Exam #3 Flashcards
- Now, to see more easily how these proclaim that free decision exists, we should first set out two propositions no one of sound mind should doubt. One is that it is impossible that all the attitudes of the rational nature be utterly false and perverse and founded on an utterly false and perverse object. The other is that it is impossible that as we pursue the highest falsity more and more, we are always improving and perfected in every good thing more and more. (Peter John Olivi, Quest. 57 n. 1.4)
- Olivi denies causal determinism, he claims that there is an element of human agency that works outside the law of nature, and that this is the will (aka he’s arguing that we do have free will that’s not caused by the laws of nature)
- To explain this Olivi examines seven pairs of characteristic acts/habits
-Some of these include: friendship and enmity, ingratitude and gratitude, trust and mistrust, etc.
These opposing characteristics aid in demonstrating that we have free will, according to Olivi
-To better understand free will, we can examine these two propositions
1: It is impossible that all the attitudes of the rational nature be utterly false and perverse and founded on utterly false and perverse objects
- “Perverse” means twisted or corrupt
It’s impossible that all the attitudes that are false/corrupt to actually be created from false/corrupt objects
- Essentially, even though we have some false/corrupt attitudes, these are created through our ability to reason (so we can’t be completely bad about these things because we can reason)
- Our ability to reason will always ground us in goodness, even though sometimes our reasoning results in us having false/perverse attitudes
2: it is impossible that as we pursue the highest falsity more and more, we are always improving and perfected in every good thing and more
- We can’t improve/perfect ourselves by pursuing false things
- Even though we may feel as though pursuing these false things leads us temporarily closer to the truth, but if anything they may direct us further from it
- We can only improve/perfect ourselves by working towards the truth
-Olivi is a voluntarist: he believes that we have free will in the strong sense
What does Olivi deny?
Causal determinism he claims that there’s an element of human agency that works outside of the laws of nature, and that this is the will (a non-natural, indeterminate, free cause)
- Since there are countless goods, whose great diversity we both experience through our bodily senses and discern through the reasoning of our mind, are we to believe that there is some one thing through which all goods whatsoever are good? Or are different goods good through different things? (Anselm, Monologion ch. 1)
There is one thing through which all goods are whatsoever good. It is certain that all goods are compared to one another (and being compared to equally or unequally good), all goods must be understood to be the same in diverse good things, even though sometimes different goods are said to be good for different reasons
Horse vs robber analogy: or it seems that a horse is called good through one thing because it is strong and through another because it is fast
- The horse is good through its strength and through its speed
- But, what about a strong and fast robber? A strong and fast robber would be considered to be bad
*while things are called good for different reasons, their goodness is not self-contained/ unrelated. This difference suggests that their goodness comes from a higher source, a perfect good.
There are two kinds of good: good through some usefulness (i.e., health), or good through some intrinsic value (i.e., beauty)
- All useful or intrinsically valuable things, if they are genuinely good, are good through the same thing
- All things are good through one supremely good which is good through itself (God)
- The supremely great is God, because if God is supremely good he is supremely great
What are the two “kinds” of good according to Anselm?
Good through some usefuleness: i.e., health
Good through intrinsic value: i.e., beauty
You cannot any longer doubt that this island, more excellent than all others on earth, truly exists somewhere in reality. For you do not doubt that this island exists in your understanding, and since it is more excellent to exist not merely in the understanding, but also in reality, this island must also exist in reality. For if it did not, any land that exists in reality would be greater than it. And so this more excellent thing that you have understood would not in fact be more excellent. (Gaunilo, par. 6)
- Guanilo asks you to imagine an island that is the most excellent of all land, it has the most abundant and rich land and has never been inhabited, so it’s more abundant than other land that has been taken over by human beings
- The argument says that you cannot believe that this island doesn’t exist
- If you can imagine an excellent island, more excellent than all the other islands, it must exist in reality. If it’s the most excellent, it would be more excellent for it to exist than not exist, so it must exist
A critique of Anselm’s ontological argument for the existence of God, uses the analogy of a “most excellent island” to highlight flaws in his reasoning
Something that exists in reality will always be greater than something that only exists in your mind. Therefor this most excellent island in your mind cannot be most excellent, what is truly most excellent must exist in reality
This shows absurdity in anselm’s reasoning
Anselm understands God as “that then which nothing greater can be conceived” - this will only exist as an understanding, reality will always be greater.
