Pints With Aquinas - 140: Intro to Aquinas (Yeeeey!)

Episode Date: January 15, 2019

Watch the next Matt Fradd Show here (click "set a reminder") this Friday at 8pm EST: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=932&v=6MfsHlJ1I6E If you've never listened to Pints With Aquinas, today's episode is a GREAT place to begin. In today's episode I'll share with you 5 contributions Aquinas made to metaphysics.  SPONSORS EL Investments: https://www.elinvestments.net/pints Exodus 90: https://exodus90.com/mattfradd/  Hallow: http://hallow.app/mattfradd  STRIVE: https://www.strive21.com/  GIVING Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/mattfradd This show (and all the plans we have in store) wouldn't be possible without you. I can't thank those of you who support me enough. Seriously! Thanks for essentially being a co-producer coproducer of the show. LINKS Website: https://pintswithaquinas.com/ Merch: https://teespring.com/stores/matt-fradd FREE 21 Day Detox From Porn Course: https://www.strive21.com/ SOCIAL Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/mattfradd Twitter: https://twitter.com/mattfradd Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mattfradd MY BOOKS  Does God Exist: https://www.amazon.com/Does-God-Exist-Socratic-Dialogue-ebook/dp/B081ZGYJW3/ref=sr_1_9?dchild=1&keywords=fradd&qid=1586377974&sr=8-9 Marian Consecration With Aquinas: https://www.amazon.com/Marian-Consecration-Aquinas-Growing-Closer-ebook/dp/B083XRQMTF/ref=sr_1_4?dchild=1&keywords=fradd&qid=1586379026&sr=8-4 The Porn Myth: https://www.ignatius.com/The-Porn-Myth-P1985.aspx CONTACT Book me to speak: https://www.mattfradd.com/speakerrequestform

G'day, g'day, g'day. Welcome to Pints with Aquinas. This is where we drink with Aquinas and chat about stuff that's really cool. Hi. Sorry about that. Look, today we're going to discuss five contributions that Thomas Aquinas made to metaphysics. So if you don't know much about Thomas Aquinas, today is a great day for you to jump in to the Aquinas world. And if you're quite familiar with Thomas Aquinas, this is going to be a fantastic recap. Again, we're going to talk about five contributions that he made to metaphysics. Oh, by the way, I need to tell you something really cool is coming this Friday. Hey, you, sorry I clapped in your ear, but are you listening? Good. This Friday at

8 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, I will be releasing the very next episode of The Matt Fradd Show. By the way, you can listen to The Matt Fradd Show. It's a podcast. Just type in The Matt Fradd Show on iTunes or wherever else you listen to your podcasts. You can check it out there. But this is a three-hour or almost three-hour discussion I had with recent convert Abigail Favale, Dr. Abigail Favale. We talk about how she used to be a feminist and everything to do with what people are discussing today regarding feminism and the patriarchy. We do talk about postmodernism. We talk about her very unlikely conversion. I'm super jazzed about this episode and it's going to premiere this coming Friday at 8 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. So there's a link right now at the top in the show notes. Click

that, join the wait list. You'll get a reminder and we can all watch it together. It's going to air at that time and we can all chat with each other as we watch this show. It's going to be super great. Okay. The Matt Fradd Show. And while you're there, subscribe to my YouTube channel and you'll get other videos that come out. Okay. Good. Glad. Glad you're here. All right, here's the show. G'day there. How's it going? Welcome back to Pints with Aquinas. Today, I want to share with you five contributions that Thomas Aquinas made to metaphysics. I think it's important to do these episodes where we take a step back and, you know, look at the broader picture. Often what we do is drill in on a particular question that Aquinas addresses,

a particular philosophical or theological issue. But today I thought, yeah, let's take a step back and let's kind of look at what he's offered us. Because I was just at Focus's SEEK conference and I met so many of you. I learned a lot about myself at the SEEK conference, by the way. There was about 19,000 people there, I think. And I burn out really quickly when it comes to like seeing people constantly, you know? So, what I would do is I wake up in the morning, I would Uber and get like really good coffee because I'm not like, you know, a barbarian who's going to drink the crappy hotel coffee. And then I would come back all caffeinated up and then I would stand at my booth and I would greet y'all for like three or four hours. Like,

