After he had taug tree years as furofessor of teooy at te Uiversit of Pars,Tmas was caed o te apa cour oftn oated os days at Vterbo or Orvieto Fro

1 3



n Ths uins

the utl hs death, Toas never remanelong r tha two or three ears the same pace or

he sae oce. He taught three ears at the courtof rba V. After that he wet to Rome for twoears, wth the assget to esabsh thre a col-lege for hs order. At ths te he coceved theoute ad bega workg o the rst par of theS eoloic hs eorous ma work, owhch he labored for seve ears, wthout shgt etrely. Ater these two years Rome, a ewpope, Cemet V, caled hm oce aga to the

papal court at Vterbo. The atempt, prevousy ade, to appot the medcat frar Achbshop ofaples had be frustrated by hs own resstace,ve though he had bee caocally desgated.2 n

Vterbo, Thomas aga saye oly two yearsThose were the years whch the tragedy of theast of the Hohestaufes, the boy Korad, waosummated At that te, Thomas wrote h

ease n the oernanc o rnce, wchcn-

tas, aog oher thgs, the magcet chapten the reward of kgs.

That, 23, the forer professor of the -

ersty of Pars should be caed back for a secote to Pars at the dreco of hs orde waanst a custom n the thrteent cetury owv a f hs tlectual powrs, a erh



n hm uin

t an his unsaabe calm, evientlrgently needed at the uversty Thms, fr th

thrd te, tk te rad t Pars. (Here it may bnted that, as a mendcat frar, Thms made athes jeys n ftuess he had t take a sht crss the atersn much the same ay s hiteacher, lbe, h walked thrugh neary thehle f Ee durng hs lng lfe, earnnghereby hs ncame the Bt")

The reng teacer s aated n nesng acn, ut by three The attle aganst

e mendcats had ceased t center arud teachg chas; nstead, the attacks were n drectedagast te thelgcal and regius rncles fte rders The tw addtal factns, bth

arused by the key wrd rstte," ere scaed ugustansm and Lat verrsm eshall have ccasin t treat f tese t psngtheries and the cncts they arused.

It aears that Thmas belnged t that race men whse mpsng calm grs rprtn tte e ad um arud tem evene hm t se s cmure," remarked ne fhs cnfrres wh had lg ved n the same rry

t h t all events, the rductivty f thesyears Parnce agai t ws ly a threeyearerdasse uderstadg n ts ref, emd erid Tms rte, addtin t s



n Ths uin

olemic aphlets oluinous comentaries onnearly all the major ors of Aristotle and on al

he epistles of t. Paul as el as the gospel of tJohn He produced the great Qestones Dsptte on the irtues, and, as a short sumary of hehole of theology, the opend eoloe

Finally, he rote numerous reatises for the Seoloc In these ors Thomas did not ith-dra from the intellectal conict Rather, theors listed are for the most part contributions toit. And hen, in 2 7 2 his superiors recalled hifrom Paris (apparently on a sudden decision), theirmain intention was to cool the heat of that conictIn any case, his successor in the teaching chair incled ore strongly toward te Augustian, i.e.

the traditional direction. It also deserves to be men-tioned that among the students of t Thomas atParis was a Florentine Domnican Remigio de'Girolami, h in later years was to ecome the

eacer of is felloczen, aeThomas was once more commssioned to found acollege for the order, this time at the place of hisrst decision: Naples But in the year after, thePope summoned h to a new eneral Council atLyons. Toard the end of the inter 7374Thomas set out on the long journey whose goal hedid not reach n the ay, in the Cstercian mona-tery of Fossanoa, he fel mortally an a sho

6



n Thm n

e ate e not qute fty yeas ol Late ne same year, Boaveture also e, at te ery

ouncl to wc bot me a been calle te caonzaton rocess, te abbot of Fossanova teste ue oat tat te communty anot celebrate te Mass of te Dea at te funeal ot Tomas but, stea, te Mass Os ]ust, n onoof a oly cofessor, te ntrot of wc begns wte wors: Te mout of te just man sa metate wsom an s togue sall sea ugment:te law of s o s n s ea"

ERSONALITY

t a been sa tat te wor of t Toma e most mersoal of te ene tteent cen

t t s tue tat, n te tty olues of spe On, tere s aly a sngle eatelyersona tra t dscveruess we cosder sery absece as a mrror o s ersoaly soubless an accet, toug a sgcant one

tat only oe etter of St Tomas as come ownto uste lete e wrote, sortly befoe s ea,to te abbot o Mnte Casso Ts sngle eteroweve, eals wt a textua culty Greg



n Ths uin

y ommentary on o and too much exression of exert oiion to aord the oportuniy

as Goethe uts itof preserving the mmediacyds Unttelbe) of livig existence" and reveang it to us.

hose, however, who kne homa ersonally

must have sensed from his immediate resence heualities of saintliness And he must have been singularly imressivea man of tall and erect bearingat oce strong ad sensitive with a mighty andcommanding forehead, ·his ski gleaming likegolden wheat, his face shinig ith a radiance thatwas never extinguished. here could be no dout-ng he secial holiess of this frir, ho freuentlycould e seen acig u and down he conven

halls in great strides, head erect, alone, mediatinghe witnesses at the canonization rocess, many fwhom had long been associated ith homas, hadnothing to reort conceing unusual acetic exer-

s or mrttos ut ty tsd tthomas loved eace that he was saring regardighmself, humble, and full of goodness for his fellows. e a a lover of poverty ad his heart aentirely directed toward the divine

One articular rait as named most freuentlyby the more than thirty witesses, and often in rstlace: stts St. homas must have been a manf uch uity and radiace of character that ever

B



n Th uin

oe comig nto his resence seeme to ee soething ke a fresh, coo breeze.

When Thomas was h risoner in the soationof the caste of San Gioani, his brothers hatred in varous ways to tu him fro hs ecisionto become a mendicant frar. (Regina, one of thetwo brothers who had imrisoned hm, was a oetof some note n hs own ay, known artcuafor ove oms the veacuar. Swedisschoa edted these oems durng the rst Wor

Wa.) 3 One day the brthers snt a racticed cotesan nto Thomas's chamber We know ony tathe turned her out roughy. However, t seems thatthe twentyyearod a went in those ew o

ents through a terrfyng nteror strugge. Wam of Tocco wrtes Thomas immedatey therefter coapsed at the threshod of his chamber ande exhausted into a deep seep out of which he

awoke wth a ou scream. The scream was causeb an exceedny panfu operaton. ange adgrdd m tty with a cncture order to makem noabe aainst a future temptaton to murty. Toward the end of his fe Thomas reate

a of this to hs frend and secretary, Regad ofieo.

Snce we nowadays thnk that a a man needs oracuson of ruth s to x hs br mo o ess

1 9



n Tho Auin

vigorously, and sinc w considr an scec aroach to knowldg hardly snsib, w hav lo

th awarnss of t clos bond that links th knowg of truth to th condtion of urity. Thomas saysthat unchastity's rstbo daughtr s blndnss oth sirit Only h who wants nothig for himslf,

who is not subjctivly "ntrstd, can know thuth On th othr hand, an imur, slshly cortd willtolasur dstroys both rsolutnssof sirit and th abilty of th sych o listn silnt attntion to th languag of ralty.

To rciv ths languag, i, to gras th truthof ral thingsths s th tru assion of St. Thomas.This fundamnal characr trait lads us to an undrsanding of his astonshing courag and is no

lss astonshing humlity hn Thomas for instanc rangd himsl on th sid of th gan Aristotl against th tradtional hilosohicotologicatrnds (an undraking ruiring grat boldnss),

e s n om a st sn t ttonal doctrns or om a mania or novations,but rathr bcaus his intrid aroac to truthrcognd t voic o ralty in Arstotl's work.This sam tridity mad him ask, his oentry on te ook o ob whhr Job's bolconvrsaion wit t Lod God dd not volatervncto wch h gav the almost outragousanswr: trut os not change accoring to the

0



n Th uin

tdg o the erso to whom t s ddressed hwho seks trutfuy s nnerbe, o e

who y e hs dersry.5

·

othe cet of ts courge s show cdent ertnng to st yers n Prs whe the eyes of Euoe were xed o hm. t

uc nd fo dsutton of some cot

vers ots of hs techng, hom, fter cmresentng hs rguments, hd o hestto to sumt them for te n decso to the Bsho of Prnd te unersty fcuty (Mny yers ter, thery Frcscn John Peckm, become chbsho of Cnterbury, who was homas's ooetn the dsute, reced the ncdent wth gret rto) If homs, t the heght of hs fme

techer, ws cbe of such humty, we he tosee n t ot so much the sgn of modest sefecet, but rther the courge toce truth, to whceogs the courge to see n tess ether ess o

ore th ts remses wrrt hs trqu coge, ether frd of rejecton or oery eger oro, sows tht oms ws hy free of asefmortnce. We he ryer he wrote whch he sks God to et hm be cheerfu wthoutfng to froty, d become tue thotfg nto omousness.

e ecome use to see teec



n Ths uin

isu somting in t natur of a fncing matco at ast of a contst wt victors an vanus

An by an arg suc isuts ar carri o accoing to t ruls of suc contsts omas wouav tougt it unbarably sfimortat a ayon son of is "victory ovr Avrros or Sigr

of Brabant For im, an intllctua isut was acommon striving for t victory, not of on of tcontnrs, but of trt Evn t rring arty, says, is mritorious for rror, too, may srv to iuminat trut Accorigly, in is isuts witoonnts of contrary ositons, omas violatsa gting cos H calngs t oont otat t wast sot in is ositiontoo ca a rocur for omas, o was nob in mor ta

nambut, ratr, mts im rcisly in tara of is strongst argumnts Oftn nougomas is t rst to bring t actua forc of tsagumnts to igt; frunty, it is troug s

formulos tt t bctos of s vrsarigai in rsuasiv owr us, in t stuy of suca wo as t S ont Gentiles it is a xaratng xrinc to s an intri min mtt ssntia ustions suary, wit no attmt atsisting tm

caot touc on t tm "omas a tth an rman sint about th voto wi

ll



n Ths uin

hch he as the ece of truth. To lead a mro error to truthth he conidere the gretet

ervice which one man can render another.7 Andnothig charcterized ho the techer otongy h pryer nd hope tht hi fe woud ot outt h teching Once he coud no ongertech, then fe te ight as we be tken ayfro h. eching, or hoas, oethigother an greter thn to ipart y one ethodor another the ndig of reerch"; oethnother and greter than the report o a thiker o

the ret of h qry, not to ention the waysand bywy of h erch echig s a procesthat goes on between vng en. he tecer ooksnot ony t the trth of things t the sae tie he

ook at the faces of lvg en who deire to kowths truth. Love of trth and ove of enony teo together consttte techer. No sa prt ofthe whoe ork of St. ho was wrtten i an-swer to reuets of friendsoeties the requesto a prnce or, jt as oten, the reqet o a no-body Once a yong conrre ro Vence a be-nner," subitted to him no es thn hirtysiepaate quetion, which were not even cery

oued, nd reqeted nwer wihin oury hoas, ho cod eitey he excusemef ith th exceve dends de on hmb ore mportant work not ony sppe

2 3



n To Auin

wer but alo forulated the queton morerecely; and n addition to that, e met the re-

queed tie itTeaching deand above all ele the capacity ofurvey and of iplication, and the abiliy and ef-fort to think fro the preie of a beginner. Thicapacty of ue ipcaio St. Thoa po-eed to a high degree, and he bent every eor totake hi tuden' point of view a a premie. Thebe energie and he bet part of hi life he devoted ot to a work of reearch" bu to a textbook for

beginner, which i nonethele the reult of thedeepet erion ino ruh. e Su eologic i exprely wrien d euditione incipieniu, for he inucio of beginner, a i plainly

tated everal te in the preface. n hi prefaceThoma menton he boredo produced by theverfailiar, and he cofuion experienced by e-inner hrough he excee of iplaced cholar-

sip. he ecig eod of . o, coe-orarie report, faciaed hi udent precielythrough i frehne and originaliy. To quoe Mar-tn Grbnn, ho w te r to eliinatethe underbruh of cholaic" hrpliing, which

ad already becoe raditional in the hirteenhcenuryto be revived, i i true, n new profuionby the lte Scholaic.

