THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA Thomas Aquinas and the Method of Predication in ...

355 Pages·2016·2.25 MB·English

by  Coates Library Visitor

THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA

Thomas Aquinas and the Method of Predication in Metaphysics

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to the Faculty of the
School of Philosophy
Of The Catholic University of America
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
For the Degree
Doctor of Philosophy

By

Gaston G. LeNotre

Washington, D.C.

2016
Thomas Aquinas and the Method of Predication in Metaphysics
Gaston G. LeNotre, Ph.D.
Director: Gregory T. Doolan, Ph.D
St. Thomas Aquinas sometimes uses strictly conceptual and logical insights to draw
insights about things in reality. I show that, throughout his career, Aquinas’s metaphysics
employs a logical procedure that he calls the “method of predication” (modus praedicandi). This
method consists in using what logic teaches about modes of predicating as a tool for deductive
reasoning in metaphysics.
The first chapter examines passages in Aquinas’s Commentaries on De Trinitate and on
the Metaphysics that describe this method of predication or “logical method” as a “fitting” and
“proper” way for metaphysics to proceed. This chapter also provides the context for Aquinas’s
method by identifying some important classical and contemporaneous sources (Aristotle,
Boethius, Averroes), including a discussion on topical arguments and the distinction between
doctrinal and instrumental logic (logica docens, logica utens).
In chapters two and three, I consider the realist framework behind the method of
predication. I discuss cognitive realism in chapter two focusing on the origin and role of essence
or nature (absolutely considered) in predication. I offer an account of how concepts and
predications are ultimately caused by (real) things. I discuss metaphysical realism in chapter
three focusing on the relationship between the subject of logic, rationate being (ens rationis), and
the subject of metaphysics (ens communis), which is real being (ens naturae). This chapter
finishes with an examination of essential being (ens secundum se) and different types of
predication (e.g., per se, per participationem, denomative).
In chapter four, after examining Aquinas’s rejection of similar types of arguments from
previous authors (Parmenides, Plato, Avicebron), I consider the application of the method of
predication to various metaphysical issues. Aquinas uses the method of predication in many
different contexts. He uses it in order to derive different properties and categories of being, to
distinguish esse from essence, to establish the unicity of the substantial form, and to justify the
reality of prime matter in a properly metaphysical fashion. These arguments are analyzed for
their soundness, and the interpretation of some authors are taken into consideration.
This dissertation by Gaston G. LeNotre fulfills the dissertation requirements for the doctoral
degree in Philosophy approved by Gregory T. Doolan, Ph.D., as Director, and by Timothy
Noone, Ph.D., and Michael Gorman, Ph.D., as Readers.

_______________________________________
Gregory T. Doolan, Ph. D., Director

_______________________________________
Timothy B. Noone, Ph. D., Reader

_______________________________________
Michael Gorman, Ph. D., Reader

ii
To Kate, Beatrice, Bernard, and Gerard

iii
naturale desiderium rationalis creaturae est
ad sciendum omnia illa quae pertinent ad perfectionem intellectus;
et haec sunt species et genera rerum, et rationes earum,
quae in Deo videbit quilibet videns essentiam divinam.

— St. Thomas Aquinas

Die Grammophonplatte, der musikalische Gedanke, die Notenschrift, die Schallwellen,
stehen alle in jener abbildenden internen Beziehung zu einander
die zwischen Sprache und Welt besteht.
Ihnen allen ist der logische Bau gemeinsam.

— Ludwig Wittgenstein

iv
CONTENTS

Abbreviations

Acknowledgments

INTRODUCTION

1. The Question of Philosophical Method in Historical Context .......................................1

2. Status Quaestionis
1. State of the Question on Thomas’s General Method of Metaphysics .................5
2. State of the Question on Thomas’s Method of Predication in Metaphysics .....12
1. James C. Doig .......................................................................................13
2. James B. Reichmann .............................................................................16
3. Jan A. Aertsen .......................................................................................18
4. Rudi A. Te Velde ..................................................................................19

3. Method and Structure of the Present Work ...................................................................21

CHAPTER 1: HISTORY AND NATURE OF THOMAS’S METHOD OF PREDICATION

Introduction........................................................................................................................24

