Very few history books currently written mention anything about the
Jesuit theologian Francisco Suarez and the effect his writings and teachings
have had on modern thought.
The purpose of this examination is to show how a small mistake in Suarez’s understanding of nature has led to major consequences that are still felt even to the present day. This paper will show how Suarez’ understanding of potency as ‘imperfect act’ had severe consequences on Modern Sciences with its linkage to Protestantism. This error continues to have a wide-ranging effect on modern science.
Aristotle said centuries earlier: “one who errs in principles errs incorrigibly.”[1]
Since a principle is that from which something proceeds in any manner at all,
it follows that a small error in the beginning leads to a big one in the end. The key concept in this examination is to
understand nature. That is to understand the intrinsic principles that
constitute nature.
Nature, for Aristotle, is dynamic. He explains that nature has two
intrinsic principles: a material principle and a formal principle. The material
principle, or what Aristotle called ‘primary matter,’ is the principle of
change or movement. Aristotle’s teacher, Plato, believed that primary matter
was ‘non being which somehow is.’ The problem with this understanding is that
it offends the principle: ‘from nothing, nothing comes.’ In reconciling the
difficulties arising from Plato’s understanding of nature, Aristotle said that
primary matter was ‘being which somehow is not.’ Through this understanding
Aristotle resolved the two extreme positions about nature postulated earlier on
by Heraclitus and Parmenides[2].
The formal principle in nature for Aristotle is the determining
principle; it determines the matter. Prime matter as described by Dr. Woodbury
is a ‘selfish grubby bugger’[3],
it grabs at form. Difficulties arise however in trying to understand primary
matter; we tend to put a form in it. The paradox is that you can only
understand primary matter through form. Primary matter is the least of all
reality and yet is still real. This is most difficult to understand. To repeat Aristotle:
Primary Matter (Potency) is ‘Being which somehow is not.’
Francisco Suarez (1548 – 1617) was a Jesuit-trained ‘scholastic’
philosopher and theologian. His life work was to try to reconcile the teachings
of St Thomas Aquinas and Scotus. Sadly, it was precisely his life’s work that
caused problems in understanding the nature of things. Suarez’s notion of
potency, far removed from both Aristotle and St Thomas was that potency is
‘imperfect act’, that is, prime matter is ‘secondary matter’, matter that
already has form in it. It was this idea that led to his philosophy (and
theology) having great impact on modern science. This is because modern science
focuses solely on material causality. As Aristotle rightly said, it is not so
much wrong to focus on material causality, as it is incomplete. To explain
causality you have to take into account both material and formal cause.
For the modern scientist, the Aristotelian and Thomistic notion of
potency, that of primary matter, was superseded with the Suarezian
understanding of potency as imperfect act, as a being of secondary matter
(matter that already has form in it).
Coupled with this understanding, is the fact that modern science
perceived Suarez as being the spokesman for St Thomas. That is, modern science
sees Suarez as being the true and faithful follower of St Thomas in his
understanding of nature, especially of the intrinsic principle of primary
matter. The problem with this view is that it is completely contrary to St
Thomas’ understanding of nature. Like Aristotle, St Thomas viewed primary
matter as ‘being which somehow is not’. As stated by St Thomas:
Both what is in potency to substantial
existence, and what is in potency to accidental existence, can be called matter
... Properly speaking, however, what is in potency to substantial existence is
called prime matter; whereas what is in potency to accidental existence is called
a subject[4].
What constitutes the natural substance for St Thomas is the unity of both primary matter and substantial form. In a work titled “Matter and Metaphysics according to St Thomas Aquinas” Julien Lambinet states:
Matter and form are mutual causes in the
natural beings, for no form can exist except in matter, as no matter has actual
existence without a form. It is only the unity of matter and form that
constitutes the natural substance[5].
What can be seen is that St Thomas’
understanding of primary matter (potency) gives him the correct viewpoint in
relation to nature. For if one makes a mistake about nature it leads to
mistakes about God.
Suarez’ understanding of the intrinsic
principle of change in nature, that of primary matter as being ‘imperfect act,’
leads to many dire consequences. One example showing the consequence of
Suarez’s thinking is that he concludes that being (ens) becomes as it were
static, since primary matter is act and essences are act. As Fr.
Garrigou-Lagrange in his book “Reality” says:
This viewpoint granted we can no longer
conceive pure potency. It would be extra ens, hence, simply nothing. The
Aristotelian notion of real potency (medium between actuality and nothing)
disappears, and the argument of Parmenides is insoluble.[6]
The Parmenides argument leads logically to
pantheism since it is a god that is static. As stated by Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange:
For Parmenides, Being remains eternally what
it is, absolutely one, identical with itself, immutable. Limited, finite beings
are simply an illusion. Thus Parmenides ends in a monism absolutely static
which absorbs the world in God[7].
This highlights how mistakes about nature
lead to mistakes about God. This is because Parmenides is taking the verdict of
the intellect and ignoring the verdict of the senses. What is of importance to
note here is that Parmenides is trying to explain nature, and for him nature constitutes
as it were a static Being. This notion allows him to hold onto the principle of
non-contradiction ‘between being and non being there is no middle.’
In conceiving potency (matter) as imperfect
act, Suarez cannot reconcile Parmenides’ dilemma about nature. What follows
from this shows how a small error leads to major ones.
Suarez understanding of potency logically
leads to scepticism. This understanding of potency led to Descartes’
philosophy. Modern Science, Modern Philosophy and Protestantism are a major
consequence of the Suarezian understanding of potency.