so there would be lines, like three or four hours of people who were coming up and chatting with me. like three or four hours of people who were coming up and chatting with me. And by about the fourth hour, I was so tired that I just had to leave. So, I would Uber out of there. It was absolutely nuts, you know. And that's pretty much all I could take that day. And so, I would go and like sit in a dark corner in my hotel room and weep while drinking vodka. Not really. And that's what I did like for every day. And then Jason Everett, who's got his chastity project table. I don't think he left. You know, he just stood there all day, very calmly greeting everybody constantly. Whereas me being super dramatic could only take it for like three hours and then would have to run away. But what was so profound for me was hearing how much Pints with Aquinas

has blessed so many people. Like you have to understand like this, I don't hear that often. Like I sit here, I record in my little room. I don't, and I see the stats, you know, like I see when we get like thousands of downloads or 10,000, 15,000 downloads a day or whatever. And I think, oh, that's cool. But those are just numbers on a screen. So to hear your stories, I was so moved. Just to kind of give you a couple, I was speaking to a priest who got my book on Aquinas and he shared it with his atheist friend. And his atheist friend thought it was pretty good and started listening to Punctual Aquinas and had a radical conversion. That's what the priest tells me. All right, that's one story. Another story, and maybe you're listening to this, I did that episode a while back with Father Ryan

Mann on a well-ordered life. And we shared that beautiful prayer from Thomas Aquinas. Well, this young man who listened to the episode was so moved by it that he shared it with his family. And now his family pray it together every night. I met multiple people who said they are brand new Catholics and they think it's, you know, in large part due to Pines with Aquinas. I mean, it was amazing. Like, it was so absolutely incredible to hear all that. So many of y'all had told me that it got you through your philosophy kind of exams and things like that.

That's so great. And that's why I think these episodes are going to be really helpful. That said, I also want to share some like really some negative criticism I've been receiving over the past few weeks, because, you know, it's easy for me to sit here and tell you how great people told me I was. But it's also important that we, you know, be honest about, you know, the negative criticisms, you know. So, like, we have a Pints with Aquinas Facebook group. And there was a thread on there where people were talking about how I'm doing a really bad job at interviewing because I keep interrupting the people that I'm interviewing. People were saying things like, it's embarrassing listening to me, that I don't have a good personality to do this, and that they can't listen to me anymore and things like that. So it was really difficult to hear that. I'm not sure if you've ever been on the end of a bunch of

people criticizing you all at once, but it's not the nicest feeling in the world. But that said, I think it would have been easy for me to react negatively against that, but I sat back and I thought about it. And even though it wasn't comfortable to hear, I've decided that the people who are criticizing me are essentially right. When I go back and listen to the past several interviews that I've done, I'm like, oh my gosh, I interview, sorry, I interrupt people a lot. And it's really annoying. So if you listen to me and you're like, oh my gosh, this is embarrassing. Try being me. Okay. Like it's, yeah, it's been embarrassing. So, you know, it wasn't the coolest way maybe to find out that a bunch of people were thinking this. But now that I have found out, I just want you to know that I'm going to do my best to conduct interviews that are a lot less

annoying because I won't be interrupting. That's at least the hope. So please be patient with me as I learn how to do this. Believe it or not, it's not as easy as it seems. Maybe y'all could do a much better job of this than me. I'm sure you could, but I'm just doing the best that I can. And anyway, so thank you very much. And you know what was really cool is I admitted as much on Facebook. I'm like, I'm sorry. Like, I'm sorry, and I'm going to do better. And it was really cool to see one of the guys respond. He said this, and I won't say his name, obviously, because I don't want to rat him out. But this person said, Matt, as the person who made the specific, quote, embarrassing, unquote, remark, I want to apologize to out but this person said matt as the person who made the specific quote embarrassing unquote remark i want to apologize to you as i've said many times before tuesday

with pints the quinnest is always a highlight of my week you do a great job seriously i attempted to host a podcast on a very different topic last year and it failed miserably believe me i know how difficult it is to balance the flow of the conversation and allow guests to speak i meant no offense and he goes on but it was it was really nice that he did that. And this guy admitted that he expressed it in a less than charitable fashion. But whatever, right? Like, whatever. Charity, not charity aside, I think the point was made that I can definitely do a better job interviewing. And I've heard it. And I'm going to try my bloody darndest. All right? So buckle up. Next time you'll hear me,

