Evil in Dionysius the Areopagite, Alexander of Hales and Thomas Aquinas

T. Aquinas
{"title":"Evil in Dionysius the Areopagite, Alexander of Hales and Thomas Aquinas","authors":"T. Aquinas","doi":"10.1515/9783110685022-006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":": This paper examines Alexander of Hales ’ use and reconciliation of appa-rently dissonant quotations from Dionysius on two related questions, the knowability of God and the origin of evil. Noting that Alexander, as a junior colleague of Robert Grosseteste, was one of the first to make extensive use of Dionysius, it shows that he normally cites him in conjunction with Augustine and other Latin writers rather than according an independent authority to him. It is also argued that, although Alexander in some respects anticipates the conclusions of Aquinas, which are also reinforced by appeals to Dionysius, he is more inclined to admit the substantiality of evil. Theology is distinguished from philosophy, not only by its loftier subject-matter, but by its principled subordination of reason to tradition in the investigation of that sub-ject-matter. No professing Christian before the 18 th century called the inerrancy of the Scriptures into question, and any church that purported to be catholic held fast to the decrees of at least four oecumenical councils, while according presumptive authority also to certain individuals whom it esteemed as fathers, doctors or apologists for the true faith. For the scholastics Augustine was the cynosure of a Latin constel-lation whose lesser stars were Hilary, Ambrose, Jerome, Gregory the Great, Isidore of Seville and (by about 1200) as recent a saint as Anselm; they too, if less often quoted, were not to be contradicted, and the same was true of the easterners John Chrysos-tom and John Damascene, who were now and then co-opted (through Latin versions) to give the stamp of universality to the same truths.We should not infer that all orig-inality was precluded: authority might determine what the church was to believe, but not what means of proving it might be employed by a given exponent, while there were numerous corollaries and implications of these normative tenets on which it was possible for good Christians to differ. To be original meant not so much to estab-lish new beliefs as to show,","PeriodicalId":153743,"journal":{"name":"The Summa Halensis","volume":"33 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Summa Halensis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110685022-006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

: This paper examines Alexander of Hales ’ use and reconciliation of appa-rently dissonant quotations from Dionysius on two related questions, the knowability of God and the origin of evil. Noting that Alexander, as a junior colleague of Robert Grosseteste, was one of the first to make extensive use of Dionysius, it shows that he normally cites him in conjunction with Augustine and other Latin writers rather than according an independent authority to him. It is also argued that, although Alexander in some respects anticipates the conclusions of Aquinas, which are also reinforced by appeals to Dionysius, he is more inclined to admit the substantiality of evil. Theology is distinguished from philosophy, not only by its loftier subject-matter, but by its principled subordination of reason to tradition in the investigation of that sub-ject-matter. No professing Christian before the 18 th century called the inerrancy of the Scriptures into question, and any church that purported to be catholic held fast to the decrees of at least four oecumenical councils, while according presumptive authority also to certain individuals whom it esteemed as fathers, doctors or apologists for the true faith. For the scholastics Augustine was the cynosure of a Latin constel-lation whose lesser stars were Hilary, Ambrose, Jerome, Gregory the Great, Isidore of Seville and (by about 1200) as recent a saint as Anselm; they too, if less often quoted, were not to be contradicted, and the same was true of the easterners John Chrysos-tom and John Damascene, who were now and then co-opted (through Latin versions) to give the stamp of universality to the same truths.We should not infer that all orig-inality was precluded: authority might determine what the church was to believe, but not what means of proving it might be employed by a given exponent, while there were numerous corollaries and implications of these normative tenets on which it was possible for good Christians to differ. To be original meant not so much to estab-lish new beliefs as to show,
恶在狄奥尼修斯、黑尔斯的亚历山大和托马斯·阿奎那
本文考察了亚历山大·黑尔斯在两个相关问题上对狄奥尼修斯明显不协调的语录的使用和调和,即上帝的可认知性和恶的起源。注意到亚历山大,作为罗伯特·格罗斯泰斯的年轻同事,是第一个广泛使用狄奥尼修斯的人之一,这表明他通常将狄奥尼修斯与奥古斯丁和其他拉丁作家联系在一起,而不是根据他的独立权威。也有人认为,虽然亚历山大在某些方面预见到阿奎那的结论,这也被呼吁狄奥尼修斯加强,他更倾向于承认邪恶的实体性。神学与哲学的区别,不仅在于其崇高的主题,而且在于其在研究这一主题时,理性从属于传统的原则。在18世纪之前,没有一个自称是基督徒的人质疑《圣经》的无误性,任何自称是天主教的教会都坚持至少四个大公会议的法令,同时也根据某些被认为是真正信仰的父亲、医生或辩护者的个人的推定权威。对于经院学者来说,奥古斯丁是一个拉丁星座的天神,他的小明星是希拉里,安布罗斯,杰罗姆,格雷戈里大帝,塞维利亚的伊西多尔,以及(大约1200年)最近的圣徒安塞尔姆;他们的观点虽然不常被引用,但也没有什么可反驳的。东方人约翰·克里索斯·汤姆和约翰·大马士革的观点也是如此,他们不时地被(通过拉丁文版本)采纳,使同样的真理具有普遍性。我们不应该推断所有的原创性都被排除在外:权威可以决定教会要相信什么,但不能决定一个给定的指数可以使用什么方法来证明它,而这些规范原则有许多必然结果和含义,好的基督徒可能会有所不同。创新并不意味着建立新的信念,而是表明,
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信