What aounding capaciie of urvey an ipl



n To n

caton are reveaed in the threeod dvion o theS eoloic: n he r prt we wi trea

o God, in he econd, o the turnng back o pirit-endowed creature to God, in te third of Chrit,ho i in Hi Huanity the ay on which wewi ucceed o God"8 hat power o ipica-tion in a enence uch the oowin, which em-brace a s o Chritian teaching on ie:Three nd o knowedge are neceary to mafor hi avation the knowedge o what he muteieve, the knowedge o that or which he mut

pray, and the knoedge o wha he u do Thert i taught in the creed o our Faih, he econd n the prayer o the Lord, the thrd in the com-mandment9

The ntiate uion, n thi towering nd, othe nnate git or probng, graping, and iuminat-ing reaty to it depth, and he capacity or giving

it inpired and convincng or

a teacher, e-coe ovrwheingy evden in the terey for-ue eeven cper n e r bk o heS ont Gentiles n th chapter, that andperhap unatched even in Thoa own work,

he undertae o decribe the ordered tructure otota reaty, budng t up ro one to ange anto God He, n a truy ravhing range oviion Th i what it ay

2



n Tho in

Where things die in natue, e nd dieent modeof emanation The moe ths emanaton takes pace

he innermost eaty of a thig, the higher is its oderof beng No of a hngs the inanate take theowest ace and fo the no emanation is possibecep by the action of one on anothe . . .

The next hghe ode ate inanimate bodies is

oed by the pants hose emanation poceeds fomwithin inasmuch as the pants inne juice is coneedinto seed, which being committed to the so gowto ne pant Accodingy, we nd here the st

aces of ife, since iing things are those which moehemsees ito actiity Neetheess, the pants ife sti impefect, fo athough its emanation poceedsrom withi that which emanates emeges out of it andis utimatey eney outside it Thus from the juice of

the tee, rst the bossom is poduced and then theit which, athough sti connected ith the ee, outside its ba. hen the fuit is ipe it sepaates itsefetirey fom the tee, fas to the eath, and brngsfoth ou o its on sea oce a ne ant ndeed,

we consider the mat caeuy e sha see that thest pncpe of this emanation s something extaneous, fo the ne juice of the tee is sucked up by theroots from the eath, hence the pant das its nou

hment.Aboe the ee of pant e is a hger ee thatof the senstie sou the poer emanation heeo,though beginning fo ithout, teminates ithiAso, the fue the eanation poceeds, the more

z6



On To n

oe peneate wtn, fo the sensibe obec pesses a fo on he extea senses, whence i passe

o the imagation and, fuhe sti, o he stoehousof the memoy. et eey pocess of this kd ofemanaton, the beginning and the end ae dieensubects, fo no sensitie powe eects on itsefTheefoe, his degee of e tanscends that of pan

insomuch as it is moe timate and ye it is not a pefect e, since the emanation is aways fom one hingo anothe. The highest degree of fe, theefoe, is hawhich is accodg to inteect, fo the eect eecon tsef and can undestand itsef. Thee ae, howee the nteectua e seea ees to be distinguished.The human inteect, atogh it is capabe of knowgitsef, st tkes the begig of ts knowedge fom thout. Man s not abe to kno wthout a sense

age Moe pefect is te ife of the ange, whose knowg spirit does not acque sefknowedge fom withot, but athe knows itsef though itsef. Een so, ifeha sti not eache its ast and highest step, becase

the anges spiritua mage of itse, athough whoywithin it, is sti not one with its eing o hange, to know and to be ae not the same thg. Thhighest peection of ife eongs to God, Whose destanding s not distingished fom is eng

or ts true eect, ts soveregnl constructepassage should be ed the a The languagf St. Thoms does not ave the qualt of eaut



n Tho in

proper to a work of we nd it, for intane,n Augutine it i beautiful a perfet intruent

beauul And yet, there are in the writg of StTho nuerou hapter whoe entene ovein uh rhythi dene toward their conlusotheir nal therefore," tht one an think of no

ore ting oprion than that with the deterined tride of the nal eure in an organfugue by Johann Sebtian Bah It would betrange indeed a halow judgent of the hunit h dereed the eret of lnguage houdhve been barred to the very an who gave Chriendo the hy Ad oo e devote Ltens Dets.

NCEPTION F THE WORLD

e ve area ee e two oppogtheorie at the Univeri of Pari agat whoTho had to efend hi own poition on Godan he word hey were, ry, the traditionad preoinatg tren, pririy philoopiabut o eoogi, whi we re autoed toeignae Auginini an eondly, tinAverroi Fr th vewn of thee two opog heorie we ave, pera, the bet oppr



n o in

nity of makng cear the unique character of StThomas's teacing.

In the se between Thomas Aquinas and me-eva Augusniansm two of the most reveaingoints dispute were the foowing Tomataught the uity of the substantia fo, whieAugustinianism accepted sevel fomgiving pr-ies n man Thomas sserted tat a ou knowedge, cuding te spiritua, and aso ou knowedge of God, took its starting point (and thereforeways emained somehow dependent upon) sense

erception,10 whe Augustiniasm caimed thatpitua knowedge ws independent of sense er-eption. At rst sigt, tis appears to be a pettyquare between schoos" But for Thoms t n-

oved nothing ess tan the saving of reaton as asibe eaity from any attempt at reduction, de-auation, or sheer anniation

What s the meaning of these two theses of St

Thomas? They mean tat in man there is not onethe souwhich is the rea" man, and anotherathe oy, a sepaae reaitywhich the in-trument or even the prison of the soul; ratherbody and so are an immediate existentia unity

And fuhe, that the rea" man is not the soaone but precsey ths existentia unity of bodyand so. The body beongs to the essence of man11he secnd thesis mans that t s not th spta



n Tho i

whch i the tiate bearer of o knowedge,bt composed of body and soul Therefore,

or knowedge is aways image of our owbeing; knowedge is, ike our being itsef, an ndoube unity of spitual and corporal (sentientrincpes

Thee these mean more than they recty e-ress In them is mirrored, as we have aready re-marked, that ation of the natura reaty of cre-ation which is so characterisic of St Thoma Alcreated thngs are good because they were create

y God For the sae reason, they have reaityand eectiveness of the own, which may t beignore or obiterated tough mang absolute one way or oher the spitua or religous

eement in man Moreover, the reaity of creaton man, the natua ight of his reason, his veense, a the poers f his being, have their aceand assigent the makeup of m

n e oer d, one m we sy o ugus-tine, wthout vioating he reverence due to thsgreat aint d great thinker, that, as the htory fhrstian teachg shos, his work fas more easiy nto the danger of being consted or, rather, -

construed in the sense of a deactuaation and de-auation of the visibe reaity of creation) Ofcoe, Thomas s aso aware o the injury caused tcreatio through original sin In fact, he ee ay

30



On To n

at te more deeply a man recogne the reeng of created things, the more this knowledge

eomes for him a souce of sdnesbecause ou ofevery created reality can arise a menace to salvaon.12 But Thomas also knows that the same Christho fouded the New Cretion s simultaneouslythe eteal archetype of the rt cretion.1

In his Coenty on t o' Epstle4 Sthomas remarks that we can nd n Sacred Scrip

ure three dierent menings for the term the orld": rst the world" as the creation of God

nd second, as the creation perfected i Christ; lastas the material peeion of the order of creatioo the world" n this lastnamed sense, and to thisworld only, may one apply the sayng of St ohn:

The world is seated n wickedne" 1 ohn 5 19 It is precisel the claim of St. Thomas that the rsmeaning of world" (as creation) may not b idened nor nterchanged with the thid(world" as

material peersion of the order of creation; te orld as creation is not seated wickedness sge comn enoatr ueres a tese

theses o fand accept the reality of creato al its provinces is the response betting uite

artcuarly the Christian hs is the key to under-standng his thess on the uity of the substantal orm man This is kewise the foudation o oma teachg on the true lace f natral e

3



n Tho n

o d phloophy wh regard to upeatura at d theology. From the andpo of h af

rmaton of the wholene of creato, one may,perhap, alo underand te eae wh whch, heS eooc he recomend bathng andleepn a remede agan melancholy of theoul.15

One of the mot penerang remark n Cheero book on St. hom he followg: If, conformable to Carmele cuo, a tng epthet uch Jon of the Cro" or hre of the Chld

Jeu" were ought for hoa Aqa, the onemo approprae would be homa of te Creaor," os etoe

Oy when we have truly recognzed ta he neto of St. o alway drected towardGod the Creator and H creaton are we competento evaluae Aoelan" Artotle for St

hoa ( he eaue which he foo�

mothg more nor e han a clear ror of thatal realty of creaton, a great and rc mnd whch the odo of the natural unvr wa crbed16 hoa confronted he work of Artol

with greaer reedo ad ndependence han ormaly the cae n the atttude of a chool towarde work of t maerthe omtc" cool ocped



n hom in

It also ot correct to speak of a Hellenizg"of Crsa dctre te eacg of St Thmas

When the Refrmers of e sxteenh centuy attemped t purge" Crsan theolgy f te supsedy Heenzng scasic eement, becamequickly event (and n e prperly refrmed"thelogy f Kar Bar, for exampe, t s stl edent oday) that tey were riskg te error f re-mog from the Cstan cnscusness he reayof creaion sef ( is an unsorca legend atuter bued e eoloc along wth

the papal bull i te marketplace at Wtenberg.The true story of at incdent, however, makes ore ellng pint A reenly ucovered repr othat autodf ess a here was he nent

of bn te S along wth the papal dou-ent, but o one coud be foud who was wlingo part wh hs cpy!)

Far from beng or signfying a secularzaio of

enune Chrisian teaching, the rmaton of theealty of creaton the theology of S. Thomas ues r he ery eps Csan tu, amely, fro reerence fr te reaty of e nr- aton f God. ccordng to St omas, te Ea-

est Jon had deberately sad the Wrd wade e n rder to exclude th Mcaeacpl that the body ev.17

3 3



n To in

t is this altogether relgious and theoogca ooich dierentiates St. Thomas's openness o th

orld from the truy seculariing concepts of his econd and more dangerous opponentLat Aveosm named after verroes ( 6- 1198, one othe great Arabian commentators on Aristotle.

are not conceed here ith the individual poitsof teaching the numerical uity of the intellect ill men th eteity of te orld the denial offree ill). he decisive point s that Averroisadically severed the connection between fait an

eon between theology and philosophy. It maitained the complete independence of philosophicahng from faith and thelogy. Moreover tovevalued excessively thi� separated philosophica

hig 18 inasmuch as it expected to nd n it the and nal isdom ie an answer hich ou atisfy the human spit inuirng into the meaningof the world and human e. To this Thomas says:

The Chrisian can neiher see nor nd a wisdooutside Christ.19 A single divine grace exceeds ts existentia vaue the hoe of th atural -erse.20

One notices that by this decisive secarizatio of

ought Lan verroism s fundamenally th oreer of the enaissance and therefore oode philosophy and science n general.

Ths famly leness extends to another arey

3



On To Aquin

oced chraterist. In La Averros ere, for the rst tie, the purely hisori a-

roh to the nterprettion of hilosoytheoion tht the true objet of hilosohy is its ohistory For Siger of Brbnt, the eaer of theAverroists t te Unversity of Pris, te study ofhosohy signies the exlorton of te historiaystems of hiosohy, iresetive of hether theyere true or flse21 Here for the rst tie apeatht moe tye of hilosopher ho, nste odisussing his true subjet, relity, isusses soe-

thng quite dierent, the hosohies A mgn-cent an nvigortng retort given by Thoms tSiger of Brbnt shoud prefe ll trslatons annterrettons of Thom, n order to ut sho

from the very strt ny attempt to tke the Un-versl Tecer" of the Churh hiself a mereyhstorial" phenomenon: The sudy of hiloso-hy does not men to e hat others haveought but to e t s the truth of thngs"

n spite o ts unequivol opposition and te of the enorous dierenes beteen Thomand Averrosm, t s aprenty Thoms's destiny

o be onfue ith his seurized oponenhree yers ater the deth of St Tho, for -aple several msinterpreted roosiions fro r re condene b the Bsho of

3 5



n Tho in

and enumerated on the same list wth the errors oAverrosm

Snce that tme, not only has homas een canonzed by the Church; he s also the rst man, aMart Grabmann says, to e canonzed q theologan and teacher Moreover, homas has eensolely declared a Doctor of the Churchanddeed, the Unversl Doctor of the Church" PusX says o h that the Church testes n everyway that she has made teachg her own28 Yetthe censure that hs teachng s tanted wt

vrtualy agan worldliness has erssted snce theday when Wam of St mour wrote agastAe and hs great ul hey arrogate dvnewsdom to themselves, although they are more fa

wt worldly wsdom" o whc homaanwered: he onon of those who say wth regard to the truth of fath that t s a matter of colete nderence what one thnks aout creaton,

provdd one has intrpion of God notorously flse or an error about creation sreected n a alse onon aout God"24

censure s likely to take the followngfo the condence whch St homas uts n

naal reason goes beyond the Chrstian no; hlosohy and thology are much too rational, ndeed too rationlistic;5 they have a tendency to ofer facle allnclusie soluons" to all uesons;

36



n Tho

te ar dayght of s syogsms derve ean srit of the dark glow of the mysteres of

our fath the eement of mystery n sueaturaruth almost totay supresse in favor of tsupposey demonstrable ratonalty . . and oon

It s nsputably true that a great nue fneoscholastic" or Thomstc" presntatons, ac-cordig to the teachng of St Thoms" provdee cause and seemng justcaon for such objec-tons Thoma hmse, however, goes so far the

recogtion of mystery, both n creaton and nGod, that for us moe Chrstans, who seldohear about the ncomrehensbity of God, comes as a cause of alarm when we nd ou go-

ance so ntrey an clearly onte out n theS eoloc For n ths summary" of hteachng on God, Thoms beg by sayg: Be-cause e are not capabe of knowng what God

oy wa He is not, we cannot conteplateo God but oy ho He i not"26 Evdently,om not wis to witol ts bsic tougtof negave" teoo een fro te begned the Qesoe Dspe even sad

Ho es l coon ne de Deoo s e De esce ts the ate an knowlege of God: to kno tha e do oo H "27

37



n To in

here a syig frequetly her aohosts whih expresses a sigiat ft

Thos fered logi s litle s he fere ysterye who fers the bold light of log wil everenetrte to the regio of rel mysteries he who does ot use his reson will ever gt totht boudry beyod whih reso rely fils. Ithe work of St Thos l wys of reurelyowing hve bee folowed to the very edtothe boundary of mystery Ad the ore nselywe pursue these wys of knowledge, he more

eveled to usof the dkness but lso of thelty of mystery.