you'll be like, oh, whoa, whoa. Is that Dave Rubin? But with an Australian accent. And I'll be like, no, it's Matt Fradd. I've just gotten really good at this. All right. Enough of that. Let's get into today's show. The first thing we'll look at is Thomas' existentialism. By that, I mean the idea that there is a real distinction between essence and existence in creatures, but not in God. All right, sound good? We've discussed this before in the past, but again, this is like a summary of some really important points that you need to know if you want to begin studying Aquinas. So let's begin by talking about essence. So when we talk about essence, we mean what a thing most truly is when you boil it down. So if I ask you, what is a triangle? You wouldn't, or you shouldn't

say that it's a wooden thing used to rack pool balls. Why? Well, because wooden and used to rack pool balls are not essential characteristics of triangularity. Instead, if I asked you what a triangle is, you should say a three-sided figure. Anything else you might add to that definition would be an accidental characteristic. Equilateral, isosceles, made of paper, carved into wood, etc. Now, Thomas is following Aristotle. Thomas taught that just as we can know the essence of a triangle, we can know at least partially the essence of many created things. So, we can say of man, for instance, that he is a rational animal because rationality and animality are characteristically and unfailing true of man.

But whenever you say things like this, somebody objects, you know, you might be thinking, aren't there some people who aren't rational? Well, yes, but it's important to realize that the fact that we recognize that state as lamentable or tragic confirms that rationality pertains to human nature and that the deprivation of it is a privation revealing what ought to be there. Now, to state the obvious, just because we can imagine and reason about certain beings, it doesn't therefore follow that they exist. If you've ever read Stephen King, you should be thanking God right now. Incidentally, I picked up a list of Stephen King short stories recently and had to put it down.

It was... He's a good writer, a very good writer, but he started to get a little pornographic and I thought I could be spending my time reading better things. So I did. Anyway, what's more, even when we are thinking about things we know exist, like this sunflower or that crocodile, we have to admit that they might not have existed, that their non-existence was a real possibility. After all, this sunflower, this particular sunflower might not have germinated and that crocodile's mother could have died before becoming pregnant, etc. So, Aquinas has a word for beings which do exist but don't have to, and that is, can you guess?

Contingent. So, when we say that something's contingent, we mean that the essence of the thing doesn't explain why it exists, right? That its essence is reliant or contingent upon something else. Because of this, we want to know why it exists, and if we're to get the answer to that question, we have to look elsewhere. So, to sum it up so far, in case some of this has gone by too quickly, number one, we can know what a thing is without knowing that a thing is. Number two, we can know of a thing that is, right, that actually exists, that it didn't need to exist. And number three, if a thing that didn't need to be is, then we must look elsewhere for why it is at all, why it exists. So, Aquinas has a distinction that accounts for the phenomenon of things existing that don't have to

He says that each created essence needs to be actualized or made to exist And this happens by the giving of being or the bestowing of an act of existence Now, don't get the idea that there's a bunch of not yet existing sunflowers and crocodiles floating somewhere out there waiting to be actualized. Rather, what Thomas means is that created things are composed of essence, which accounts for what they are, and existence, which accounts for that they are. Thomas also teaches that these two principles are distinct, not just logically, but in reality. So, all right, that's a big part of it, but that's not all. St. Thomas actually uses this distinction between essence and existence to derive one of his most interesting conclusions about God, and that is, buckle up, that God's essence is His existence, right? So, since no created essence is sufficient to give itself being, if it could, then everything

would just exist without an exterior cause. Since no created essence can give itself being, it must rely upon some prior cause to bring it from not existing to existing. So suppose you have a thing, C, which was brought into existence by B. Okay, well, either B has its existence from itself or from something else. Now, suppose the latter, right, that it has its existence from something else. Let's say B was caused by A. Thomas observes that this process can't go on to infinity, or else there would be no ultimate explanation, and therefore nothing to be explained, right?

There would literally be no beings. So in order to account for the fact that contingent beings exist, says Thomas, there must be some necessary thing, we could call it X, that does not need to be actualized, but just is its act of existence. And this, Thomas says, is what we call God. And so it's proper to God's very essence that he is, and there's no distinction between what he is and that he is. So, I hope that helps. That's Thomas's existentialism. All right, now let's talk a little bit about the second thing Thomas is...