Leap from conceptual to actual existence is flawed
Hence I say that this proposition “God exists” is self-evident in itself because the predicate is identical with the subject: for God is his existence, as will later be made clear [3.4]. Yet since we do not know what God is, the proposition is not self-evident to us but rather must be demonstrated through what is more evident to us, even if less evident by nature, namely through God’s effects. (Aquinas, Summa theol. 1a 2.1c).
This article (article 1) asks: is the existence of God self-evident
A proposition is self evident when the predicate is included in the definition of the subject
- For example: a human being is an animal, because animal is part of the definition of human being
Aquinas says that the existence of God is self-evident in some ways and not in others:
- He says YES, it is self evident to someone who knows how to define god/gods nature
- As God necessarily exists via God’s nature
- But, this is only understandable to the angels or to humans in heaven, but it can’t be understandable for any humans on earth
- But NO, God’s existence is not self-evident to us, because we don’t know how to define God
- We don’t know God’s nature
*So, the existence of God is self-evident to creatures like the angels and humans in heaven, but it is not self-evident to us on Earth because we don’t know how to define God and God’s nature
what does it mean when a proposition is self-evident according to Aquinas?
the predicate is included in the definition of the subject
EX: a human being is an animal. Animal is part of the definition of being a human being
We can speak about simple things only on the basis of the composite things from which we gain our knowledge. Thus in speaking about God we use concrete terms in order to signify God’s subsistence, since in our experience only composite beings subsist, and we use abstract terms in order to signify God’s simplicity. Thus when divinity or life or anything like this is said to be within God, this should be attributed to the diversity in our intellects’ conception of the thing, rather than to any diversity on the part of the thing itself. (Aquinas, Summa theol. 1a 3.3 resp. to 1)
This is based on Article 3, which asks: is there composition of quiddity, essence, or nature and subject in God?
- Reply: God is identical with his essence or nature
- God is more simple than we’ll ever be able to truly understand, so we speak about him through complex ways because this is what we experience. We don’t experience God’s simplicity, and we use what we know about complex things to talk about more simple, higher beings like God
- Because we can only explain God through more complex things we use concrete terms (i.e., God is alive, God exists) to explain that god is real and God exists, like how other things in our lives are real and exist.
- We also attempt to use more abstract terms in attempts to show God’s simplicity. I.e., we use “divinity” and “life” to try and demonstrate that God doesn’t have separate parts like we do (i.e., a body and a soul) or different qualities like we do (i.e., love is not different from wisdom for God)
-The “differences” that we do talk about in God are not actual separate parts, it’s just how our intellect understands God. God is completely simple, and all of these parts are one of the same for God
God is in all things not as though God were a part of their essence or an accident, but rather as an agent is present in that on which it acts. (Aquinas, Summa theol. 1a 8.1c)
Article 1 of Question 8 asks: is god in all things?
- Aquinas argues that God is in all things
This is not to say that God is all creatures (this is pantheism), because there are creatures that are distinct from God
- This is why God is not a part of their essence or accident, because there are distinct creatures, but God acts on agents through which the agent acts
Billiard Ball example:
- A white ball hits the 8 ball. God is in both of these balls. Just as the white ball is acting on the 8 ball, God is acting on the 8 ball
- God is not a part of the essence of the 8 ball, but God is needed for the 8 ball to exist in the first place
Sun example
- The sun is the cause of light, if you remove the sun everything goes black
- This is how God is with existence of things in the world, if you remove God, nothing would exist
- God is not only the cause of things when they first exist, but also so long as they continue to exist
*As long as there is existence, God is present
* God exists in all things intimately so
Know that the description of God, may He be cherished and exalted, by means of negations is the correct description - a description that is not affected by an indulgence in facile language and does not imply any deficiency with respect to God in general or in any particular mode. On the other hand, if one describes Him by means of affirmations, one implies, as we have made clear, that He is associated with that which is not He and implies a deficiency in Him. (Maimonides, Guide ch. 58)
- Attributes of God are to be understood as negative attributes
- We have no way of describing God except through negation
- Attributes of negation allow us to characterize what is being said by knowing what is not being said
- We cannot comprehend God’s essence, there is no composition of him, but God exists in necessity
- When we say that God exists, we know that his non existence is impossible
- EX: God is living → god’s not dead, God is eternal → God has no cause
- Figuring out what we can negate of God is really the best we can do in terms of understanding him
- God’s nature goes beyond something human beings can ever fully grasp, so by describing only his negations we can describe him in a way that is totally unique, infinite, and without deficiency
It therefore must be said that names of this kind are said of God and creatures according to analogy, that is, according to proportion. (Aquinas, Summa theol. 1a 13.5c)
Article 5 of Question 13 asks: are any names siad of God and creatures univocally, or are they said equivocally?
