When I was writing my thesis I was convinced by the sagacious Plato that knowledge can only be communicated through rhetoric. (To see why I thought this reread the Phaedrus.) Now I then made a, for lack of a better word, crazy jump that thus Aquinas was a rhetorician. Because, he communicates knowledge; knowledge is communicable through rhetoric; Aquinas is a rhetorician Q.E.D..
I have since given up this notion. I still firmly believe that all knowledge is only communicable through rhetoric, but theological knowledge is something else. This way I get may cake and eat is too. Meno's slave still does not learn any thing new, and Euclid is only bringing something out of us through his use of syllogims. However St. Thomas, and the fathers more importantly, do bring teach us. That is because they are using the Lingua Ecclasia (spelling?) that Augustine mentions in the Confessions. The Doctors are speaking in words and truthsthat are not found inside of men, but beyond us. The communication of knowledge is then through faith and not rhetoric. That is why Aquinas is wrong from a logical point of view. The five ways don't work if you are Kant, but they do work if you are a person of faith.
This, if true, has a profound effect upon Christian epistemology. But an effect that has always been with us. Paul said that this is foolishness for the Greeks, and Tutallian (?) "What does Athens have to do with Jerusalem? Nothing at all!".
So I rescind my statement that Aquinas was a rhetorician. His syllogisms worked, ans only worked, because they where about the Way, the Truth, and the Light. And this Light we only see through revelation, and this truth we only know because the "Word became flesh".
Am I just begging the question? I am saying Aquinas is not a rhetorician, but Euclid is.
On the other hand read the Chapter in this book about Aquinas. (I cannot recall which one it is.) Byt Stanley Huerwas in this book argues for my first position; viz, Aquinas is a rhetorician. It is a deep and strong argument, but I think he fails. His premise is that Aquinas knew his five ways would not work and wants the reader to see this, and to therefore look deeper into the nature of God because of the Summa's obvious failings. I read Plato exactly this way, but I think that it is absurd to read Thomas Aquinas this way.
To argue all these points fully would require a living discourse.
I have since given up this notion. I still firmly believe that all knowledge is only communicable through rhetoric, but theological knowledge is something else. This way I get may cake and eat is too. Meno's slave still does not learn any thing new, and Euclid is only bringing something out of us through his use of syllogims. However St. Thomas, and the fathers more importantly, do bring teach us. That is because they are using the Lingua Ecclasia (spelling?) that Augustine mentions in the Confessions. The Doctors are speaking in words and truthsthat are not found inside of men, but beyond us. The communication of knowledge is then through faith and not rhetoric. That is why Aquinas is wrong from a logical point of view. The five ways don't work if you are Kant, but they do work if you are a person of faith.
This, if true, has a profound effect upon Christian epistemology. But an effect that has always been with us. Paul said that this is foolishness for the Greeks, and Tutallian (?) "What does Athens have to do with Jerusalem? Nothing at all!".
So I rescind my statement that Aquinas was a rhetorician. His syllogisms worked, ans only worked, because they where about the Way, the Truth, and the Light. And this Light we only see through revelation, and this truth we only know because the "Word became flesh".
Am I just begging the question? I am saying Aquinas is not a rhetorician, but Euclid is.
On the other hand read the Chapter in this book about Aquinas. (I cannot recall which one it is.) Byt Stanley Huerwas in this book argues for my first position; viz, Aquinas is a rhetorician. It is a deep and strong argument, but I think he fails. His premise is that Aquinas knew his five ways would not work and wants the reader to see this, and to therefore look deeper into the nature of God because of the Summa's obvious failings. I read Plato exactly this way, but I think that it is absurd to read Thomas Aquinas this way.
To argue all these points fully would require a living discourse.
2 Comments:
That's badass.
i always think of rhetoric as using speech to persuade someone to think or act a certain way. if that's true, then St. T is a great rhetorician b/c he's influenced the way people have thought for over a thousand years.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home