And again, I'm not necessarily categorizing these as least important or most important or vice versa. I'm just sharing five contributions he made to metaphysics. Let's share another one, and that is his theory of analogy. So what does that mean? Well, we use words to signify what it is that we're thinking so that we can communicate to others the things that we're describing. But as we know, words don't always work the same way. Sometimes we use the same word to mean entirely different things. In fact, when you think about it, this is what most of our or a lot of our jokes are based on,

especially the simple ones. Here's an example. You can tell this to your kids or nephews or young children in your life. They might like it. What has four wheels and flies? Can you guess? What has four wheels and flies? Answer, a garbage truck. You're welcome. Here, it's so weird when you do philosophy because you have to speak like very specifically and all that would have to happen would be for me to change my tone of voice and this would be a comedy sketch, but we're not doing comedy, we're doing logic. So like here, we'd say flies, we're describing two different things that have no similarity to each other, right? Flies are named so because they fly. I get that. But still, a truck, having flies on it or in it or around it and being able to fly

clearly different things. So, what's this called? Well, this is called equivocation or equivocal speech. Now, sometimes we use the same word, right, to mean exactly the same thing, all right? So, in the first instance, equivocation, we're using language to mean totally different things, but sometimes we can use words to mean precisely the same thing. So, for instance, if I say Plato is a man and Aristotle is a man, here, man describes the same essence which both men share. So, the first way of talking when you talk about things that are completely different but use the same language is equivocation. But what we're doing now when language expresses the same essence is univocation or univocal speech. So, sometimes when we use the same word to mean somewhat similar and somewhat distinct things.

So this is the next part. So we have equivocation, univocation, but then sometimes we use language and it's kind of like partly similar, partly the same. So if I say this man is healthy and I say this diet is healthy, I'm using like health is said in reference to a healthy body. So to say the man is healthy means that he enjoys health. To say that a diet is healthy isn't to say that it has a healthy body, but that it helps a person in the maintenance of a healthy body. So in other words, it causes a healthy body. When we use words in this final way, we're speaking analogically. So that was a lot, but I've just really said three things. We use terms to convey concepts and we can use terms equivocally, univocally,

or analogically. The words, when we speak analogically, reference things that are partly alike and partly diverse, but somehow related. Now, when St. Thomas reads scripture, he notices the same words being used of God and man. So, for instance, we say that God is wise and that Solomon is wise. We say God is good and that David is good. When we use words in this way, here's the question, do we mean them equivocally, univocally, or analogically? Well, in some cases, we're actually just speaking metaphorically. Like when we say that God is a rock, we don't actually mean that, that he's made of granite or something. We mean that he's strong. So, we have to be careful and recognize that scripture speaks in a variety of ways.

Names given to God that necessarily have some kind of imperfection, like rock, are said of him only figuratively. But there are some names attributed to God which don't have these limitations, knowledge, will, wisdom, justice, love, mercy, etc. In these cases, our knowledge of those attributes in the world serves as a kind of starting point for saying them of God. Since God's the cause of goodness in things, we know that he's good. Now, mind you, he doesn't have any of the limitations of the created goodness that we encounter. He far exceeds it in a way beyond our imagining, but there is a real sense in which the goodness of creation says something about the goodness of God. Likewise, the wisdom of the saints is caused by a wise God. Mind you, he doesn't have any of the

limitations that created wisdom that we encounter in the world. He far exceeds it in a way, again, that's beyond our imagining. But again, there is still a real sense in which the wisdom of creatures says something about the wise God. So according to Thomas, to sum this all up, we can speak about God analogously of God and creatures. God is wise. We are wise. We encounter goodness, we encounter wisdom, we encounter purity, and it points to the all good God who is the bestower of all good things. And so for that reason, we speak analogously of God and creatures and our speech is true. So that might seem rather convoluted, but think about it this way. Let's look at those three things again, equivocation, unification, and analogy, right? If when we say God is good,