The idea that primary matter is imperfect act
eventually leads to understanding nature as ‘secondary matter.’ This is what
modern science deals with. Since modern science solely focuses on material causality,
it tends to ignore the other intrinsic principle in nature (that of the formal
cause), and it reduces the two extrinsic causes. Thus the proper efficient
cause becomes the proximate efficient cause and there is a denial of the final
cause. That is, modern science does not ask why is this so, but rather how it
is so.
It is precisely this ignorance of the formal
cause that is the principal cause of much confusion and tension between the
classical (Thomistic) understanding of nature and modern science’s concept of
nature. For the modern scientist, under the influence of Newtonian Science, the
forms that are focused on are ‘mathematical forms’ which are not essential but
rather accidental.[8]
Because modern science deals with accidental
forms (i.e. mathematical), it eventually leads to a sceptical attitude when
dealing with ‘supra experimental’ science (philosophy). This is because the
foundation of modern science is based on accidental forms and therefore has to
be observable and constantly changing. Therefore anything that is not
observable or constantly changing is treated with suspicion[9].
Another area where Suarez’s understanding of
potency affects his thinking is that on the theory of knowledge. For St Thomas
the intellect is the ‘tabula rasa’ or is like primary matter. As stated in an
article by Jose Pereira:
In the philosophy of mind, Aquinas looks at
knowledge as a matter of focusing the mind upon essences and universals.
Franciscan philosophers had long taken issue with this viewpoint and when
Suarez examined the issue of knowledge, he agreed with the Franciscans against
Aquinas. Knowledge for Suarez is not about grasping the generality of essences,
it is rather about directly grasping the individuality and singularity of
particulars.[10]
For St Thomas, in the order of knowledge, we
first sense the singular then understand the universal and then understand the
singular. For Suarez, his understanding of potency (in being imperfect act)
leaves no room to understand the universal and therefore we cannot understand
the singular. In other words, Suarez’s small mistake leads to scepticism.
The Jesuit teacher Vasquez taught that the
first thing that I know is the Idea of the thing. A highly intelligent student
known as Rene Descartes said that if the first thing that I know is the Idea
then how can I know that this thing is real? With Suarez’ understanding of
potency which does not allow understanding universals it leads to questioning
the reality of things. In other words, Descartes was trying to build a bridge between
the Idea and Thing that implies that we cannot know reality. And as history has
attested, not only is this exercise futile, it also has brought about devastating
consequences.[11]
A very small error from Suarez in
understanding the principle of nature led to Descartes’ error in philosophy and
the advent of Modern Philosophy. Underpinning all this is that of scepticism
that Suarez’s understanding of nature ultimately leads to.
The philosophy followed by Martin Luther is
allied to Suarez’s understanding of nature. If in knowledge you are only
grasping directly the individuality and singularity of particulars, then it
follows that it is impossible to know the essence (universal) at all. This ends
up in nominalism and ultimately scepticism.
What must not be forgotten is that it is
precisely Suarez’s understanding of potency that influenced many modern
philosophers. Apart from Descartes, he also influenced men such as Heidegger
and Schopenhauer. As is stated by the Stanford encyclopaedia:
It is noteworthy that figures as distinct
from one another in place, time and philosophical orientation as Leibniz,
Grotius, Schopenhauer and Heidegger all found reason to cite him as a source of
inspiration and influence. Grotius, for instance, praised the Jesuit doctor as
a theologian and philosopher of such depth, breadth, and penetration that ‘he
hardly had an equal’ (Grotius, Letter of 15 October, 1633; 2001: 194[12]
It is of vital importance to realise the
effect Suarez has had on the modern world. As Aristotle rightly said: ‘every
error is not wrong in what it asserts but rather is wrong in what it denies’.
What has been seen is how such a small error in the beginning has led to major
consequences that we are still experiencing today. This examination is not to
criticise the person. It is criticising what the person has said: that is the
issue. What Suarez said and taught about primary matter is up for severe
criticism as this examination has shown.
[1] Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics
[2] For a full treatment of Heraclitus and Parmenides see Dr. Austin
Woodbury’s ‘Ontology’ Text, Published by De Aquino Press, Copyrighted CCS Inc.
Sydney
[3] Lecture Series of Dr. A. Woodbury, available at the Centre for
Catholic Studies Inc., Sydney.
[4] St. Thomas Aquinas, De Principiis Naturae,
§1, translated by Bobik J., in Bobik, J., Aquinas on Matter and Form and the
Elements. A translation and Interpretation of the De Principiis Naturae and the
De Mixtione Elementorum of St. Thomas Aquinas, University of Notre-Dame Press,
Notre-Dame, 1998, p. 4
[5] Julien Lambinet, ‘Matter and Metaphysics According to St Thomas
Aquinas. Found at: http://www.romemetaphysics.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=118&Itemid=37&lang=en
[6] Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, Reality, Chapter 5. Taken from http://www.thesumma.info/reality/reality6.php
[7] Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, Reality, Chapter 5. Taken from
[8] For St. Thomas, accidental forms are ‘in-stickers’, that is they
stick in the substance. Whereas substantial forms determine the primary matter
of what it is.
[9] This leads ultimately to Evolutionary Theory that can be proven to
be a false understanding of the nature of things.
[10] Jose Pereira, Suarez: Between Scholasticism and Modernity (Marquette
Studies in Philosophy 52)
[11] Modern Philosophers beginning with Descartes, Locke, Barkeley,
Hume, Kant, Hegel and Marx just to name a few. These ideas have seen the advent
of empiricism and idealism that have been the philosophical principles, which
have sadly seen destruction and death to the human family. World Wars,
Communism and other political philosophies have at the root these philosophical
ideas.
[12] Taken from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/suarez/
No comments:
Post a Comment