SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Ilahiyat Studies / 2013 / Cilt: 4 - Sayı: 2

Avicenna and Thomas Aquinas on the Possibility of Talking about God

Mehmet Ata AZ
Pages
149–181
Publication Date
2014-06-12
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

While the study presents an analysis of the views of Avicenna and Aquinas on talking about God, examining the differences and similarities between them, it will not give a detailed account of their dispute on the distinction between essence and existence in God.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The most important claim of the thesis of the divine simplicity is that the daily expressions of language, which are constructed in reference to the material and composite beings, are not deep enough in the meaning, to the degree that one may not directly use them when talking about God.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This claim, which is about the meaning mode of references to God and the insufficiency of the form of reference, has brought about the problem of what sort of language must be used when talking about God.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:While the study presents an analysis of the views of Avicenna and Aquinas on talking about God, examining the differences and similarities between them, it will not give a detailed account of their dispute on the distinction between essence and existence in God.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Aquinas · Avicenna / Ibn Sīnā · God

Abstract

The most important claim of the thesis of the divine simplicity is that the daily expressions of language, which are constructed in reference to the material and composite beings, are not deep enough in the meaning, to the degree that one may not directly use them when talking about God. This claim, which is about the meaning mode of references to God and the insufficiency of the form of reference, has brought about the problem of what sort of language must be used when talking about God. This study addresses the question of what kind and to what degree the resemblance of the caused beings to the final cause (God) – a resemblance that they possess in their natures – allows human beings to talk about the final cause. While the study presents an analysis of the views of Avicenna and Aquinas on talking about God, examining the differences and similarities between them, it will not give a detailed account of their dispute on the distinction between essence and existence in God.

Özet

The most important claim of the thesis of the divine simplicity is that the daily expressions of language, which are constructed in reference to the material and composite beings, are not deep enough in the meaning, to the degree that one may not directly use them when talking about God. This claim, which is about the meaning mode of references to God and the insufficiency of the form of reference, has brought about the problem of what sort of language must be used when talking about God. This study addresses the question of what kind and to what degree the resemblance of the caused beings to the final cause (God) – a resemblance that they possess in their natures – allows human beings to talk about the final cause. While the study presents an analysis of the views of Avicenna and Aquinas on talking about God, examining the differences and similarities between them, it will not give a detailed account of their dispute on the distinction between essence and existence in God.

🔖

Cite This Article

AZ, M. A. (2014). Avicenna and Thomas Aquinas on the Possibility of Talking about God. Ilahiyat Studies, Cilt: 4 - Sayı: 2, 149–181. https://ajindex.com/articles/852435

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Acar, Rahim, Creation: A Comparative Study Between Avicenna’s and Aquinas’ Positions (PhD dissertation; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 2002).
  2. Aquinas, Thomas, Commentary on the Metaphysics of Aristotle, 2 vols., (translated into English by John P. Rowan; Chicago, IL: Henry Regnery Company, 1961).
  3. Aquinas, Thomas, Compendium Theologiae ad fratrem Reginaldum socium suum carissimum, in Opuscula theologica, vol. I: De re dogmatica et morali (CT I) (ed. Raimundo A. Verardo; Turin, Rome: Marietti, 1954).
  4. Aquinas, Thomas, De Principiis Naturae (introduction and critical text by John J. Pauson; Fribourg: Société Philosophique & Leuven: E. Nauwelaerts, 1950).
  5. Aquinas, Thomas, Divi Thomae Aquinatis Summa Theologica I (ST I), 6 vols., (Rome: Ex Typographia Senatus, 1886-1887).
  6. Aquinas, Thomas, Expositio super Librum Boethii de Trinitate (ed. Bruno Decker; Leiden: Brill, 1955)
  7. Aquinas, Thomas, Le “De ente et Essentia” de S. Thomas d’Aquin (ed. Marie-Dominique Roland-Gosselin; Paris: Librairie Philosophique J. Vrin, 1948).
  8. Aquinas, Thomas, Quaestiones Disputatae De Potentia (DP) in Quaestiones Disputatae (8th rev. edn., vol.II: ed. P. Bazzi et al.; Turin & Rome: Mariette, 1949).
  9. Aquinas, Thomas, Quaestiones Disputatae De Veritate (DV) in Quaestiones Disputatae (8th rev. edn., vol. I: ed. Raymundi Spiazzi; Turin & Rome: Mariette, 1949).
  10. Aquinas, Thomas, Scriptum super libros Sententiarum Magistri Petri Lombardi episcopi Parisiensis (Sententiae I) (vol. I-II: ed. R. P. Mandonnet; Paris: P. Lethielleux, 1929; vol. III-IV: ed. Maria Fabianus Moos; Paris: P. Lethielleux, 1933, 1947).
  11. Aquinas, Thomas, Summa Contra Gentiles (SCG), (as the vols. XIII-XV of the series of “Sancti Thomae Aquinatis Doctoris Angelici opera omnia iussu impensaque Leonis XIII P.M. edita”; Rome: Typis Riccardi Garroni, 1918-1930).
  12. Aquinas, Thomas, In librum beati Dionysii De divinis nominibus expositio (ed. Ceslai Pera; Turin & Rome: Marietti, 1950).
  13. Aristotle, Categoriae (=Categories) (translated into English by E. M. Edghill), in Richard McKeon (ed.), The Basic Works of Aristotle (New York, NY: Random House, 1941), 7-37.
  14. Aristotle, De Anima (translated into English by J. A. Smith), in Richard McKeon (ed.), The Basic Works of Aristotle (New York, NY: Random House, 1941), I, 533-603.
  15. Aristotle, Metaphysics (translated into English by Richard Hope; Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press, 1960). ʿĀṣī, Ḥasan, al-Tafsīr al-Qurʾānī wa-l-lugha al-ṣūfiyya fī falsafat Ibn Sīnā (Beirut: al-Muʾa