we were speaking equivocally, we would have no idea what we're talking about. We might as well say God is flip, flip, blip, blip, blip, and just bubble our lips. Because the only thing we know of goodness is what we encounter in creatures, you see? Now, if it was univocal, then God would just kind of like be a bigger version of us. Like, God is good like I am good. It's like, no, no, no, no, definitely not. Like, God is the source of all perfections and infinite in being. So, we can speak about God analogically. Okay, let's look at another contribution that Aquinas made to metaphysics, and namely, that is the harmony of faith and reason. I've shared this story before. Several years back, I served as a missionary with a group in Ireland called Net Ministries, N-E-T Ministries. If you're a young

adult, if you're single beneath the age of 30, and you want to travel Australia or Ireland or Canada or America, look up Net Ministries in those countries and you could spend a whole year traveling around, running retreats. It was amazing. That's how I met my wife. Anyway, after a particular retreat in Donegal, we had a young, let me try it again. We had a run-in with a young man. We'll call him John. I forget his name. And he said to my friend of me, he said, that was a fun retreat, but I don't actually believe in God. My friend Charity, who was with me said, well, why? He said, I don't believe in absolute truth. Now, this is a true story. It sounds like sensational or like I'm being dramatic, but as far as my memory is accurate, this is what happened. So he says, I don't believe in God. We say, why? He says, I don't believe in absolute truth. My

friend Charity looks at him and says, are you absolutely sure about that? And I watched him nearly fall over. Like physically he fell back. It reminded me of that, you know, when the guards come to Jesus and Jesus shows himself and it says the guards fell to the ground. It was kind of like that. Like he fell back. It's like his brain kind of went on fire and he realized that he was, you know, saying something that was self-refuting. Now, interestingly enough, while John was expressing a view that we commonly call relativism today, there's different types of relativism, right? The things they all have in common, though, is the basic idea that certain truths depend upon the person making them and the time and the place that they're made, right?

And this is very, very prevalent today. But back in the 13th century when Thomas lived, relativism hadn't quite caught on like it has today. But there was some confusion as to what to do with conflicting claims of faith and science. For instance, certain people such as C.J. of Brabant, I'm pretty sure that's how you pronounce it. He was a contemporary of Thomas Aquinas. He held to what has been called the double truth theory. What's that? he held to what has been called the double truth theory. What's that? It espouses that what's true in philosophy may be false in theology and vice versa. Rabban agreed that the Bible taught that

the universe had a beginning, but, and check this out, he also agreed with Aristotle's argument that the universe didn't have a beginning. So, instead of rejecting the claim of either, he actually accepted both. Let that sink in for a moment. But for Thomas, reasoning of this sort was cray-cray, to use the common phrase, right? I think that's the correct theological term. Thomas knew that truth is, here's a good way of thinking of truth, the agreement or conformity of reality and the mind's judgment of reality. All right. The agreement or conformity of reality and the mind's judgment of reality. The equation of thought and thing is a way that Aquinas essentially put it. The equation of thought and thing. Thomas showed that things in the world take up a kind of existence in our

minds through concepts. And these concepts are true to the extent that they actually reflect what exists out there. So if you see me and you think that I am someone I'm not, then you're false. I mean, you have this perception, but your judgment about that perception is false. Now, truths discoverable by reason and truths discoverable by divine revelation are both describing reality. Both, if they're to be truly true, must reflect what actually is, right? So, what exists in the world. And so, it follows that no truth can ever conflict with another truth. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches what Aquinas argued for this point very brilliantly. Here it is here, paragraph 159. Again, if you don't have a copy of the Catechism, you should go out and buy one. Here's what it

says. Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason, since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind. God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth. All right, pretty beautiful there. So because of this, when Thomas discovered an apparent conflict between faith and reason, he realized that it was just that. It was apparent. And so when he would encounter this, he worked to resolve what must either be an error in apprehension, judgment, or reasoning. The Catechism continues here in 159, Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner

and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are, end quote. All right, so this basically just argues for what Aquinas argued for. So, because Thomas, this is actually freeing, right? This is a freeing thing. Because Thomas knew that philosophy is actually freeing, right? This is a freeing thing because Thomas knew that philosophy could come to know things which divine revelation also reveals, like the existence of God. It enabled him to deal with pagan authors like Plato, Aristotle, Cicero. If, as Thomas believed, these men were

sincere in their pursuit of the truth, then their insight could be brought into dialogue with the And this is true today too. I notice this hesitation to listen to particular popular teachers. listen to particular popular teachers. Not just because they're saying things that are false, but because they might not be a full-blown Christian. But again, if reason can come to know things that faith also affirms, then we shouldn't be afraid of this, right? There really is a harmony between faith and reason. right there really is a harmony between faith and reason the fourth contribution i would say that aquinas uh made to metaphysics and i've spoken about this at length but i want to go over it again for those of you who are new to this is the i the idea that god's existence can be proved now actually aqu actually, Aquinas comes up with multiple,