HE N I ILENC

he w S. is bu slee d i is o deh whih kes the peout of had. His togue s stilled by the superabundae of life the mystery of God. He silet not beuse he hs nohg fuhe to sy; he

silent beause he hs been alowed a glipse tothe inexprssible depths of tht mysery whh ot reaed by ay u thougt or speeh

he ats of the aiato proess eord O

3



On To in

the feas o S. Niclas, he year

Tmas ed back is wk ae Hly Mass,

he as sngely aleed. He eained seady sen; e did n wie; e dicaed nig. e ldsde e Su eoloic n wic e ad beenrkig. Abruply, i e middle f e eise nhe Sacmen f Penance, e spped iig.Regild, is fiend, asks i, ubled: "Fae, ca yu an sp suc a gea k?Tmas answes nly, "I cn wie n me. Regald f Pipe seiusly believed a is maser

nd fiend g ave becme menaly ill ughs oveweling buden of w. er ngile, he asks and uges nce agai. hmas givese aswe: "Regiald, I ca wie n me.

ha I ave hihe wien seems me nigu saw. Regiald s sunned y is reply. Smee lae, as he had fen dne bere, Thmaisis is yunge sise, e Cuness f San Seve

r, near Sale. I is e same siser ade Thms i his escape fm he ase f SnGvn, ney y yes ag. y ehis arvl, his sise o his avellg mann, Reginald, wi a saled quesn: a

has happened e bhe? He is lie ne skub ad has sarcely spken a rd her. Regl nce me appels hmas: Woud he el h he has ceased wig and ha s ha

39



n Tos n

oud have disturbed hi so deeply? For a ong

e Thoas reins silent. Then he repeats hat I have written sees to e nothing bu stra opared to what I have seen and what h�een revealed to e."

Ths slene sted throughout a whole wterThe great teaher of the West had beoe duWhatever ay have bued h with a deep happiness with an kling of the beginning of etealfe ust have aroused in the en in his opany

he disturbing feeling aused by the unannyAt the end of this e spent opletey h

own depths Thoas egan the oey o the Gen-eral Counl at Lyons. His attention ontinued o

e dieted inward. The ats of the anonizatonreport a onversaton whih took pae on hoey between Thos and Regald. It sees tohave arisen out of a long silene and to have reeded

ediately to a ong silene. This rief ex- ll vals o a r twofriends already ve in two dierent worlds. Reg-nald enouragingly Now you are on your ayo he Col and here any good things

appen; for he whole Chur for or order aor te Kngdo of Sily." nd Thoas "Y,God grant that good hings ay happen there! "

Te prayer of St To that fe sou o



I I

GA V L M N

N L S Y

THMAS QUNAS

Tht nme whic cn beprnnced nt heEtel Nme.-LAO



ERCEIVIG THE EXPRESSED

hat s seevdent s not dscussed It s taken oranted; t goes wthout sayng. C v ns dne ony has o ask wha eacy s that s akor granted and so may remain unepressed

In this seemngy nnocen suaon, hch ts

s argey taken or granted, there es the mostortant an the ecuar dcuty o a textuateretations nmey, that a assage to eucdated ceran noons reman unexressed e-

cause they ere seevdent to the author, wherthey are in no way sefevdent to the man ho sterreng the te. Consequenty, he does oautomatcay ncude them n erceton. dths means that the emhass o a he ds erceves changed In the nteretaon o a ext, esecane from a cviaton or eoch remote from ouw hat s any decsve and yet o meany s ths o gras hose as assumtos hch

eman unexressed, eveheess ermeat at s actuay stated; o dscove, so to seak, hdde keynote hat domnaes aever h excty sad

5



Th Ngatv Emnt

It could be poiivey aintained that th doc-ne of a thinke peiey ds Sen Un

este the unexpeed in wat i expeed" Thi ow Heidegge begin hi own ntepetaon o Patoni text1 The pae i no doubt deibeatelystained but it i ea tat an intepetation whcdoe nt eah te unpoken auption undely-ng the atua txt ut eain in eence a iintepetaon even f in othe epet the lette ofthe text be coented upon wit conideablleang; thi atte fat ay indeed mke matts

oeI thee a way to gt on to the tac of such un-

delyng and theefoe unfouated umption?I thin thee exit evea uch decpheing eys

One which I have feuenty veied, s cetainlythi t occaionay happen that wat une-eed how tef, a though though holethough a gap" in the patten n cetain jum

t vont o te tot, in o -coneuence in the aguent (Th at least hot pea to s who ntepet nd tat out tothe umption wh e ut a picit aneha neve once expiity foulate) Wh

matte i that wheneve one of tee eeing il- ogicatie encounteed, we voi paing ove caeley Tee wil be ate n oppotuty tea of one concete intance of t

6



HE IDDEN EY REATION

the philosophy of t. homas qna, here fdamental dea by which amost all he bacconcepts of his vision of the wod ae detemned:the idea o ceaton, o moe pecsly, he otoa nothing exists whch is ot cet, excepe eaor imsef an addition, tha hcreatedness detemines entiey and apevsvelye ne sruce of te ceatue.

egards the "istotelianism of t. hoqua (istotelianism s a highly duboerm, o be applied with cauon), we shall co-pletely iss he signicance of is tg to r

ote, unless we consir it fom the pot of viewf this fundamental ida, woked ou o its logicalconseqencs: namely, tha al things are cetot eey oul and spiit, but aso he visible

oldt ay apear natual enogh, scacely wrticussion, and any case not at a suisig, thatthe concpual thinking f a heoogian of theddle ges should be dominated by the noton of

eation, even i his phiosophica exlanation ofeality What might cause wond is the exten twhic is he a qustion of an nepessed uo oiion ot exlicitly forulate,

7



T Ngatv Emnt

ha h, as i were, o be read beeen he lines. Dido Thomas develop fully and explicitly a doctrie

of creation? That naturally is rue and quite welown None the less it equally rue, though noso well own, that the notion of creaion deter-mines and characerizes the interior structure of

the basic concepts in St. Thomas's philos-phy of Being And this fact is n evident; it scarcely ever put forard elcitly; it belongs ohe unexpressed in St. Thoas's octrine of Being.This elemen has remane so unnoticed a he

etbook inerpretaons of St. Thomas harly oncemention i. need this customary interpretationof S. Thomas has been conserably determined byRaionalis hough,2 which is shon no leas by

he silenc on his particular oint ha has inevi-ably led o misunerstanings ith grave conse-quences. For instance the meaning of proposiionssuch as "al that eists is goo r "al ha eis

s nertoo a n m opon geneal signicance of he scalled "rascenden-al concepts (in he traiional senseunless it bealed he concets and heses n qustion dot efe o neutral Being ha siply ss no

o an indetermnat old f "oects, bu foally Being as . Thahings are ood precisely because hey xst, anda oess ientical e ein



Th Ngat Emn

hings and s no mere propey aached o hemha furher, he erm "rue is a synonym for

"exing,3 and herefore ha wha eiss is ue viue of s esence, and does no rs of alxis and hen, a seconary sense, become alsouehese ide, which elong no doub o heasis of he csical onological docrine of heWes and have been formuated wih rare genus S. Thomas, mst- we fail o consider realiyand objes formally as creaesimply lose herfull saor They become shalow, serile and auol

ogousas h acually been for his very reason hedesny of l hese proposions, so ha Kan aelebraed passage in he Ctqe of Pe Resoas ·o some exen jused in enaing hem

rom he philosophical vocabulary.4We come now o o basc heme: S Thomass

ocrine of ruth can be grasped in is proper andprofoundes meanng only we bring no pla

his noon of creaon. And when we exane, aswe shall do here, he nerrelaion of he concep ofuh h e "negae elemen of unnowabiliy and mysery, we discover ha nerrelaion does no become mfes excep hrough he

fundamenal houh ha eeryhin which can bemade he objec of human nowedge eiheret or Creaor

This may perhaps suges ha S. Thomass

9



Th Ngv Emn

theoy of tuth is not stictly "pe philosopybut something philosophicotheological. he qes-

tion can hee emain open its answe wll epenpon one's intepetation of the iea "ceation t philosophical o theological?

o BE RE EANS TO B

REATIVELY HOUGHT

s of cose possible to expoun hee the holof t. homass octine of tuth i all its amica-tions. t is not, howee, necessa to o o in oe

to ene the pupose of the pesent sty. ustuy ill be conne in the main to the notion ofthe tuth of things in the wol, of the vetem his s commonly unestoo as "onto-

ogca t an g om "ocatruth, the tuth of knowlege. et it s not quitcoect to issociate too much these two conceptof truth n t. homass mn hey are intatellinke. o example, with the common moe b

ecton, as t has been epeately fomulate foBacon to Kant, that tuth can be pecate noo at eay exists but in te stct an popens, on of what is tougt, t homas ol

s



Th Ngav En

a lage exen agree He wuld el ha s quite to he oin Only wha hough can e

calle in he stric see "rue, u real higs esomehng though! essenal he naure(he would continue), ha hey are hough Theare real recisely becse hey are hough To u more exlicitly, hey are real ecause he ehough cetely ha , hey have een fhionedy hough The essence of hings ha he arecreaively hough This to e taken lierally dot i a gurative sense Further ecause hings are

hemselves houghts an have he "character of awor (as Guardi says),5 hey ma e calea uie recise an legiae usage of he er"true, he same way one orary calls true

houghts what hough w, it seems, S Thom's view ha he

otion ha thngs have an essence cano e sea-rae from he oher noon that is eenal char-

acter is he frui of a formgiving hough halans devise and creaeis nteeaton is oreign to moe ationa

sm Why i woul argue, c we not thnk of the"aure of lants an he "nature of men wih

u neeng also o consier tha hese "nauresare cale nto be y thought? Moe hnkihabits can ake nothing of the suggeson ha heould e no such "nature unless it were hus crea



Th Ngatv Emn

tvely thought. Curiously enough, this thess o t.Thomas has received unexpected and emphatic sup-

po i the principles o mode, ideed e mightterm it postmode, Existentialism. From artreradical negaion of the idea of creation (he de-clares, or example, that Existenalism is othingmore than an atempt to dra a the conclusionsrom a consistently atheisc posiion,"6 it s sud-denly made evident ho and to hat extent thedoctrine of creation is the concealed but basicoundaion of classcal este metaphysics. If oe

ere to compare the thought of arre and t.Thomas and reduce both to syogisc form, oneould realze that both start ith the same majorpremise," namely from this principle things have

n essenial nature ony in so far s they are fash-oed by thought. Since man exists ad has a co-struciv itellect, hich ca ivent and has nact vented, for nstace a letter opener, there-

fre, a r r res, we ca sa enature" of a letter opener. Then, arre contiues,because there exists no creaive itelgence hichcould have designed man and all natural thgsnd could have pt a ier sgcace to them

therefore there is no ature" in thngs that renot manufactured and arcial Her are his acuaords Tere s no suc tng as human natureecause there exss no od to t it creave.

5



Th Ng Emn

p de te me pq'l ' a

p de De po l cocevo)7 S Thomas,

he conrary, declares Becase and in so far as Godhas creaively hugh hngs, us so and o haxen have hey a naure "This very fac ha acreaue has is secial and nie subsance shoha i comes from a rincile8his is a senencfrom he Smm Teooc Wha is comon oSae and S Thomas, i is now eviden, is heasspion ha we can speak of he naure higs only when hey are expressly considered as

etz The fac ha hngs ar creaivlyhough by he reaorhis is exacly wha S.Thomas means hen he refers o he ru hadwells i everig ha real.

