As we discovered last time, the philosophy of Thomism has some major issues with basic epistemology. It pretends to know things that cannot possibly be known, and then it constantly obsesses over answers that have no discernable difference either way. This would all be bad enough on its own, and it immediately disqualifies Thomism from any serious conversation in the philosophical arena. In the realm of Christian philosophy, however, this level of failure is just the warm up act for an ever-expanding heap of continuous failures.
A perfect example of this phenomenon is the very the writing style of Thomas Aquinas. It’s terrible! It is not the work of someone who is thinking rigorously about his arguments and then editing them for clarity. Rather, you get the distinct impression that Aquinas just scribbled words onto paper in an unfiltered stream of consciousness.
To demonstrate, consider the following paragraph, which I honestly plucked entirely at random from the Summa Theologica (pp. 522). In response to the question of Whether the five exterior senses are properly distinguished, Aquinas says:
Size, shape, and the like, which are called "common sensibles," are midway between "accidental sensibles" and "proper sensibles," which are the objects of the senses. For the proper sensibles first, and of their very nature, affect the senses; since they are qualities that cause alteration. But the common sensibles are all reducible to quantity. As to size and number, it is clear that they are species of quantity. Shape is a quality about quantity. Shape is a quality about quantity, since the notion of shape consists of fixing the bounds of magnitude. Movement and rest are sensed according as the subject is affected in one or more ways in the magnitude of the subject or of its local distance, as in the movement of growth or of locomotion, or again, according as it is affected in some sensible qualities, as in the movement of alteration; and thus to sense movement and rest is, in a way, to sense one thing and many. Now quantity is the proximate subject of the qualities that cause alteration, as surface is of color. Therefore the common sensibles do not move the senses first and of their own nature, but by reason of the sensible quality; as the surface by reason of color. Yet they are not accidental sensibles, for they produce a certain variety in the immutation of the senses. For sense is immuted differently by a large and by a small surface: since whiteness itself is said to be great or small, and therefore it is divided according to its proper subject.
With all due respect to the “sophisticated” philosophical traditions of classical theism, this entire paragraph is nothing more than a frantic expulsion of incomprehensible word salad. This is not the writing of someone who knows what he’s talking about. It is the writing of someone who is trying to trick you into thinking that he knows what he’s talking about.
It’s important to understand that is not just a mere matter of me failing to understand the jargon. What we are witnessing here is a fundamental inability of Thomas Aquinas himself to formulate coherent thoughts. There are thousands more examples of this stuff littered all throughout his writing. It’s a textbook example of classical a philosophical principle known as bullshit---the use of pretentious-sounding language designed to sound impressive while simultaneously avoiding any tangible claims [1]. Noam Chomsky famously captured the essence of this phenomenon with his sentence, Colorless green ideas sleep furiously. It illustrates the distinction between syntax and semantics, in that merely constructing a grammatically valid sentence does not necessarily guarantee of a meaningful thought.
In an ideal world, this sort of gibberish nonsense would be squashed into oblivion, but the Thomists seem to treat this as one of its greatest selling points. It’s the philosophical security blanket all over again, whereby any criticism can be dismissed outright with a casual wave of their hands. After all, if you don’t find Aquinas’ arguments compelling, then obviously you just don’t understand Aquinas, and therefore you’re in no position to offer any serious rebuttals. Thomas Aquinas is, after all, the greatest philosopher who ever lived, and we should all be glad to grow closer to God by studying his work.
The really sad thing about all this incomprehensible babbling is that it isn’t just bad philosophy; it’s bad theology! Nobody wants to attend a church that glorifies the distinction between common sensibles versus accidental sensibles. They want to feel the spirit and learn how to behave like better people in their community. So in what logical universe does it make any sense for the Catholic church to embrace the writings of Thomas Aquinas as official doctrine? I should not need a magic decoder ring just to make sense out of this stuff. If you cannot learn to communicate effectively, then even the best ideas in the world cannot be distinguished from no ideas at all.
Notes/References
- Frankfurt, H. On Bullshit, Princeton University Press (2005) [link]
No comments:
Post a Comment