I think, well, over a dozen, actually, if I'm not mistaken, arguments for God's existence in all of his writings. In a Summa Theologiae, that's where he has his five proofs of the existence of God. And he says that God's existence is demonstrable through philosophical reasoning, and that actually, strictly speaking, it's not an article of faith to believe that God exists, because you don't need faith to know something you can know through reason alone. And Aquinas says you can know that God exists through reason alone, as does the church. Now, just to clarify, he goes on to say that some people can't figure this out, you know, and therefore

there's nothing wrong with believing in God in faith, but strictly speaking, it's not an article of faith. So, he's certainly not the first Christian to think this. Prior to Thomas, the most famous argument for God's existence in the Christian tradition came from the 11th century theologian Anselm of Canterbury. Anselm argued that God is that than which nothing greater can be thought, a definition he said that even unbelievers accept. But, said Anselm, if the greatest possible being exists in the mind as a concept, which everyone agrees, it must also exist in reality. Well, why? Why would he say that? Because if it existed only in the mind, then an even greater being must be possible, one which exists both in the mind and in reality. Therefore, he said this greatest

possible being must exist in reality. It sounds pretty convincing, I think, when you first hear this. I think when people first hear the ontological argument, they're not sure if it's a trick or a joke, or they might be very much moved by it. Different versions of the ontological argument have kind of been bandied about throughout history. And some people still think that it works. But what's really interesting is that Aquinas rejects the argument. Now, I've said this before, but I do think that this is an important point because sometimes you'll find online people saying that Aquinas was under the thumb of the church and therefore ought not to be taken seriously as a philosopher. But here, which is the genetic

fallacy, by the way, so it's just a stupid reason to reject somebody and their arguments. But here, which is the genetic fallacy, by the way, so it's just a stupid reason to reject somebody and their arguments. But here you have Aquinas rejecting the most popular argument in the Christian tradition. Here is what Aquinas says in response to the ontological argument. Okay, this is from the Summa. He says, perhaps not everyone who hears this word God understands it to signify something than which nothing greater can be thought, seeing that some have believed God to be a body. Yet, granted that everyone understands that by this word God is signified something than which nothing greater can be thought. Nevertheless, it does not therefore follow that he understands that what the word signifies exists actually, So, we won't kind of go into that. be thought. And this precisely is not admitted by those who hold that God does not exist, end quote.

So, we won't kind of break that open, but the question I want to ask now is, okay, well, how is Thomas' approach different to Anselm's then? And the difference is that Thomas begins with the recognition that God cannot be immediately perceived in our experience. That might be shocking to some of you, but that is what he taught. Rather, God, well, I mean, why? Why did he think that? Because he's immaterial. God is invisible. You can't experience him through the senses. But St. Thomas thinks we can observe God through the things he's made. So the difference between Aquinas and the ontological argument is that in each of the five ways, Thomas begins with an observation about reality, something that we can see that's evident. Not just see, but notice, recognize something that's evident to our senses.

And from that point, he takes stock of the causes which have to be in place to account for the ordered reality at hand. So, in the first way, he begins with motion. In the second way, with efficient causality. In the third way, with contingency or the fact that some things might not have existed and can pass from existence. In the fourth way, with the fact that goodness and beauty comes in a variety of forms. And in the fifth way, with the fact that things act for an end. And from these initial, hopefully undisputed observations, initial observations, Thomas works through intermediate steps and arrives at an ultimate causal and explanatory principle, which we call God. So let's just take one example. All right. In the first way,