HINGS AN BE NON BECAUSE

HEY RE REATED

he basic priciple in S Thomass doce o ru f hngs can be found in he Qetoe D

ptte de V ette9 I as follows e tlte o tellect cottt et) a araing is placed beween wo knowing subecs,ly as h eplas beween e tellect



Th Ngav Emn

dv and te tellects ms betwee tDive nd te umn minds.

In tis lotion" of existing tigs betweete bsoutey retive nowedge of God ad teonretive, reltyonormed nowledge of fond te struure of l reity s system wi te retyes nd te oies re bot em-bred St Toms ere introdues, in otittive sense, te od nd resumbly Pytgoreonet o mesure," te mes s sometgon te one nd given nd on te oter reeived

Te retive nowedge of God gives mesure butreeives none mess o mestm) t relity is t one mesured nd itse mesurg mestm et mess) But umn know

edge is mesed nd does not give mesure metm o mess) ; t lest it is not wtives mesure wit reset to nturl tigs, tougit does so wit regrd to es tcles i

s (s e o o omte distion between reted nd rilly onsued tgs omes into berng)

Corresonng wit tis double referene tngstis is e furer develoment of St.

Toms's idestere must be doube onet oft trut of tigs." Te rst denotes te retivesionng of tgs by o; e seon tei -ti owbilty for te umn mid. Th

5



Th Ngat Emn

esson "hings are rue mea in he rs ah hey are creaively hough by Go; in he

econ, ha hey can be approache an graspe ihuman knolege Beeen hese o conceps ouh here exiss a relaion of pot te aonological preceence

This preceence has a ofol sicance nhe rs place, e canno see he core of his o-ion he "ruh of hings; in fac, e miss i en-irely unless e make explici ha hese hnae et ha hey have been brough ino bei

by he creaive knolege of Go, an ha heypocee from he very "eye of Go (as he ancienEgypian onology expresse his same iea)

There is, hoever, secon meaning o h

rioriy s he creaive fashionng of hings byGo hich mke t posbe for hem o be nonby men These o references are herefore con-nece ih one anoher, no, as

ere, like a

oer an younger broher, bu lie faher an sonThe former brings foh he laer Wha oes hisiy? I signes ha hngs cn be kno by ubecause has creaiely hough hem; crea-ely hough by Go, hings hae no only hei

ow naure (for hemseles alone) ; bu crea-ively hough by Go, hings hae also a realy"or us Things hae hei inelligibiliy, heirer clari an luci an he oer o reea

55



Th gaiv Emn

temsev, because God has ceatvely thoughtthem Ths s why th ae ssntally intlligible

Th bighess and adiance is infused into thingso te ceative mind of God, togethe with theiessential bing (o ath, as the vey essence of thatbeing!) It this adance, and this alone, tha

ak eisting things ecetible to huan knowledge I a scitue commentay10 St Thomas eaks The measue of the eality o a thing is theeasue of ts ligh In a late wok, h commntay o e Lbe de Css thee s a fundamental

sentece hat fomulates this same idea in an almostystical hase Ips ctt e est qoddmme pss the ality of things s itself theight, the ealiy of things undestood s ceated

being! It this lght that makes things ecetibleto o eyes To ut it succctly, things ae knowable because they have been ceated

At this oint something analogous to Sate's ob

econ aganst t tat of t natur of tngs eghteenthcntuy hiosoh2 may be saibout the foundaton of knowledge Do ot thintat t s ossibe to do both, to ague away te deatat things have ben ceatively thought by Go

the go on to undesta how thngs can eow by te human md!



NGS RE NFATHOMALE BECASE

HEY RE REATED

In he udgmen of S. homas, e ca, heefoein he ealm of ceaed naual ealiy spea of"uh in o deen senses.

Fisly, he uh of ts can be plied, anhis means pimaily ha hese hings, as etcoespond ih he acheypal ceaive hough ofod; i is his coespondence hich fomaly co

siues he uh of hngs Secondly, e can speaof uh ih efeence o kowlede (of ma)hich again is ue in so fa as i "eceives ismeasue fom and coesponds o he objecive

ealiy of hings I is in hs second coespondencein u, ha he uh of human noledge cosiss. hese o conceps of uh ae fomulaein he same aicle of he Smm Teolo an

ae hee conased ih one anohe:"When hings ae he om and measue of hinelec, u consiss e euaon of e elec o hese hngs . . . bu hen he nelec ishe o1 and measue of hings, hen u consiss

in he uaion of ings o he inellec. hesesnences expess, fom ye anohe poin of viee sucue of al ceaed Being-essenially siae beeen he ceaive noledge of o

57



Th Ngatv Elmn

ans imitative knowledge: ide we c eveuly exhaust.

Between these two reationships that of mind reality and, on the other hand, of reaity to mindc both, as correspondences dequtoesignify in dierent ways truth, there is only oneundamental distinction: one can be the object ofuman knowedge, the other can not one relatioship, but not the other, can be known by man.

M is ceainy in position not only to kowhings, but also to understand the relationship be

ween things and his concept of them. n otherwords, over and above his spontaneous perceptioof things, he can have knowedge by means of judgments and reections. o put it in another y

uman knowledge may not nly be rue, it can alsbe kowedge of the truth.14t is very dierent, however, when we m to te

reationship between things and the cretive d

of o, n wc te ut of tns may anpropery consists, an wich in its turn rst renersuma knowedge possible. Coto est qudvetts eectus this again is revolutionary senence of t. homas, of the kind tha stands ou

more norma formuae on the heas: Knowedgeis a cetan eect of tuth, . . indee of teuth of thgs! 15 hs elation on which the trutho things fundamentay basedthe relaton be

s



Th Nga Em

ween natual reaty and the archetypal creahought of -cnnot nsst be know fo

y by s We can of course know things wecanno formally know their tt We know theopy but not the relation of the copy to the archepe the orresponence between what ha beedesigned and its rst esign. To repeat we hae npower of perceiving this correspondence by whiche foal truth of thing is constitute. ere wean oie how truth an unknowabity beong ogether Thi thought now cas for a more exact

tatementThe term "unknowable s literaly capable of

eeral or at let of two meanings It can inicateomething that "in itse is capable of being

known but which a parcular knowing facuty unable to grasp because it lacks a sucient power ofpenetraion. In his sense we refer to objects whic"cannot be observed by the naked eye. It is a qe

on rather of a deciency of vision than of anpecial property of the object. Stars that we are un-abe to erceive are in temseves quite capabe ofobseation. In tis context "unknowabe denotethat the pa�cuar facuty is not powerful enoug

to eae and make actua the possibiity of beigknow which certainly exists. But this term "un-owable can have another sicance

nam ly

ta o uc possibiity of bein known i

5



Th Ngaiv Emn

ha here is nohing to be known; ha no only onhe side of a particlar sbject is here a defec of

apprehension an penetraion b ha on the sideof the object here is no possibiity o be known.

nknowabiliy in the latter sense namely hasomething real shold in itsef be nknowable

wold be for t homas simply preposteros Bease Being is created ha is o say creatielyhogh by od it is herefore in itsef lighradian and self-reeagpecsel becse t scordingly for . homas the nknowable cannever denoe something in itse dark and ipenerable b only something tha has so mch lighha a pariclar nie facly of knowledge canno absorb al is oo rich o be assiaed com

pletely; eldes the eor o comprehend . is n his laer meaning ha we are now con

sdering he erm unoable. nd nsis ha belongs immediaely o he idea of he ruh of

ngs. at want to empase s e foowgordng o e docne of . homas is paro he very nare o ngs ha he knowabiyanno be wholy exhasted by any nte ineecese hese hngs are creatures which means thae er elemen wich makes the capable of beng own s necessaiy be a he same e heeo why hings are unfahomable is as fo alss



Th gav Emn

The statement tngs are true ncates -mar, as we saw, that tgs are cratve thought

God. Ths sentence, as I have prevous sawod e tota msundrstood t were takenmere as a statemnt about God about a dvne actvt drected toward tgs. No, sometng s sa

aout th stcture of ts It s another wa ofexpressng te vew of St. Augustne,16 tat thngsexst ecause God sees tem (whereas we see thgsecause te exst). hs means tat the reat andcaracter of tngs cosst ter beng creatvethougt b te Crator. rue, as I have sad efore, s an ontoogca name, a snonm for rea.Es et vem covett t s the same weterI sa somethng ra or wheter I sa some

thng creatvey thought God. he essence ofa tngs (as creatures) s that the are formeafter arcetypa atte wc dwes n theasoute creatve md of God. Cet Deo

est cetx esset the creature s n God creatveessence. Ths s how St. homas speaks commentar on St John.17 e Smm Theoloccontas a smar assage: Ever exstg thngossesses the trut of ts nature to the degree hch t tates the knowedge of God.

we have sad, St. homas, hs stud of thetth of thngs, whch means the te of thngs,as obvous be to gnore or eave out ths

6 1



Th Ngatv Emn

orreonence beteen tig an teir ivinxemar Ti i eveae for eame ere e

a it into tet in ic our min can icovero trace of it Te fooing eame i an intanceof tat "tenenc to jum tat "unevene ite eveoment of an agument in ic as

oug troug a rft in te teture te untatedan uneree i reveae n te econ articeo te rt Qesto de Vette St. Tomas etsort ceary is noton of te trut o ting"Wat i rea i cae ue in o far a it reaze tattoar ic it is oraine b te min of Goto rae it erent an eiting tng i true to etent tat it rerouce te attern of ivineknoege. Ti i cear brougt out sct

ptet) continue St Toma b a famou e-on of A vicenna Yet in ti enton o mnsou etect notng of te n Wat ten oeis enition of Avicenna a? t became amot

caica uring te e Age "e tru ofvery iniviua tng i te ecia caracter of itsBeing tat a been given to it a it abing o-seion.9 St. Toma ea into th tt a con-rmation of i on tei ta te trut of tngconit in ter being creativey tougt by Go.t wou never ave occurre to to notce anycnnection beteen te to tatement. Ti vient "ap ine of argument can ony e



T Ngav En

a . om was unabe o seaae he iea ahngs hae an essencea "what fom he othe

iea ha ths essence of thngs is he fut of a esignng an ceate nowege.et me now tu bac o ou oe obem.

We can nee oey gas ths coesonence

eween the ogna ate in o an he ceaecoy in which fomay an imaiy he tuh ofhings consiss. t is quie imossibe fo us asecaos so o sea o contemae he emegence of thngs fom "the eye of o. nce his

is so ou ques f nowege when i s ieceowa he essences of thngs een of he owesan simes oe mus moe aong a ahwayo whic hee is in ncie no en. he reo

or hs ha hings ae cetue hat he inneruciity of Beng h its utimae an exemasouce in he bouness aiance of iine Kowege. hs coition is incue i he conce o

e ut of Being as fomuae by t. homais rea ofunity owee s oy eaize wewe nestan its inteeation with e coe of ceation a ineeation whic . omaes fo gane.

n his once of uh unesoo a aveline i he negatie eemen of "nowaiy s poe ace an ogn.