1. Brief Historical Survey of a Logical Method.................................................................26
1. Plato...................................................................................................................26
2. Aristotle..............................................................................................................30
1. Strong vs. Pure Dialectic......................................................................30
2. The Two Senses of “Logical” ..............................................................37
3. Boethius..............................................................................................................44
4. Avicenna.............................................................................................................48
5. Averroes.............................................................................................................52
6. 13th Century Latins...........................................................................................62
1. Brief Overview of the Status of Topics...................................................62
2. Logica Docens/Utens: Lambert of Auxerre and Robert of Kilwardby...64

2. Exposition of Thomas Aquinas’s Method of Predication...............................................70
1. The Commentary on the De Trinitate.................................................................71
2. The First Rational Method.................................................................................80

3. The Relation between Logic and Metaphysics...............................................................92
v
4. Demonstration or Dialectic? ......................................................................................104

CHAPTER 2: THE COGNITIVE STRUCTURE OF THOMAS’S METHOD OF PREDICATION

Introduction......................................................................................................................108

1. The Sense Powers........................................................................................................110

2. Intellectual Cognition in General................................................................................117
1. The Intellectual Turn Toward the Phantasm...................................................118
2. The Two Abstractive Operations of the Intellect.............................................120

3. The First Operation of the Intellect: Formation of Simple Quiddities........................128
1. The Analogy of Intellect to Fire.......................................................................128
2. Words: Inner and Outer...................................................................................131
3. Threefold Essence............................................................................................135

4. Knowing Through Composition and Division.............................................................144
1. Essence and Predication..................................................................................144
2. Realism and Predication..................................................................................149

CHAPTER 3: THE METAPHYSICAL STRUCTURE OF THOMAS’S METHOD OF PREDICATION

Introduction......................................................................................................................153

1. Essential and Accidental Being...................................................................................154
1. Per Se Predication...........................................................................................155
2. Per Accidens Predication................................................................................164
3. Complete Being and True Being......................................................................169
4. Mental Being and Extra-Mental Being............................................................173
1. The Truth of Propositions about Nonbeing.........................................174
2. Falsehood: Accidental Rationate Being..............................................178
3. General Schema of Finite Being..........................................................181
5. Truth of a Proposition: Essential Being and Accidental Predicate.................183

2. Predication, Participation, Denomination..................................................................189
1. Predication by Essence, Predication by Participation....................................191
2. The Grammar of Participation........................................................................194
vi
3. The Modes of Participation.............................................................................196
4. The Confluence of the Modes of Predication and Participation.....................201
5. Existence: Substantial and Accidental Predicate............................................204
6. Denominative Predication...............................................................................211

CHAPTER 4: THOMAS ON THE USE OF THE METHOD OF PREDICATION

Introduction......................................................................................................................219

1. Thomas’s Critique of the Improper Use of the Method of Predication.......................219
1. Mistaken Argument for the Absolute Unity of Being.......................................221
2. Mistaken Argument for Separate Abstract Essences.......................................224
3. Mistaken Arguments for Spiritual Matter........................................................230
1. Argument for Spiritual Matter from Participation in a Genus............233
2. Argument for Spiritual Matter from Genus and Difference.................234

2. Thomas’s Contribution to the Method of Predication in Metaphysics........................239

1. Division of ‘Being’...........................................................................................241
1. General Mode of Being: Five Transcendentals...................................245
1. Exposition................................................................................245
2. Evaluation................................................................................249
2. Special Mode of Being: The Ten Predicaments...................................258
1. Exposition................................................................................259
2. Evaluation................................................................................265

2. Determination of the Reality of Prime Matter.................................................267
1. Exposition............................................................................................270
2. Evaluation............................................................................................275

3. Determination of the Unicity of Substantial Form..........................................277
1. Exposition............................................................................................279
2. Evaluation............................................................................................283

4. Determination of the Real Distinction between Essence and Esse..................286
1. The Intellectus Essentiae Argument.....................................................288
1. Exposition................................................................................288
2. Evaluation................................................................................290
2. The “Genus” Argument.......................................................................293
1. Exposition................................................................................293
vii
2. Evaluation................................................................................296

5. Conclusion.......................................................................................................301

CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................................306

BIBLIOGRAPHY.............................................................................................................................319

viii