Thomas observes that things are in motion. Now by motion, and again, we've done a number of episodes on this. If you support Pints with Aquinas on Patreon for 10 bucks or more a month, I've sent you the book that I've written on this issue with Robert Delfino. If you haven't yet and you want to support me on Patreon, feel free to do that and I will send you the book. I will sign it for you. Your life will be a hundred times better. But anyway, so I know I've mentioned this a number of times, so forgive me if you've heard it before, but when Aquinas is talking about motion, he just means change of any kind, right? So, in each of these instances, the thing under consideration doesn't just spontaneously change. You can't give what you don't have,

right? So, rather, the changed thing relies upon something else to bring it from what it could be relies upon something else to bring it from what it could be to what it is. Now, if this something else, the changer, let's say, is also changing, if it's in motion, then we have to account for how this prior change came to be. As you can tell, we can keep backing up the train or going up the chain, if you want to use that analogy. But eventually, in order for any movement to happen at all, we have to arrive at some first and unmoved mover. And this is what St. Thomas says, this is what he says we mean by God. So, in each case, Thomas begins with an observation of how reality is, and then he illustrates how we need some ultimate mover, cause, necessary being, utmost or orderer to account for the way things are. It's common for folks to read the five ways

and find them unconvincing, but that's because they're not merely proofs. They're also ways of considering reality, ways which may force us to correct some faulty presuppositions, or at the very least, to gaze more intently at being. All right, so let's look at the fifth way. And here we're going to be talking about, this is a big topic, and I just want to cover it briefly. And it has to do with Thomas's solution to the problem of universals, right? So this is the final point we're going to bring up. So you might be able to tell that I have a lot of notes in front of me. Usually I just kind of wing it, but I was afraid that if I winged it, it would be incomprehensible.

So I'm looking down at my feet right now. Okay, my socks are brown. Okay, good. My coat that I'm going to put on in a minute before I drive over to get some work done somewhere else, that's also brown. My bag is brown. All of a sudden I'm sounding like Dr. Seuss. Mr. Brown is upside down. Okay. Only dad's got that one. Okay. So, brown socks, brown coat, brown bag. Here's the question.

Does brown as a property exist? I don't just mean as a property of my socks, coat, or bag. I mean, does brown exist apart from these particulars that instantiate it? Now, if not, why do I say this and this and this are brown if brownness isn't actually a thing? We'll take another example. My parents own a dog. It's a fox terrier. I'm not sure if you know what that looks like or not. I own a dog, but it is a black Russian terrier. These are very different looking things. Mine is awesome and my parents' is crap to start with. It kind of looks like a rat, honestly. Kind of looks like a rat, honestly. But joking aside, I still call them both dogs. Okay. So, my parents have a dog. I have a dog. You might have a dog. They all share this thing we call dogness. But does dog exist apart from these particulars that instantiate it? And again, if not, what the heck do we mean when we say that,

you know, this thing is a dog if dog doesn't exist? Okay, look, let's pause here. Even if this doesn't bother you or you don't see why it's a big deal, are you at least beginning to see why philosophers throughout the ages did? Like, what are we referring to when we say that Matt is human if human doesn't exist? The framing of this problem goes back to Porphyry, who lived in the third century, who wrote a commentary on Aristotle's categories. Porphyry frames the problem of universals by asking the following questions. So, three points. One, do genus and species exist in reality or in thought alone? Do genus and species, such as animal and human, exist in reality or in thought alone? Secondly, if in reality, well, then are they corporal or are they incorporal? And if in reality, do they have

separate existence from particular things? Okay, so in response to this problem, there are two solutions at either end of the spectrum. On one end, you've got what's called extreme realism, which is the view that universals like dogness and humanness and brownness exist in themselves and apart from the world. This was Plato's view, right? He thought that for each kind, there was one truest expression, that is the form, which existed apart from matter in the realm of the heavenly forms, okay? And so, for Plato, in the realm of the heavenly forms. And so, for Plato, everything in this world only shares partially, not particularly, everything shares partially, or I guess we could say particularly, in those immaterial forms. So, when asked, how do we recognize both the fox terriers and the

black Russian terriers as dogs, Plato responds that both participate or share in the eternal form of dogness, which is a form laid up in the realm of the forms beyond the reach of our experience. My dog clearly participating more perfectly in dogness than my parents' rat thing. Seriously, though, if you don't know what a black Russian terrier is, you should type it into Google and see what I mean. When I got this dog, I shared a photo of it with Jason Everett, who I know many of you are familiar with, at least his work. And he texted me back and said, it looks like an orc should be riding him, which I thought was really funny. Okay. Now let's get back to this ADD. So that was one end of the spectrum. You've got Plato's extreme realism. Now, on the other end of the spectrum, you've got what's called nominalism. You've probably heard of this, nominalism, which is taken from the Latin word for name.