We are ocee hee ony with he

J



Th Ngatv Emnt

etv of St. Thoma athough he has also laid

down the principle of a teolo etv It srue that this latter fact ao is not prominent i thetraditiona preentatios of Thomiic doctrineofe enough it i omited atogether Mention sarey made of the fact that the teaching aboutod n the Su eoloc begin wth thisentence: "We are not capabe of knowing whatod i but e can kno what e i ot20 I knowof no tetbook of Thomiic thought which con-

tain the notion epreed by St. Thoma in hiommentary on the De tte of Boethius;21namey that there are three degree n ou know-dge of od: the loet the knoledge of od

He i active in creaon; he econd the recogntiono o mirrored in piritual beig; the third andoftiet the recogniion of God a the Ukowqu otu Or conider thi entence from

h Questoes Dsputte: "Thi what i ulti-mate n the human knoedge of Go to knohat we do not kow God quod oo) c seDe esce22

w t to the "negative eement St

Thoma' plosop we come acro the paagebout thinker whoe quet for knowedge h notsuceeded in nding the eence of inge yThs page occurs an amot popar epoto



Th Ngav Emn

of the osts Crd yt it stnds tte

ltion wth man otr smilar sntncs.Som o ths sntncs r astonsng ngativ." Fo xampl: T ssntal grous ofthings r unknown to us pcp essetle st obs ot24 Tis ormula is in owa so untypical or xcptionl as t t rst glancppars t woul b as to st alongsd t ozslr passgs (rom t S eoloc, teS Cot Getles, t De Vette, an the

otr Qestoes Dsputte) Foe sbsttles pe se ps st ot/

w do not know substantal orms as t r tmslvs. Deete essetles sut obs

ote/6 ssnal drncs r not ow to us.Al tse sntncs inicat tt we oror mans o nowing th stnctive elm things and ths mns t ssnc o tngs. his the ason, St. Tomas gs, w we canot gtm nam convng t tru Bing, n to ttac nmes to tm rom casual circumstacs ts con, S. mas qu mas so te bs tymologs crnt

ties: e.g., lps (stone) from edee pede, wuts t oot whn t stumbs gst it. )7

Not on od Hmsl ut lso tings e eteal ne" tat an s unle to utte



Th Ngaiv Emn

nt prcsl a t pcall" d n tspnt raal sm t Wst agrs

wt qta rm t wc I t-c at bgg ts s

Wat s t prc ras aks St Tmas nn pasag w mpssbl r s t knw

d prcl trg cran? Hs pl as twpas ad s sc tat s t mr ntrs-g T rst manans tat cran can rprsntGd nl an mprct mann T scnd astat r mns ar t cr an bts beclts tellectus ost) ra n tgs vn tat n-frman cncng wc t rall cn

• 8taT unrstan t rc ts prssn w

st rmmbr tat n pnn f St Tmast spcal mar n wc t Dvn rc-tin s mtat wat cnsts t spcal s-sece f a tng

vr rar a n rr ss o sece) accrg c t partcpats sm a n t lknss t Dvn EsscTrr as kws Hs Essnc a s mab sc a crar ut sc tble tl cetu)

H knws t a parla ml a a oftat cratr"29 Ts tgt pnts t wa t nw a cmp prblm vrlss t as s rlatn t r prsnt tm Wat t stats s



Th Ngav En

us his: he uliae reali things s soeh hich we can never naly penetrate, because

we can never ully grasp these lkenesses he Di-e deas precisely as ikenesseshis wld repy has a deniely dialeci

sctre reects he strctre created realiwhich, by detin, has ts rigin r Gd anls r thing Fr S Thas nt ny insistha the reality things the light he als says:Cu s b quu s x lo cre-aed higs re darkess i s ar as hey prcee

r tg." This sentence ces redegger b r the Qusos Dspu S Thas30 The reply t he ery why we can- kw Gd lly r creain has he sae

risly dialectic strctre. Wha des acsse declares he llghings hrugh the essence express G ly

an iperec anner d why Becase hings

re creares and the created can whlly expresshe reatr Neveheless, he anser iuese ess gt eve n peec expes-si surpasses r per cpreensin. Againwhy Becase an is hisel creare, bu sill

re r he reasn ha hings i their reality reerbck a divie design. And his eans once gaibecause gs are creaures



PE A THE TRUCTURE F

REATURELY KOLEGE

e ve efeed to the negtive eleent" in thephosophy of St. Thoas Aqins A fol of

this ind cn be easily isndestood nd eqes oe pecise stteent, nd pehps even soecoection

This negtive" chrcte is not to be undestoodin the sense tht the Being of things cnnot be t

ted hn nowledge. tellectus . . . peett usque d e esset the nd es its wyto the essence of thigs,"31ts eins vlidpoposition fo St. Thos, spite of his sseion

tht the intellectl eorts of the philosophers hveneve ben ble to gasp the essence of single y.These o sentences belog togethe Tht theid does in to things is poven pecisely the

act tat t ente to te atoma gt cse nd to the extent tht it does ttin to theelity of things, it discoves tht they cnnot befthoed. ichols of Cs sid in his explntion of the Socrtic leaed ignornce":32 Onlywhen n coes ito visl contct with lgtdoes he ele tht the sn's brighess ltogethetnscends powe of vision.

it St Thos thee cn be no estion of g



Th Ngatv En

noscism, d Neo-Scholasc s perfecy righti ssig up hs. B is o possbe, y

opiio, to bg out cely he ue reso for thifct, who foraly bgg io py the cocep of creo, e., the srucue of hgs preciseys cretues. I oher wods, hgs so fr s heye crevely though by God possess these opropees: o he oe hd heir ooogic crityd sef-revelao ad, he oher hd, their iexhustbeess; her koaby s well theiuowby." Ules we go bck o this bsic

poso, we cao, I sb, sho how the negve eeet" he hogh of S. hos is sferded fro goscsm. yoe who edevorto ps this by rus he ievible dager of ier

preg S. hos s Ros, d thereforeof misudersadg h eve ore, s i usrte the exmpe of some Neo-Schoc uhorwho tred to redce hs echig o se.

It seems to e h S. homas's docre etht e i he codo of a's exisece wg ubjec, coo ht by is very ture co be xed: it s eher comprehesiod possesso or smpy o-possesso, bu o

epossess." The kwg sbjec is vsued trveer, vto s someoe o the wy"hs es, fro oe po of view tht the epe ke ve sgicce, ht they re not o



Th Ngatv Emn

thr in vain, and that thy brng him narr o hioal. Y th thoght has to b complmntd by

anothr: as long as man as sting bing" is onth way," jst so lng is t way" o his knowinguncompltd. Ts cndton o hop in vry phi-osophzng sarch ar th natr o things, may itb said onc mor, is basd pon h crtdnss"o th world and h knwng man hmsl.

Bcas hop is mch csr to armaton thanto dnia, th ngav mn" in th philosophyo t. Thomas, wich w s ot to ormlat, mst

b nvisagd agan th backgrond o mbrac-ing armaon. Ta sncs o hngs arunknowabl is pa o th noton o th rh o B-g. B so littl dos is dno objctv inac-

ssibiy, th imposibity o ognition, ordarknss on th pa o hngs that thr is, on hontrary, this strking parad: In th last rso,hings ar inaccssbl to hman knowldg pr-s cas t ar a to knoa.

Thr is a wlknwn sntnc o ristohich says: s th ys o bas ar �azzd byngh, o it is wh hman ignc whn aco ac with what is by natr most obvious."3

n his ommntary on ths snnc, Thomashoroghl accpts s wol sgncanc, bt goson to ndrl its posiv aspc in this magni-nt ormlton: Sole ets o vde ocs



Th a En

coc vde me m oc 8oug the es of the at o t ava to eo

te su t see te ee of the eage



T H M S S

THMSM



t rst sight the thee o ths stu es se-evnt n stat wthout bgut1 An etthi presion s sowht eceptve Wht c-tull the sense o the tes "telness n"Thos? The nswer to this quer b oens sple, not to ention tht we e ron coplee unnit on the pont

The rst step, then, obvous Wht o e u-erstn b both tes?

W T?

henever t gue tht cert octrne

tel n o spec relevnce to our n gen whnever ths qualt considere n pos-tve, atve sense, the logical prse s thatns mn s essentall condtone b e nhisto For n tht posesses the whole o

tut sultneousl, s tot et su possesso toeplo the clssic phrase o Boethiusor a kno-g subject o tetanscendg ualt, or Go,tereore nd erhps or the ure ntellect, there

75



Th Timinss of Tho

can be nothing "tely, for the reon that eveything is timely nd whenever the human mind is

conceived as potentialy capabe of grasping at anygven moment the full content of truth, and consequently man's essential nature as conditioned byte · and history is dened, the noton of "timelness agai cannot be serously thought etaphysical ationalsm which prscins from history cannot use the te "timely in a positive sense;"timely here bcomes practcaly a synonym for"false or "heretical hat is "of the momnt is

suspect, has no true being, deserves no attention twas from tis premise that, during the thteenthcentury, those who claimed to possess the "entirecontent of truth censured lbet the reat and

homas quin as "the great moernshe temporal coniton of the human mind,owever, seems to have an additional implication,namely, that man, in his history, whether it be in

dvidua or coectve, does not advace trough acontinuous process of development like a plant,from a state of iferior to one of greater and morecomprehensive understanding ather, the actualistorical development of the human intellect ap

pears as a progress i the form of serton andcounterassertion he asserton does not see uonhe totality of truth n one gradual, uninterruptedpocess, bu, expressing one aspect of uth, neces



Th Tmss of Tho

s conces nother The secon sect sbrougt out in te countersserion, wic inter-

rus te seron unti i it is interrute one sect of te rie nd mnysided trutbecome ore evident, noter pect in re-cees from iew. d when this oter sect forces w bc from oblivion into consciousness teerier aspect tends to fde from te min. Te lwerying tis proce is concele from ; it cn-not be on in vnce or once nd for l Thefct tt eve ositive chnce involves t the same

e dnger sows in te clerest ossible mnnert te humn mind cn enjo no tot et spossesso Indee no ositive cnce cn be tewitout cceing te ris inerent in it. Conse-

uently it becomes eient tt te humn mn essenti te, teconditioned, n istorclBut re we not engged in discussng te concet

f timelines? Actull, we re trying to bring into

cus te mbigt of tis concet. If te histor-c crcter of nowledge imlies tt in rticu-r epoc cern eemens te tru emerge noromnence more detely tn in oter es ttherefore ce roblems nd ts hve greter

genc, tt for te same reon oter elemens ofe rut recede nd re in danger of being forgot-tenow are we to deeine wt is relevnt" el" in tis picur age?



Th Timinss o Thomi

To egin wit, eeryting s biusly tielyd releant wic encrges and cns a

epc its special alues, attitdes and pbles,wic psitiely and iediately crrespnds witte line f its ajr ert Bt ere e sld ntfrget tat suc an epasis te priaily dis-cussed cnces f an epc ust intensify telid spts f tat epc is sggests a frterntn f "tieliness: tiely is nt nly wat aepc "wants, but als wat an epc "needs; acrrectie atttude t te present is tiely, te re-

usal t accept it is ely, r, rater, te refsalo te dangers necessarily inerent in its cances.

Cnsequently, t te "tiely ad te "unely, in te iediate sense f tese ters, ay

e releant t an epc Wen Nietzsce gae hiscallenging essay, Of te se d Dsdvte oHsto o Lfe te title, Untiely Meditatins,e knew, and rigtly, tat tey wee f te greatest

eance t s tie n te fact tat te "u-tiely ay be experienced spreely "tiely,that ans iited cnditin can be grasped litatin, we nd, weer, ater prf feting new and dierent: tat te uan ind,

spite f its strict istrical bundaries, is nt terisner f a specic erid rater, tat it is trulsirit, cpx uves riented tward te we otrt, and terefre capable f dtaced considera

78



Th Tmln of To

o eve f ts w tmecndtned xteFrm te start, ten, te ntn f ees c

tas a te f ptmi, f cndence t tecnence tat eac "ctemprar empassupn me special featre f trt need t mpl enal f te ttalt of t (as eer sade oatnalim tends arrgantly t assme) ; tat, ote ctrary, t empas mgt brng wt t tecace fr a new perceptn f trt is cances we ae een i by ts natre lnked wt ts erent danger We may terefre reac te c

cln tat te ntn f tmelines nludes aelemen f gant cndence n wat appens ate mment t be "mde

From wat as gne befre t becmes edet

w presmptu te deakng t prpe anwer t te quet: "Wt releant adel r preent day and age Een sppsg tat te preent age prded a nfrm patte,

w uld be n a pst t say at te agewants ad wat t "need; ter wrds wc s wt s te n reeant an as wat reeant tg untel? n ew f wat appenng tda in te wrld, w cld aceve

te rigt ble f critical detacment and edate dentt w s tme

For t resn, am anx from te ta, tstate te tans f wat fllws eno

79



Th Tmln o Tho

ere t cnider te rbem rm t ticuar e

WHAT HMM

T te Tim a ean et

ei an what we d undertand b t , rt al, nt cnceed wh that ver

pecia Tmm which, n the eachin n uper-natura race, cnraed with Mni Nr dea wih Thmi a i i enera di-tinuihed rm Suaezianim Tee ae, rict

pea, vaiu mde nerpreain StThma. celebraed dicuin between Marinraba and Franz Pee at the IneainaThmiic Cne in Rme n 1925 made ev-

dn a m an crine, a e real diincin between -ence and exience, had r St. Ta hienly a ubrdinae value, and tha hi eaie pupithuht i pible and leiiae nerpre i· nseveal way. Whaever the crrect luin hicmlicaed uein may be, bh inerreatin,the "Suarezian a wel a he ne whch call e"Thmic, rece expicl the autht of



Th Tmn of Thom

t Thmas. Undubtdly th dvnc btwhm s lss scan an amnt.

Hw thn a w t undsand Tmsm hs dscussn f s tmlnss? W wl ak htm s bad cn usa as t dsnatn fall fms f Tmsc dscplsp, and pacu

laly f t wd vw labad t wks ft. Thmas. Tmsm ths sns mans nthm n lss tan tacn f t. Thmas.

