The Tension Between Aquinas and His Misaligned Philosophers

The philosophical landscape is a dynamic and often contentious arena where ideas clash, synthesize, evolve, and sometimes dissolve. At the center of many of these intellectual battles stands Thomas Aquinas, a towering figure in medieval philosophy whose synthesis of Aristotelian thought and Christian theology has left an indelible mark on Western thought. Yet, despite his significant contributions, Aquinas’s positions have been a source of profound tension with many philosophers who fundamentally disagree with his views. This essay explores the rich and often colorful intellectual tensions between Aquinas and his philosophical adversaries.

Faith and Reason

Thomas Aquinas ardently believed in the harmonious relationship between faith and reason. He posited that both could coexist and complement each other, with reason serving as a tool to understand and elaborate on the truths revealed by faith. This stance, however, has been met with staunch opposition from several influential philosophers.

David Hume, for instance, vehemently argued that faith is inherently irrational. For Hume, religious beliefs lacked empirical evidence and were products of human imagination rather than logical reasoning. Immanuel Kant further complicated the discourse by asserting that faith and reason occupy fundamentally separate domains. Kant’s critical philosophy suggested that faith deals with the noumenal—the realm of things as they are in themselves, beyond human perception—and is thus beyond the reach of human reason, which is confined to the phenomenal world—the realm of things as they appear to us.

Friedrich Nietzsche took a more confrontational stance, criticizing faith as a form of weakness and a denial of life’s realities. He rejected Aquinas’s integration of faith and reason, seeing it as a perpetuation of what he called “slave morality,” which, according to Nietzsche, suppresses the will to power and individual greatness. The existentialist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre dismissed religious faith as existentially meaningless, advocating for a human-centered philosophy that emphasized freedom and atheism. Sartre’s focus on individual existence and freedom starkly contrasted with Aquinas’s view of a divinely ordered universe where human reason aligns with divine wisdom.

Bertrand Russell, a champion of logical analysis and empiricism, critiqued religious faith as unscientific and irrational. For Russell, reason and empirical evidence were the only legitimate tools for acquiring knowledge, making Aquinas’s reliance on faith appear untenable. Similarly, Karl Marx rejected religious faith, focusing on materialist and historical explanations for human belief, which he saw as an ideological construct used to perpetuate social inequality. Ludwig Wittgenstein argued that religious faith is often nonsensical and lacks empirical verifiability, while J.L. Mackie critiqued it as logically incoherent and unsupported by evidence. Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, from their perspectives in evolutionary biology and cognitive science, respectively, dismissed religious faith as a natural phenomenon explainable by science, rejecting theological explanations.

These intellectual battles highlight the fundamental discord between Aquinas’s vision of a harmonious interplay between faith and reason and his critics’ emphasis on empirical evidence, logical coherence, and existential freedom.

Virtue Ethics

Aquinas’s virtue ethics, deeply influenced by Aristotle, emphasize the development of good character traits (virtues) as central to ethical life. This approach has faced considerable opposition from philosophers who advocate alternative ethical frameworks.

Thomas Hobbes prioritized self-preservation and social contracts over the cultivation of virtues. For Hobbes, ethics was about managing human self-interest through social contracts, not developing intrinsic moral qualities. David Hume critiqued virtue ethics as lacking an empirical basis, favoring a sentimentalist approach to morality where moral judgments are based on human feelings and experiences rather than on fixed virtues. Utilitarian philosophers like Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill dismissed virtue ethics in favor of consequentialist theories that focus on the outcomes of actions. For them, the ethical value of an action is determined by its ability to produce the greatest happiness, not by the character of the person performing the action.

Friedrich Nietzsche’s disdain for virtue ethics was rooted in his belief that it promoted herd morality. Nietzsche valued the cultivation of individual greatness and the will to power over the development of traditional virtues. Karl Marx’s materialist philosophy rejected virtue ethics, viewing moral behaviors as products of economic and social conditions rather than inherent qualities to be cultivated. Jean-Paul Sartre’s existentialism dismissed virtue ethics as promoting inauthenticity. For Sartre, ethical living was about individual freedom and authenticity, not adherence to predefined virtues. J.L. Mackie critiqued virtue ethics for lacking logical coherence, arguing that moral properties are not objectively real and that ethical statements are inherently subjective. Richard Dawkins and A.J. Ayer, from their respective perspectives of evolutionary biology and logical positivism, rejected virtue ethics as lacking empirical support and logical meaning, respectively.

These critiques expose the deep-seated disagreements between Aquinas’s character-centered ethical framework and various other moral philosophies that prioritize empirical evidence, consequential outcomes, individual freedom, and material conditions.

Thomistic Metaphysics

Aquinas’s metaphysical system, known as Thomism, integrates Aristotelian philosophy with Christian theology, addressing fundamental questions about being, substance, and causality. This metaphysical framework has been a point of contention with many philosophers.

David Hume’s empirical skepticism led him to criticize metaphysical speculations as lacking empirical evidence. Hume’s insistence on observation and experience as the basis for knowledge directly opposed Aquinas’s metaphysical assertions. Immanuel Kant argued that metaphysical claims are beyond the bounds of human reason and experience. Kant’s critical philosophy sought to delineate the limits of human knowledge, placing metaphysical assertions outside those limits.

Friedrich Nietzsche rejected metaphysical systems as life-denying, advocating for a philosophy grounded in the realities of human existence and the will to power. Jean-Paul Sartre’s existentialism dismissed metaphysical systems as irrelevant to the human experience. Sartre emphasized human freedom and responsibility over abstract metaphysical concepts. Bertrand Russell critiqued metaphysical claims as logically flawed and unsupported by empirical evidence. Russell’s focus on logical analysis and scientific inquiry left little room for metaphysical speculation.

Karl Marx’s materialism rejected metaphysical explanations in favor of economic and social analyses. For Marx, metaphysical systems were ideological constructs that masked material realities. Ludwig Wittgenstein’s later philosophy critiqued the meaningfulness of metaphysical language, suggesting that many metaphysical statements are nonsensical. J.L. Mackie argued that metaphysical claims are not supported by sufficient evidence, critiquing their logical structure and empirical basis. Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, from their perspectives in evolutionary biology and cognitive science, rejected metaphysical claims as unsupported by empirical evidence and explained them as natural phenomena rather than theological truths.

These conflicts underscore the profound philosophical rift between Aquinas’s metaphysical system and various modern and contemporary critiques that prioritize empirical evidence, logical coherence, and materialist explanations.

Conclusion

The tensions between Thomas Aquinas and his philosophical adversaries reveal the rich tapestry of intellectual debate that has shaped Western thought. Aquinas’s integration of faith and reason, his virtue ethics, and his Thomistic metaphysics stand in stark contrast to the empirical skepticism, existential freedom, logical analysis, and materialist explanations championed by his critics. These enduring debates highlight the dynamic and evolving nature of philosophy, where ideas continually clash, challenge, and refine each other in the pursuit of truth and understanding.