INTRODUCTION
After establishing philosophical ground
that God exists, Thomas Aquinas begins another philosophical investigation whether we
can know the "whatness" of God. John Wippel in
this regard presents to us how Aquinas devotes his attention to the knowledge
of God’s divine nature and attributes. And so, here we shall analyze two issues
relating to God; the possibility of attaining quidditative knowledge of God,
and the problem of analogy insofar as our knowledge of God is concerned. Therefore,
this paper is divided into three sections; quidditative knowledge of God,
analogical knowledge of God and conclusion.
1.1 Quidditative Knowledge of God
In the five ways, Aquinas demonstrates
God’s existence. It is after this affirmations, we shall determine the extent to
which we can arrive at knowledge of what it is of God. For Aquinas, we can know
that God is because effects communicate to us that He is. But we cannot know
what He is because His essence is not self- evident to us. In Aquinas
understanding, for us to say something about God’s essence, it must be in
negation and only in three ways. First, we should negate of him all that is
corporeal. Secondly, we negate of him all intellectual characteristics in the
way it is found in creatures such as goodness and wisdom. Lastly, we negate of
him of even esse itself in the way this is related in creatures. His act of
being is not like of his creatures.[1]
Therefore, for Aquinas, we can only arrive at imperfect knowledge of God. In this regard, our knowledge of God in
present time, can only be that which is not of him. This implies that in this
life, we cannot know the form which is identical to its act of being. Therefore
for Aquinas, whenever we know God through a form abstracted from one of his
effects, no matter how perfect that effect may be, the subsequent knowledge
will not tell us what God is. Our intellect can only grasp the form of sensible
things but not the case of purely intelligible entities.[2] Thus,
in this life we cannot know what it is of God not only through philosophical
knowledge based on reasoning from effect to cause but also knowledge through
divine revelation. For Aquinas, revealed knowledge depends on the likeness and
concept derived from our experiences of sensible things and thus it cannot lead
us to the quidditative knowledge of God.[3]
To
say something on "whatness" of God, Aquinas suggests that we should do so by appealing to
negation. For instance, God is not matter, In God there is not composition, and
God is not subject to violence. Even for Aquinas to use names that signify
perfection, would also carry deficiency.[4]
1.2 Analogical Knowledge of God
Here Aquinas distinguishes two levels as
far as analogical knowledge of God is concerned. First,
predicamental/horizontal level which applies to the analogy of many to one
which Aquinas rejects because it cannot explain God in relation to his
creatures. Secondly, transcendental/vertical level which applies to analogy of
one to another.[5]
For Aquinas, something can be common to things in one of the three ways;
univocally, equivocally, and analogically. In the case of God, he eliminates
both univocal and equivocal in accord with predication of knowledge of God and
His creatures.
1.2.1 Univocal Predication
For Aquinas, nothing can be said
univocally of God and his creatures. In all cases where univocal predication is
appropriate, there must be some kind of commonness in the order of nature, but
not in the order of the act of being. This is because one act of being can only
be found in one substantial entity. So, act of being cannot be predicated
univocally of any two entities. God’s essence and act of being are identical
and therefore, there is nothing to be predicated univocally. For in God, any
perfection must be identical with his divine esse.[6]
Aquinas makes it clear that the quiddity is common to all members of a genus but
an individual act of being is not common. According to this reasoning, univocal
requires commonness in the order of essence but not in the order of esse, for
one act of being can be found in only one being. Because of this, the form
signified by esse cannot be predicated univocally.[7] So,
univocal predication is not possible, otherwise we would have many individuals
that are identical.
1.2.2 Equivocal Predication
For Aquinas the same name ca be applied
to two human being. But we cannot reason from our awareness of knowledge in
creatures to some awareness of knowledge in God. Therefore, the name knowledge
is not itself purely equivocal. Aquinas is convinced that we can reason from
our awareness of a pure perfection such as knowledge as it is realized in
created beings. When we say that God is merciful, that is not the same way man
is merciful. Because of this, equivocal predication of such as names is to be
ruled out.[8]
1.2.3 Analogical Predication
Aquinas here speaks about analogy
according to which one thing imitates another insofar as it can without perfectly
attaining to it. This analogy is applied to God and creatures. This happens
when there is no perfect equality either in meaning or in existence. For
Aquinas, it is in this way that truth, goodness and names of this kind are said
analogically of God and of creatures.[9] It
follows that all of these are really present in God and in creatures, each with
its appropriate existence, and at the same time that they are present in
varying degree of perfection. This means that the predicated perfection is to
be understood differently when it is applied to God and to any creature but not
so much so as to remove all similarity.[10]
CONCLUSION
Having gone through both discussions on
quidditatieve knowledge of God and in the treatment of analogical predication
of the divine name, we realize through Aquinas’ understanding that we cannot
know "what" God is. This is because God’s essence is not self-evident to us. In
the five ways, effects communicates to us that God who is the first Cause
exists. In regard to essence, Aquinas makes it clear that in this life, we
cannot know what God it. If we have to say something about God’s essence, it
must be in the form of negation. Again Aquinas helps us to understand that
nothing univocal as well as equivocal can be said God in relation to His
creatures.
Sources
Main Source
Wippel
John, Metaphysical Thought of Thomas:
From Finite Being to Uncreated Being; (Catholic University of America
Press: Washington D.C, 2000)
Other Source
Joseph
Rickaby, Of God and His Creatures: Summa
Contra Gentiles of Thomas Aquinas; (The Catholic Premier: Landon, 2005)
No comments:
Post a Comment