But lt m bsv mmdaly hat ths sa qusnabl and pblmac tm, justdthu w may b us t, vw f th shcmns f uman vcabulay.

Hwv vauly h tm Tmsm may appld n nal usa, t cns undudl

sm lmns f ptan whc may aslylad t an nus da f t tacn f t.Thmas L Ts as sad a t plsy fa Tsyan wuld vtaly b cmplly f

n t hs wn lsphy. I wuld nt vnt tsust ta . Tmas mt av mad a smlastatmn abu a Tms. Y n can ady sw susc dsnan "Tmsm bcms.Wy s s napppat? Bcaus t lads us ttnk amst aumacaly f a spcc scl fthu labad plmcal ss and cun-ss, and paculay f a adnally ppat tachn systm f psns.



. Th Timlin of o

But it would s t quit impossibl to corss t doctrin o St. Toas into t ra

wor o a scool" sst o propositions lessoe leves o soe of fdel poce T astic laboration o tougt ani-std in St Toas's wor is ar too ric or such

trant and also ar too ibl. T ricnsconsists not alon t act tat t tologicalwdo o t arlist Cristian cnturis is intr-wovn wit t pilosopical ritag o t rwold; and tis is not connd to Aristotl onlthr ar trads ro Plato also and vn ro teNoPlatonists (an autor alost as otn quotb St. Toas as rstotl is tat strious Sriadiscipl o Plotinus wo ad grat prstg in t

Wst ud t na o Dionsius t ropa-it) It is I sa not tis abundanc o contntlon wic constituts t cnss o St Toas'worit rsts also on t act tat tis procss o

asatn vops on t grnd a sprtu-lit wic is altogtr pattd on t tacingo Scriptur and t sarantal an liturgical lo t Curc T nd rsult is a structur o thigst intllctual ordr but not in an wa losd sst o scool propositions

Accordngl St. Toas as tis in coowith otr tru grat tacrs tat h canots b appropriatd as t ad o spc

8



Th Tm1ss of Thom

hl of thought, as the paon of an "im. h" ae wont to be eclusie, and in conto-

esy they ae a "pecise and "distct a pos-ible he tuly geat masts, on the othe handecause of thi dpe appeiation of what i un-fathomable in tuth, much pfe to emphasize whats ommon to dieg positions than what is pe-ulia to eah hy have no love fo ontoesyhe pefence is fo the moe ile and nat-al idom and not fo a ed and cial temi-ology o eample, a the "isms that attah

hemselve to t homa gad "ugusanism the ommon advsay. But what is the attudf t homas himslf? t is tue that he nowheepaks of an identty of outlook with t. ugustin

oweve, whn he dals with the poblm of di-ie ilumination human knowlegeone of heattes most hotly debated btween homists an

ugustinianshe stats that the divegence betwen

ugustine and himself is of no geat signianeo ultu efet2 t is vey unlikely that anuo o e ns s w "nivualtyould be eadly ompessed witin a sholastystem without losg what is essential to his

thught. Who, fo instance, would vente tfomulate astact popositions all that lattates the Sposu about th nate of love?he omp with lato is not as fafethed a



T mnss f m

t ght appear. I y opio, t beogs to thessece of St. hoass teachg tat the schoastc

culus has retae, a ot erey exteaor, the character of a gee coversato oraogue, that s, the caracter of reectve eta-tio, wch akes o ca to possessg a e-

tive foruate aswer. aayss of that rearkabe a aost exhaustibe rst artce of thQuaesioes Dspuae de Veiae eostratesthat o pat, uequvoca, textbook repy s gve tothe query What s truth?" Rather, St. hoa

rst eveops hs ow igeous terpretato, athe, wth rare esty, works t ito the garaof tratoa etos of truth a web of re-cproca uatio a coratio. Not oe

of the tratoa foruae s rejecte etrey oraccepte as excusvey va. hough the are no way fuy cocorat, he ca apprecate the pr-ta vaty of each. What actuay s happeg

re haes at S. oa , c, ac-g hsef wth the strea of tratoa truthnourshe by the past wthout cag to gve a souto, he eaves the wa ope for futueuet a scovery as that strea ows owar

towar the yet ukow. Ths s exacty etho of the Patoc daogues. A sar cocu-son s reache recet stude o the theory oowege St. hoas. The prov h

84



Th Tlss of Tho

omas qute edetly delberately refraed fro doma deo of kowedge

ts soud make suetly ler wy tsems to me hgy quesoble to tret te teah- of St Thoms as a sm" ad why we souldse te term Thomsm" oy wt portteseraos

It mgt well be sad tat by ts ery strutuee teg of St Tomas s relent to ou tme, te sese bot of tmeess ad uteless Itmt be sad tat te meess of St Tomas rests

to a lare extet o te fat tat tere a be osu t as Tomsm" Ts remark, I rele,eques elaorato But before tempt ts, wee to osder brey te tual stuto of mod-

e losopal tout.

RO IEREGAARD O ARRE: ISTRUST F YSEAIC HILOSOPHY

e ter tt edtey allees s ere

Exstesm," tou tere re some otdomt teds cotemorary touht (as, foeae, symbol lo) Exstelsm, as eery-od ows, as beome so mu fasobe

s



Th Timinss of Tho

that ts sbsanc appas a bt dd; t

ay man pacically anythin t ybdy ithth slt that it mans nthin pci and dntt anyn Y ha t admit that nd tham f Exisntialis th m tal and n

hilphical thikin is bin caid n tdayF tha it hs a cmn and alid c n ats fs This cmmn c cnsis ab all th ctin and dis f h ainalisic syssof philsphy This nis Sa Macl idg-g wh h ancs hy ha in cmn SKikgaad hs ppiin aainst l aasd pcisly n h fllwn pmis It is tthin mans scp achi ihi a clsd sys-

t of ppsiins a flly scin ctin fh ssnia aly f h ld; philsphy can-t as l claid f i chan is pp tithich sinis "h lin qs f wsdm t

actal knwld; i is bynd hma capaciy tofam incnssncy w ncth hiddn cnsisncy and t fmla t atinally cnscd "synthsis

f sinc h adn f Kikaad th ptcssay and th pilphica jal ha bcmth pfd dia f xpsin f al fms ofsntialism th sn f his is h cnca an astac gnalizd thsis cannt ach t

86



Th Tmlnss o Tho

the dph of raliy an a, conrary o is a

osoical roosiion can aquay xprsth "ru bg of ngs.In mo Exisiasm is bsic convicion

ass vr from arrow circl of rofssionakrs io gnra maiy of our rsng. I ns xrssion in iy irn aiusangng from a blivng rvrc bfor unowab o compl agnosicism an nay oism. I is imoran o oic a v n i

exrm ormuaion n asic iism fSarr ("Tr is o suc ig as uma aur ' ps de e mie" 3 is m ca fun. arr siss a on canno sak of

ur of man sa auoiaiv manr ic one sks of aur of som ccsrum sign of ic is kon o s,has w o no know sign of man

HOMAS QUINAS EGATIVE HILOSOPHY

I n of oino a minss of Somas's ocrn rss o fac a oo exsias. can owvr, b mosra



Th Tmnss of Thom

that this cmmn cnc all the xisentiismnds S. hmss teachn bh a pe c

espndence and a specic crrece.Let me speak rs the pie crrespndence

Medeal schlsics n eneral and S. hmas paricular tend t be rpreened as tuh th

were te rst tnkers t chee te deal a clsehlsphical sytem. he Su s taken as example f the clam f human intellience nt nlt cnstruc enclsed sysem knwlede, butwhat s much mre, t brin een the truths freelatin int a lucid and clsely nerrelatestucture by means ranal prs. he hstrcal rwth this false and misleadn pictur snt easy t llw. N dubt many actrs c

perate t prduce it, and thee actrs hae actean eacted n ne anther. Oppnent as well aswers hae cnributed t the miscnceptinnt nly the mistrust f naural reasn character-

stc uutnnm n e ermaperid, but als the es NeSchlascism topresere its master, Tmas, frm ee taint chare anscim are respnsible.

Curiusly enuh, it is rarely nticed that theSu eoloc is unnhed. he nrmal explanatin ered is that its auhr died s early death. "Snatched away by death he had t leahis wrk cmplete, h r smilar ntes ppea

88



Th Tmnss f Thm

iios of Su acual fac, Tomas rs o coc work bcas of is

own ir rics I ca wri oig mor:a a I av iro wi sms o oigb sraw Tis sry iica a is fragmary caracr bogs o oa imicaio of Su eoloc f o os no cosiris oi a rars om som k o forrur of sysaic ikrs o m Raioaism Crisia Wol iosor of Ga Aufklu i fac caim Toas as

is rcssor a i cosr commion wim a wi is ow imma acr Libn) , wi com as a igy srrisi xric o in . Tomas a sc sc as foowig:

Pcp essetl eu sut obs ot ssia rincis of gs ar kow o s.4

c a roosiio is o oy far rmov from na w-ro rcio of a raioalsic

sysm aso arars a oio of iosoy formaly excludes ia of a cos sysm.c isgs mark o a osocaqsio s a i s a qry to os vrpcp essetl o "sscs of gs

or wi s roos r asigcac, is sc of . Tomas o oy sanc of s kin) maks s san aa osoc quson cao b swd

8



Th Tmn of To

fully sucen frm. I ca be answere esame sense n wc was asked We nw reale

wy S mas n s cmmenary ad nng ppse e passae frm Arses e-psics wc decaes a e prblem f Ousar eay, e prblem f e essences f ngs, s

ne a "n e pas, day and aways, was, s, anll cnnue be asked and debaed,5 whceans a here s a prbem a wll never benally and rrevcably slved And ne unde-sands a mas can say w Arsle: e

nwlede wc pursued n e plspcacrne f Ben, a s, e nwlede abu heessence f ns, s n ven man hs ps-sessn bu nly as a knd f "lan, p

essi sed ic liqid mm6Hw, we as urselves, can such wlede,

wch s held as a "lan, be expresse cncreely?In he frm f cnjecure and allusn? Meaphr

c esssc as f a, dubless, n efrm f a scsc sysem wc by s very ature as e caracer f a permanen pssessraer an a f a lan

I seems ardly necesary pn u ere nce

aa wa exen a fdamenal psuae fcnemprary pspcal u nds s crrespndence and cnrman n e wr f e"Uversal Dcr f Crsendm; wa e

90



Th Timinss f Thm

tet ts loo et of St Toma stmel tmel te sese of eg a ostve co

relate To mae ts evet s ot a qesto ofexaltg St omas We are ot egage s efese s s o matter of aologetcs Wat matters s te tato of a frtfl aloge eteete Zetet" a te tratoal som of teOcceta aloge c sterle cotroversesat to are amog te late folloers of smsmgt e ssolve a ot of c mgt grote reaess to accet te egatve coterform

of tmeless St Tomas's correctve o adesse to o me

TE N REATE HINGS

AN RTIACTS

Te aros forms of xstetalsm are te cea a aar ret o ow ea A ts te are refoce b StToma

e wol c ma toa leas s oray e s becomg more a more a ue tecologcal oe e gs wt c e s coeed ae cal; te are artfacts o creao

9 1



T Timin of Tomi

The danger ieret in tis situation s tat mamigt erroneosly come to rgar· te wor as

a whoe an te create tings wit it-above aman himsef-in te same manner in wich e regars correcty his own artiacts beonging to thetecnoogica spere; in oter wors man is begnnng to consier the whoe of creation as competey athomabe fully accessibe to ratioa comprehension and above a as something which itis pemissibe to change transo or eve dsoy.

Enges a msconcusio which s wenghcassica ners from te proctiblity o articiathings the possibiity of exastive owedge oa natra reality (practca experence e ex

erimenta research a inustry have broghtabot te most crushg retation of the phioophca alacy which denies the ossibiity o exastive kowege o the word)7-a mis

cncion wic fo oo asos as n oaly accepted into the ocia octine o Bosesm8

In opposition contemporary Existentiais ornstance Sarre stesses forcefly te irence be

ween aricia and natra tgs new emassappears here whch seems to me postmoehie the propery moe thinking arly perev and etainy does not sess thi erence.



Th Tmnss o Thoms

opel mode tnkng ncnes to wt it e·leves to e specc estc" view ie

c does not empsze te derence etweeimmedte et nd manmde tngs, ut tento see foest, rive, eds nd ousing development,dge, fcto s one nd te same ety, s twod ound o word.

