Aquinas: Epistemology

Aristotelian commenters have long noted an apparent contradiction between what Aristotle says in Posterior Analytics I.2 and Physics I.1 about how we obtain first principles of a science. At Posterior 71b35–72a6, Aristotle states that what is most universal (καθόλου) is better-known by nature and initially less-known to us, while the particular (καθ’ ἕκαστον) is initially better-known to us, but less-known by nature. At Physics 184a21-30, however, Aristotle states that we move from what is better-known to us, which is universal (καθόλου), (...) to what is better-known absolutely, which is particular (καθ’ ἕκαστον). This paper turns to two of Aristotle’s most notable medieval commentators—Albertus Magnus and Thomas Aquinas—to resolve this apparent contradiction. The key to Thomas and Albert’s solutions, we will argue, is a twofold distinction between a sense-perceptive and scientific universal, and the particulars as sensed individuals and as differentiating attributes. Our Synthetic treatment of these distinctions contributes to the ongoing scholarly effort to understand the Stagyrite’s complex theory of knowledge. (shrink)

[ita] L'articolo analizza la concezione di verità in Tommaso d'Aquino, di cui si sottolinea una sostanziale validità, a patto di integrarsi con la prospettiva più affettivo-esistenziale tipica della Patristica e di Blondel. [eng] The article analyzes the conception of truth in Tommaso d'Aquino, underlining a substantial validity of it, provided that it is completed with the most existential perspective typical of the Patristic and Blondel.

The Hegelian and the Thomistic accounts of self-knowledge are solidly Aristotelian in their origins and motivations. In their conclusions and consequences, however, the two accounts exhibit significant differences. Hegel argues that genuine self-knowledge is necessarily social and historical, while Aquinas says nothing about history or society in his account of self-knowledge. The aim of this paper is not to decide the issue concerning historicity in favor of either Hegel or Aquinas. The aim here is rather to address a prior question: (...) what are the systematic and philosophical reasons for the difference between the two thinkers? In order to articulate this difference between the two, we might begin by considering an underlying similarity: their common Aristotelian background. (shrink)

Kant’s subject as source of universality and necessity in human understanding is Modern Philosophy's solution to the old problem of the universals, a solution which appeared to supersede once and for all the Aristotelian theory of abstraction. The present paper intends to show how Aquinas's Aristotelian doctrine on abstraction may stand the Kantian challenge and resolve the old problem when three principles are brought into play: 1) the same perfection can subsist in two different modes of being, and thus the (...) universal content of knowledge can be present in the particular reality (Summa, I, 84, 1); 2) things which are really distinct between themselves can be known in their distinction, even when they cannot exist separately (metaphysical distinction justifies gnoseological separation); 3) as Cornelio Fabro suggests, it is artificial to separate in the object of experience the object’s different levels of objectivity (quality, configuration and meaning) and, as a result, human experience could be considered the source not only of sensible content but also of intelligible content. This “defense” of Thomistic abstraction intends to offer an account of knowledge which reunites again epistemology with common sense experience, so that philosophy may no longer be a Platonic abstraction but a meaningful explanation of life. (shrink)