- Aquinas says that the names are said analogically
Univocally: 1 name is predicated of various things according to that meaning
- EX: saying God is wise is the same as saying Bob is wise
Aquinas says that this is wrong.
- He says we do rely on creature concepts when describing God’s wisdom, but God’ concept of wisdom is fully maximized and grounded in God’s simplicity (it’s not the same as the creature concepts)
- So, terms used of God and used of creatures are never univocal
Equivocal: there is one name of various things according to wholly different concepts
- EX: “bank” could be referring to river bank or money bank
- This is not a way that names are said of God
Analogically: the meaning may be different, but they’re not wholly different. This is what Aquinas believes we use to talk about the names of god
Healthy example:
- “The dog is healthy” and “medicine is healthy”
- “Dog is healthy” a term you use when you are referring to the animal
*This is a condition
- “Medicine is healthy”
*This is a cause
Wisdom example
- Creature is wise
*This is understood and according to our worldly experiences
- God is wise
*This is obscure, and we can only understand this through knowing that God is the cause of wisdom
- This is comparable to the healthy case. We call medicine healthy because it causes living things to be healthy. We call God wise because he causes creatures to be wise.
- In both of these cases, creature and animal are understood whereas medicine and God are obscure (i.e., you don’t really know the mechanisms in ibuprofen that help your head from hurting)
*The one thing we can say concretely of God is that he is the cause for all wisdom
what does it mean to understand God and creatures univocally?
1 name is predicated of various things according to that meaning
- EX: saying God is wise is the same as saying Bob is wise
Aquinas says that this is wrong.
- He says we do rely on creature concepts when describing God’s wisdom, but God’ concept of wisdom is fully maximized and grounded in God’s simplicity (it’s not the same as the creature concepts)
- So, terms used of God and used of creatures are never univocal
What are some of the characteristics/habits that Olivi examines to further demonstrate that we have free decision?
Zeal and mercy
Priding oneself and shame
Friendship and enmity
Ingratitude and gratitude
Submission or respect, and unconquered and blessed domination or freedom
Trust and mistrust
Fear and concern about the future, and fearlessness and disregard, that is to say, idleness and laziness
What does it mean to understand God and Creatures equivocally?
Equivocal: there is one name of various things according to wholly different concepts
- EX: “bank” could be referring to river bank or money bank
- This is not a way that names are said of God
What does it mean to understand God and creatures analogically?
*This is what Aquinas believes
the meaning may be different, but they’re not wholly different. This is what Aquinas believes we use to talk about the names of god
Healthy example:
- “The dog is healthy” and “medicine is healthy”
- “Dog is healthy” a term you use when you are referring to the animal
*This is a condition
- “Medicine is healthy”
*This is a cause
Wisdom example
- Creature is wise
*This is understood and according to our worldly experiences
- God is wise
*This is obscure, and we can only understand this through knowing that God is the cause of wisdom
- This is comparable to the healthy case. We call medicine healthy because it causes living things to be healthy. We call God wise because he causes creatures to be wise.
- In both of these cases, creature and animal are understood whereas medicine and God are obscure (i.e., you don’t really know the mechanisms in ibuprofen that help your head from hurting)