St. Tos, on te contra, kewse dsguses cer nd unequvoc etween te ei nd te e icii, fo reson not un-ke tt of te stentsts. Te e ici e-

ceved ts mesue" om man, ut not so te ei St. Toms woud gee wt Se hs g of cntempor mn gnst t dn-ge of pure tecnoogc envronment Do not

tnk tt ou cn spek n te sme mnner outte ntue" of man s ou m out te ntueof etter opener, te desgn of wc s come outo ou own ed. Se, oweve spos te foce

nd vldit of ts wng wen e dds tt teeis no suc tng s desgn" for mn, nd tere-ore, no umn ntue." Te inescpbe conclusion s tt ou can mke wt ou ke of ourselfn of mn

t is t tis point tt te negtive elevnce oSt Toms tecing, ts unte eesse

3



NEXHAUSILE IH

What is the easn why St hmas states that thetue Being f natal hins is unfahmable, thatthe phlspical uestin cann, n the las es,e answeed? Why des he say ha it s impssibe epess the essenial eaty f he wld fully andehaustvey? In he s insance, hs easn cantl be famed in cmplee accd wh Eistenial

sm: We cannt whlly asp he design, the ache-typal pae, f natual hings

Fm this fulatin aise a numbe f cn-deatins In the s place, bth St mas and

Sae bing "design and "essence in the clsestcntact whee thee is n desi, thee can be nessence hins have an essence nly in s fa asthey have been fashined by a fmceating, knw

g mnd In this sntnce, , ee is a meeingof pemde and pstmde thught In citcing the phlsphical atheism f the eighteenhcentuy Sae shws tat he is full ageementih the ld dce f Being It beays, he de

claes, a sad lack f cea and lgical inking, whethe cncept f ceain s aandned but nt theabt f talkng abut the nae f hings, ug o ha int nthing had changed It



Th Tmnss of Thomi

uerca ureasonae an evn asur to -

tn tat tee s a "nae of tgs anteor toexstence unless one olds at te same tme tttngs are cetes

We touc now upon a second pot. Te vercof St. Tomas at te desg and essence of naturatngs cannot e wolly gaspe y te umamn does not mply tat tese tngs re n noense knowable. Te essence of tngs nssts StTomas cannot e comletely grased ut t s not

unknowable. Mans tellectual powe enables to penetate to te essence of tgs; tee can eterefoe sgs and assetons conenng teature of tgs wc toug not eaustve r

neveteless true. true answe can e gven to tqueston: wat s te eepest sgcance of BegIt at ts pot tat te fudamenta tes o

Exstentalsm repudated. It s not owever

refutaton te mere fact of negaton tat teless of St. Tomass teacng as corctvconssts. So muc s clear negaton by tself s notsucent. corectve mples tat ter xst genue and specc correlaton t te con-

fronted tougt. In wat ten conssts ts (neg-tve relevnce? Precsely s a for StTomas one and te same facto explans bot wngs cot be entely gaspe a

5



Th Timlinss of hosm

an be known. St. Thoas shows that the inscta-ilit of thins is alost th se as the know-

bilit.This coon oot, to expess it as bie as os-ible, is the ceedess of thins, i.e., the tth thatthe desins, the achetypal pattens of thins, dwelithin the Diine Loos Becase thns come fotho the ee of God, they patake whol of theate of the Loos, that is, the ae uci anpid to the e depths. It s the oin n theoos whih makes the knowable to men But be-

ase of ths e oin in the oos, the io e ht and an theefoe not be wholloehended. It is not dakness o haos whchakes the nfatoable. If a an, theefoe,

is hilosophical nqi, opes afte the essence othins, e nds hiself b the e ct of a-oachin his object, in an unfathoable abss, but is an abss of l Askn the question of the

essc ts, e aso sks t quston o tesin and achetpe, and with this he sets out on ncipiall endless wa. If I estic mself tonqi nto the checal copostion of a sheet oape o the stcte of an ato, I eain with

the connes of an essentall answeabe obem,n the sphee of denie soltons. It the spheet which the sciences popel estict themseet a soon as I ance, fo exape, at my en, an



Th Tiin o Thoi

begi to k Wha his ojec?-n i he sesf expecg an answer suc a: i a l, r,

gld, u raer: "a is is prn fmaeral realy is ru and essence? -as s ak is e rue pilspical sense, immedaely and frmay deal i e naale andscruale; and is bcs is in e aure f myquesin apprac e rs f ins, ha is, advance e surce f Being, e diensin venn and frmivin design, er wrdste dimensin f creaedness.

Wa en s e ren wy he plpcaqesi ca receive n adeuae anwer Why arereal ins, real ings, capale f eing nallygraped? (Fr rap, cpreend hg

means kw cpleely a is selknwale; rf wa is nwale ins,w msn wasever, in acual kwedge, s a nin reains whic is n piively c is r a cpreensive answer f iss tha the phlspical quesin narayseek) y a ne pri uale acqure, e la rer, sc a cpreensive wledeThe answer : bcs kwb f Bg

wc g sf kwdg csss s bg cv g C.

Hence ou man knwlede is cnfre

7



h mnss of ho

by barrir of arss; ratr tr xists osarply raw frotr to wic our mi ca at

ai a for tis raso o clos systm ofplosopy is possibl ut by tis rpuatio oclos systmatc formulato am ot suggstgat t wolss of plosopy is to b lost i caos of cofus qustioig T vry lgtwic bcaus it caot b xaust ivaliatst xclusiv clams of ay clos piosopical sysm itslf mas possbl a igly cort structur o tougt T fact tat it rivs from a

timatly ixaustibl vi Sourc spurs us o t prformac of t pilosopica c o ahop tat strivs towar t t

wat t cosists postvly a gativly

t tmlss of St Tomas's tacg? T aswr: asmuc as w ma our ow th fuata truts wich it cotais w ar abl orcogiz mor ply th cac of trut i co

o oso o m ts cac is mor ply grasp a rasoby stabls w ar aba tis is morportatto show tat t irt agrs ootmporary pilosopy ar capab of big

ovcom sta of avig to b rjct as splyative

Tis o catio caot of co xaust imlss of St Tomas's teachig W ight

98



Th Timin of Tho

amine many another thesis wich oh rom osiive and the negative viewpoin wod e a

mely as is eacing ha e pilosopica qes t conditioned by ope Te noon obo co or instance as St Thomas derstands it appears to me o immediae poliicaelevance in a world which is becoming increasinglya oaitarian world o labor Te same s reand or slar reasons o he doctrine o NLw Or since the attenon o modern philosophys eng paiclarly atacted by osoc

ooo t wold repay atenion o noe heact hat te most volminos secion o te STooc the second part constrcted a astdy o man and o man's tre image B a

is can e toced pon here only in passin

HE ENDF

"RE HILOSOPH

Le again consider he opion o S Tomconce he inner sctre o philosophy I a

een made evden at a dialoge between Tomaand conemporary xistenalists is possible onlywen e eological ondaions o pilosopcainn are broght into play Here I elieve



T Tmlnss o To

ye anher rean r h ieine S Thas:He acce n uh hin a a "ure hihy

a nn ha i euay rejeced y cnerrythuh Tha has, cure, ceary diinuihed eween nwede and aih, eweenhilhy and hey T have eahed and

ainained hi diinin i cidered hi re achieveen Neverhee, here i n "hihy S Thas ha can e eened ee deachen r hi hey

The hlhica uein ai a he yeryo he rd; i i cneed wih wha hinundaenay are ha hen de h erm "undaenay ean? Tha' anwer (hi we havetried t deve i ha "undaenay ean "in

he L hen Pani are eakin o he"dea Frm, hen Thas eain, a he hise decares, he sae ene, he Divine LThas exac wrd rin hi u re exic

11 " e e e (loco harumd) e have ne ny: he Sn and rd Gd2 n heir reeive inerreain hewrd, he ae "ae ha i uied in Pani y he dcrine he arhee hinand he u, i aen in ee Chriian ny he dcrine he L, y he dcrine hecreaiv " d "enrihed wh a rievavn que he endid ormua o



Th Tmns of To

ugusn.3 How, uner contons such hesould phlosophcal reecton be kept "pe and

aected by theologyOn he other h, what s characterst and

mulang an ruly "ely n Exstentalsthougt from erkega to eegger, Marce

and Sarre, s precsely ths, that the ultmate pos-ons are explctly brought to vew altoughhere s often enough no queston of "heology he proper sense Nevertheless, when Se, forxample, mantas that there are no "essenes o

atural thngs, d above all no "essence of manbcs there exsts no creatve Go wo couldhave desgned them/ t s evdent that h s estab-shng hs fuament thess of hs phlosophy o

an "arle of belef. And t s clear that rue p-losoy can come nto beng only when t refers oa rue theology. oever, we c observe from heormal srucue of ontemorary Exstenals

ha a "pe hosophy carefuly separated frotheology fs to satsfy men at te presen meWen e onsder he orgn and archetypes ofWeste hlosophcal seculaon, coneved byPlato, ho foud the perfeton o phlosophy

a g to myth an the ancents; conceved byAsotle, who name the hlosophc docn ofBeng "theology; conceve by Augusne forwho ue losophcal act bes w a

1 0



T Tmnss of Tom

ih-whe we cier hee eil r he ee ue r kwlee we reize h

hey ih chieve ieie ce rivea crrecive i he crie S ThAui he re ei h hi echi i heir er hly ee eciively

iyi rezi y he rucure hisdcrie were reee re clerly cvicly ere he i cerry !

HOMM AN UDE

n cieri he echi S. Th we

shul n uer i erely he eri usce eicily rue e crie.Much rrely e e reeer h he usce ce h i rii i very eci

ue . u we eecun ly i he ee hi iue clr hewrk wih i ricur ehi u l i hesee h wihu hi ecil hu iue wha ee wrie ih ever hve ee wrien a.

Shu we erere cier hi aiuei eer ihuh Tha hie everxpresy rule i r rce he

OZ



Th Tmnss of To

s h o15 h Unvral Dcr hrsnh l nrpdy hch pll

an nal h yun ncan rr a h Unvrsy Par "rcnz h ruh helan rl vw, rnra a an ssenal par n h nllcual hra hehran , unaun y h ppn henrs ranal crn. n hul en n h prnal "yl h l rcnn ruh an ray lkw an ln "ln, n h n an xplry au?

Th hch l l h cnran f h aral uanc h xpcly acarly prvs l naua n a hccnfrns an h hlly nw prls an

brn h n cnac wh rals prvulybarly lps. n uch a h s prav call n h ua hch aeTh ha h : h allncluv, arlss

srnh h aran, h nrus accpance h hl raly, h ruul anany fh huh. w n ccan, al, rr: Th al an hrcal jucan frh au fun prcsly n Thass c

rn f h nnly any ruh hnsTruh cann xhau y any (huanknl; ran hrfr alays p on fulan

1 03



Th Tmnss of Tho

n the other hnd, wht we l here theThomst ttitude" would hve to include, n order

to remin true to is mser, the resoluton not torelinquish single prtice of the heritge of truth;for it is the hllmrk of the moderty" of bertnd Thoms tht boh refused to disrupt nd bn-

on, for the ske of new ides, the relm of trdi-tion; they reinquished neither the Bible nor ugus-tne nor, onsequenly, lto) for the ske ofristote

The new erri ory

which wits onquest tody

o, ore exctly, which is conquered redy butot yet ppropried nd put to use by philosoph-l speultionis of virtully immesurble sopeSome of ts provines my be sigled out, however

rstly, there re the new relms opened up byhysis nd bioogy Secondly, the new diensionof the psyhe brought ino view by the ndings ofdepth psyhology Thrdly, the wisdom of the Est,

o n n n wn o soon noth intelleul srucure o hrisin hilosophilterretton nd the hrisin wy of lieor tmy lso be tt it is we who nee enrihnthrough tis wisom, in quite priculr mnner

n this whole contex, Thoms quins mght t-tin to new timeliness, boh ive nd cor-etive

0



RUT AND IMELINESS

It is o as a ndividua great thnker, ot as "

a of geus, that Thomas i apportioed thatremarkable auhorty the extent and cla of chs ofen surprsng. Thomas Aquinas has soethigof the staus of an "insttution. We nd h cted,i on of the great clasical legal compenda, thCodx Js Coc as a standard of orthodoy encyclical of a recnt Pope sates that th

hurch accepts hs teachng as her o. Th sacyclica, hoever, w us expctly against thdagers of sterle taton and sos o itnonto perpetuae hat as teconditioned

hoas's ork. But t expresss beyond doubt thatin hi teachngas dsnct from te ork of othersatl Chritia teachersthe body of hua tra-tional sdom, n sort, truh, as found xpres-

ion an entrely venerable and iently -eplary annern wat, precisey, ths exepary anr con-

sits, is not as asy deonstrable. For thos hs the uniqu postion of St. Thoas or tha

th accdeta eect of the forces of adition, ortha discplary ct of ecclesiastica politcs t "ntelcual uormityy n th-sv face aai and aan h te uo: hat

OS



Th Tmlns of Tho

cisy casd S mas bcm t DcCommunis?