This is a position we associate with the 14th century Franciscan named William of Ockham. In short, Ockham held that the only thing that really connects the brown bags and brown anything else is the word brown. And that the only thing that really connects my dog with my folks is the word, it's just the name, dog, right? That's why it's called nominalism. So in truth, Occam, the bastard, would say they don't actually share any real commonalities. Sorry, I'm not a big fan of Occam. But as a matter of convention, we end up referring to them both by the same generic name to organize our speech. So for Occam, universals simply don't exist. Okay, very briefly, what's the problem with these two solutions? Well, let's look at

exaggerated realism. So, exaggerated realism is tough to defend because we never actually encounter in life actually existing things that are universal, right? Or that are non-particular. And nominalism makes, if you think of like, honestly, think about this. If nominalism is true, it makes science as the study of the world impossible because universals are just thoughts in the mind, right? And so science, which studies universals, studies only thoughts. See how this might lead to Descartes and Hume, all right? Okay, so what's the Thomistic position and why is it better? Thomas taught that universals do exist,

but that they exist principally in the things themselves. So, a form is simply what makes a thing to be what it is. To speak in somewhat overly simplistic terms, you could say the form gives shape to the thing. So, a dog is composed of dog form and matter with the dog form making it to be a dog and arranging and animating the dog matter accordingly. Now, in a secondary sense, these forms can take up a kind of existence in our minds. So, when we apprehend a dog, the form that exists in the dog acts upon us to generate in our minds an intentional or conceptual form of dog. So, it's not like our mind becomes a dog, but rather that it acquires the concept of what it is to be a dog, which now serves as the lens whereby it judges all of its future encounters with dogs. So, against Plato, Thomas insists that the

universals are first in the real things. And against Occam, the bastard, the universal in our minds, the universals, right, in our minds have a real connection with what exists out there. And because of this, our speech reflects what is actually true of reality and not just a naming connection or a nominal connection. So I hope that has been somewhat of a help. We've looked at Thomas's existentialism, the idea that there is a real difference between essence and existence in creatures, but not in God. We've looked at Thomas' theory of analogy, that we can speak meaningfully of God, but that we do so analogously. We have looked at the harmony that exists or ought to exist between faith and reason. We've looked at Thomas' five ways for proving God's existence. And then finally, Aquinas' solution to the problem of universals. So, I hope that's

been helpful because again, when people say like, what's so great about Aquinas? Like, what did he do? Like, here would just be kind of five contributions that he's made to metaphysics. Now, if you want to delve deeper into these, obviously, we've done podcasts on these in the past, for the most part. So, if you go to pintswithaquinas.com and in the search bar, type in one of these things, like type in essence and existence, type in Thomas's five ways or existence of God or analogy or something like that, and you're bound to come up with a full-length episode that we've done that will take you deeper into these issues. Okay? So, I hope that's a real help.

I want to say a big thanks to all of you who have listened, who support the show, who give me feedback, even critical feedback. None of us are perfect. I sure as heck am not, and I don't want my junk to get in the way of communicating what I think I ought to communicate. So thank you for that. Please review the show on iTunes. If you haven't already, please support me by going to pintswithaquinas.com and clicking donate if you like the show and you really want to see it grow. Subscribe to The Matt Fradd Show if you haven't done that. The Matt Fradd Show. So wherever you listen to your podcasts, go and subscribe to The Matt Fradd Show. And then finally, what else do I have to make you do? Oh, well, yeah. As I mentioned at the beginning of the show, I've got

this really great episode of The Matt Fradd Show releasing this Friday at 8 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. And we discussed post-modernism, feminism, the patriarchy, how Abigail unexpectedly converted to the Catholic faith. It was a fascinating discussion. It really, really, really, really was. I mean, I just had such a great time. And I think you're going to learn a lot from it. And especially if you're in university or if you know somebody who's in university,

like watch this episode or have a university you shouldn't watch this episode um especially if your kids are getting ready to go to university it's just really great i think you'll like it so as i said there's gonna be a link at the top there click that join the wait list and i can't wait to watch it with you as it premieres on youtube on friday okay good i think'll do. I hope you have a great bloody day. Bye. Thank you.