W may a asid, as ian, skpicaqsin in w a an a nganisdin cny can b imy ins Ban g aiss, wi ignd masis:

dcsi mn in is n is iminss bis Wa n is s is nda tsc sancn iminss , w in nd sc sancin?

answ is sin as sa acs Itis idn a imnss, in is, is n ciinf B i is ay idn a nss and mnss a sikingyad

bgin wi, ny can b ty imyOny can cspnd cancs and dangs any in pccspnd as b amanand cc

On and nss can nb gaspd by a na and ndin md, bny by a mind sng answ a sis andgn xisna pbm is gncy canny b sd by an mmdiay xpincd, asian, indiida and cmmniyTis mans a w b m pndynwn s , m igsy s tmelnesses g; i as mans a a man xpeenc

I6



Th Tmnss of Thom

ng is own time wi a ricer nensiy of e anfuller spiriul awareness as a beer cance of e

eriencing e lluminaing force of tru Togeer wi is timelness, by wic e responsiveower of r is focused on e immediae presen, e el valdiy of ru wic, incomarbly compeling, rnscends e woe of e,would become manifes.6

mkes clear e twofold, neverending asof e true eacer o reec e oy of trund, n a consanly niring mediaion, o dis

cover and poin ou weren les e relevance ou to s own te



TSCRP

The secnd and hird essay f he presen bkprvid a cnriuin a discussin ne mighalms say, a deae. This has e e heir p is n be missed.

discussin implies, amng her hings, haha he speakers are agreed upn recedes heackgrud. Cmplee ageemen ules u discussin. Bu "plyphny presuppses ha each

parner mainains hrughu his n p fVe.

Wha has een expressed here is ha ne idivdua has hugh rh nriug. This des

py a he d n al p w hsierlcurs r even ih his ppnens. Ye hcnsiders i valual and even necessary add hisparicular vice e cmmn chir.

T e mre explici: "uman knwledge ath same ime rue and n fuly sucien (inadequae. The accepance f his senence, fr sance, prvids a cn grud fr he auh hese "essays ad a arge umer f his pp

x



Th Timinss of Thomi

ens debae Ts senence as s el os coony quoed n phosophca manuals and

exbooks he prope conex Bu he cmae ofpio suc pulcaons is condoned pri-arly by e rs posve cause of e raheconradcory ess Ths s undersandabe and ceran degree nevable Texbooks are con-eed i ransg eacngs and soluons;a s e carace and funcon Bu dspen-sable ough hese exbooks of phiosopy are eyresen he same me and qe naaly so he

ge o of denyng bu of velng e ade-uacy of o owledge

For hs reason e epass e presen es-says as been placed o e negaive clause of e

senence quesonTe nadequacy of uman oledge aces creasng sgncance he more e leave eel of scenc nquy ener e el f

losopy Ths soud o be erpreed o meaa n e ream of phosopy no posive e-sus and ansers capabe of beng organed o body of eachng can be reaced; y can breaced Hoever he ansers o a properly p-

sopica ich means meaphyscal nuiry can-no have he same naly as a scenc soluon Tnquy no he fundamena naure of oledgefr nsance canno be answered s



Th Tmn of Tho

luive maer a e uei wih i hgerm a ei ieae Furer e awer a

ca e reae i e re iial iuiry are uie ui u a mee "ye. ma a ai i i Coenty ote Metpyscs of Astote ly a me r

i a odc reu, a e gaere i eiia iuiry cee wi e rie Beigug i me ri i agreaer weig a waever ele may e dicvere y e iee

i wi i i mi a i e ree emhai ha ee ae mu e iive aaime ilial ug u rae a le imra reu amely a ma, i

hi iial iuiry, i ae aga a agawi e exeriee a realiy i amalea Beig i myerya exeriee, i i rue,wih urge im mu mmiai

iee. Bu i wu e e iee f eigai a i le eair wu e heee eveee



HRONOLOGI L

I I ( ? irt of St Albeus MagnuI I 4 t of te Emperor Frederic I 2 2 I eat of St omcI 2 24 Foundng of te Uveity o aple by Fre

eric 1 2 24 ( I 2 2 5 ? ) t of St Tom Auina at

castle of Roccascca near Naples2 2 6 eat of St Franc of ssis

I 2 2 6 Coronation of St ous (X , n o F ranI 2 Tom at Monte sno2 Tomas arrives at te Uvesty o NapeI 24 Tom enters te omncan OrderI 2445 s imprsonment in Castel San Giovan

245 Counc o yons eposton of Frederic 25 Tomas comes to as egng of te eac

ng actvty of St Albertu MagnusI 248 Tomas goes wt Albert to Cologne an o

e coetone for Cologne Catedra1 2 50 eat of Fredeck ca 1 2 50 Completon of te catedra of Nore

at aris (west faade)I 2 5 2 Tom es to aris accalau Es-



Chronolocal e

sce nd Exisence ( I 2 54-56) Cenry he Senences of Peer Lod ( I 2 54-56 )

2 5 4-7 3 nterregnm in Gean 256 Thomas receives fom the chancelor of otreame peission to begn an independent anpen teaching corse fl profesor o theame a as St Bonaventre De Verie ( I 2 56

5) Cenry sis ( 1256-5) Co-menry on Boehiuss De rinie ( I 257-58)

2 5 Thomas goes to tal Su Cona Geniles(I25-<4)

2664 Thomas sees teacher in the colege the papal co nder Urban V Oce for hefeas f Corpus Chris ( I 264)

24 eath o Uban V Thomas goes t Roe DePoenia De ( I 26567) Su heoloic

( 126673) 265 Birh of ante27- Thom at the cort f Clemen V at V

terbo On he Govence of Prince an theCenry on Jrei (16769)

28 Beheading f Koadn, the ast Hohentaent aples

26-7 Thomas again a the Univeit of Pis Deo (after 169) On he Virtue ( I 269-72)

Coenis on Arisole nd he Gospel ofS John ( 1 69-7 ) Cory on he PulineEpisles ( 1 269-73 ) Copendiu of hel( I 2 ] 7 3 )

7 eath f King Lois f rance

I



Chronolocal Table

7 om goe to ape 7 Election of the Emperor Rudo o Hapbur 74 Deat of St om qu oan

(Marc7) o Death of St. lberu Magnu r Deat of Dante annization of S Toma qun

67 ma made Doco o te uc



TE

I

toug it i not te point of t eay to be itoca, it goe witout ayg tat t etc of StToma claim to be verable on itorical evidencenot oly on quetio of detail but alo concerng

te tota appreciation t would eem inconou,owever, to burden ti o troductory preentation wit a wealt of citation and reference nfoed reade wil eaily notice ow eavily te

autor i ebted, particularly in te realm of itorical fact, to te reearc of Denie, re, Grabmann,Mandonnet, Seppet, and oter ould add taitorian vary in teir iterpretation of ceain biograpica detail (a, fi, te exact date of St Toma'

ojo in ologne) reer for thi to the wor ofgelu Walz, O

I E Kantorowicz, Ksr Frdrch ol (Ber n, 1 927) , pp

z Ti refal of St Toma, wic ome mayconider ctomary among tat generationof mendicant, wa in no way cuomary butrater reted on an entirely peronal deciion Wenow tha lbert Magnu became Bio of



Not

Regebg I 260. d oe of St. Thomaofe, who hd tght with hm t Pi,

ete of Tetie, w de cdil adltimtely pope ocet ). 0. Tlle, es Posies de Rldo dAquio.

Mmoires de la Socit Nophiologique de Hel-singfor s, vol V ( 19 1 7 ) , pp. I 74-303 .

4 have diced thi eltio oe thooghly my boo, oride d Teperce PntheonBoo, New Yo, I955 ) , pp. 62.

5 Coeti i Jo cp. I3, lect. 2.6 Coetri i Metphsic Arisoeis, b

, lect.

7 Coeri i Diosi (PseudoAreopiae)De Diviis Noiius cap. 4, lect. 4·

8 Su Theoloic, , 2 pologe.

De duous precepis cris e dece leisprecepis " ntl owledge be fom ene.

Hece o tl owledge c go a f a tn be led by eible thig Su Theoloic,

, 2, I 2. thogh thogh Reveltio we canbecome cpbe of owig thg which weotheie wold ot ow, we do not nohem in y othe wy th thogh the ee.Ceti i liru oethii De Triite 6, 3·

"t cle tht m ot jt ol, bt omehig copoed of body ad ol Suaheoloic , 75 , 4

Su Theooic , , 4·



ot

" creature are noting but te e epreiond reproduction f te type contained in te

concept of te divie Word or wic eaonal ting are aid to ave bee made by H twa tting, terefore, tat te Word oud beited to a creature, namely uman natureSu Cntr Gnties I 42

4 ap I , lect I II 3 5 I 6 Qustiones Dispute de Vrit 2, 21 7 Contra in Evliu S nis cap

ect 7 8 mog te erro of verroim condemned byte Biop of P in te year I277 were tefollowing: "Tere i o iger way of ife tano eep oneelf free (vcr fo poopy t

eem to be a direct reply wen Toma write te Su Contr Gntils (III 3 0} : "Teige pefection of uman ife i a man'mind be occpied (vct wit God

oti in pistol S Puli Aposoli

Colssss cap 2 ect I 20 Su holoc , II 3 ad 2 Siger de Brabantia, Qustions e ni intel-

lectiv 7

ontra n Asos D l e ud, 22 3 So te Encycca Studio Dece of une

2, 123 We quote: "May te tction ofanon Law be eld acred by a rofeo e



No

obliged to fom their phiosphical and theolgcal suis an the teaching these sujects ac

ording to the method, the teaching and he bsirinciples o the Dcr Angecus; and fherthey e revere the same' Each ne sholosee th law n such a way that he is ale ta St. Thmas hi mter" Can anytg ex

press mre cealy the high opinn o the Chrcfor ths Doctor than the act that the idennFahers detemned that ding a f the sessins ony two oks shud e reverently placeeore them on the atar, nely, he HolyScriptues and the Su heoloc thother hand the Encyccal ws agnst a pedantic and unifl canain St. Thm,whch wud e cntradicty t hs wn spirit:

Individuas sha nt reqre more from ahother han the Chrch, the eachng Mtress aMother of a requires from al. n such qestion, hich amng esteemed Cathc tho ferent opinons cnron each ther wit eq

right, no ne sha be hindered rm fogthe iew which sems t hm to contan oeuth

4 Su Con Geniles , ·2 5 mpae the concept of reon presened J.

Peper, Forue epernce p 576 I prol 7 Quesones spue e oa e 7 5

.



ot

II

his essay cntains the evised tet an aice whiciinay appeaed in the eview, Diu Vivt (:Pais, I 9 5 ) with the tite, D t gtif dsa philosophi d Sit hos dAqui It was pbshed in a cndensed f the peidica H ochl

(Mnich, I 9 5 3 ) .Te sht qtatin at the eiin f this essay

taken fm te !o Chig f La-tse (pat hapte I ) .

Matin Heidee, Pltos Lhr vo dr Wahhit (Bee, I 9 7 ) , p 5.

is ceay ht t Ka Eschweilerb Di zwi W g dr ur holo(As, 926) , pp. 8 , 283, 296. Other

theses which he ppses ae me pen t deate C. Jse Piepe, Wrhit dr Dig d editi

(Mnic, I 9 I ) .4 he paaaph qestin is n I 2, which dis

csss te famus scastic snence o

st uuvruou5 Rman Gadini, Wlt ud Prso (Wzbg

I90), P· I I6 JeanPa Sate, Lxistntili st u huma

i (Pais, I96), p 7 Ste, p cit, p 22 .8 u Thooca , , 6. Quastios Disputata d Vitt

imthy, i,



Note

Metaphysics, II, I, (993b) ommentary in Metaphysicam ristotes,

no 286

II

T essay s a sighty atered version o a eceivered by the athor n the teneo at Madrid anBarceona. appeed nder the tite of Actualidadde Tomismo the coection "0 rece o Mere, a

series edted by Forento Perez Embid (MadrdI 9 ) .

I The sbj ec w ths formated by the organers of the ectre seres which ths conerencewas originally given.

2 Quaesones Disputatae de Spiriualibus Ceai,I ad 8. existentiale, p. 2 2

ommenty in Aristoteem de nima, I oI .

5 Metaphycs, VII I, (Io28b) 6 ommentary in Metaphysic Aritotelis, I

o. 6.7 riedrich Enges, udwig Feuerbach und de

Augang der laichen deutchen Philooph(Bern, I 96) , pp. I 7.

8 Ths sentence from Enges is qoted, or nsacen the ocia histo of the ommnis arty he Soviet Union Gechichte de Kouni

120

pieper - the silence of st thomas

Documents