Scholasticism

Please help support the mission of New Advent and get the full contents of this website as an instant download. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more — all for only $19.99...

Scholasticism is a term used to designate both a method and a system. It is applied totheology as well as to philosophy. Scholastic theology is distinguished from Patristictheology on the one hand, and frompositive theology on the other. The schoolmen themselves distinguished betweentheologia speculativa sive scholastica andtheologia positiva. Applied to philosophy, the word "Scholastic" is often used also, to designate a chronological division intervening between the end of the Patristic era in the fifth century and the beginning of the modern era, about 1450. It will, therefore, make for clearness and order if we consider:

I. The origin of the word "Scholastic";
II. The history of the period called Scholastic in the history ofphilosophy;
III. The Scholastic method inphilosophy, with incidental reference to the Scholastic method intheology; and
IV. The contents of the Scholastic system.

The revival of Scholasticism in recent times has been already treated under the headNEO-SCHOLASTICISM.

Origin of the name "Scholastic"

There are in Greek literature a few instances of the use of the wordscholastikos to designate a professionalphilosopher. Historically, however, the word, as now used, is to be traced, not to Greek usage, but to earlyChristian institutions. In theChristianschools, especially after the beginning of the sixth century, it was customary to call the head of theschoolmagister scholae, capiscola, orscholasticus. As time went on, the last of these appellations was used exclusively. The curriculum of thoseschools includeddialectic among the seven liberal arts, which was at that time the only branch ofphilosophy studied systematically. The head of theschool generally taught dialectic, and out of his teaching grew both the manner of philosophizing and the system ofphilosophy that prevailed during all theMiddle Ages. Consequently, the name "Scholastic" was used and is still used to designate the method and system that grew out of the academic curriculum of theschools or, more definitely, out of thedialectical teaching of the masters of theschools (scholastici). It does not matter that, historically, the Golden Age of Scholastic philosophy, namely, the thirteenth century, falls within a period when theschools, the curriculum of which was the seven liberal arts, including dialectic had given way to another organization of studies, the studia generalia, oruniversities. The name, once given, continued, as it almost always does, to designate the method and system which had by this time passed into a new phase of development. Academically, thephilosophers of the thirteenth century are known asmagistri, or masters; historically, however, they are Scholastics, and continue to be so designated until the end of themedieval period. And, even after the close of theMiddle Ages, aphilosopher ortheologian who adopts the method or the system of themedieval Scholastics is said to be a Scholastic.

The Scholastic period

The period extending from the beginning ofChristian speculation to the time ofSt. Augustine, inclusive, is known as the Patristic era inphilosophy andtheology. In general, that era inclined toPlatonism and underestimated the importance ofAristotle. The Fathers strove to construct onPlatonic principles a system ofChristian philosophy. They brought reason to the aid of Revelation. They leaned, however, towards thedoctrine of the mystics, and, in ultimate resort, relied more on spiritualintuition than ondialecticalproof for the establishment and explanation of the highesttruths ofphilosophy. Between the end of the Patristic era in the fifth century and the beginning of the Scholastic era in the ninth there intervene a number of intercalary thinkers, as they may be called, like Claudianus Mamertus,Boethius,Cassiodorus,St. Isidore of Seville,Venerable Bede etc., who helped to hand down to the new generation the traditions of the Patristic age and to continue into the Scholastic era the current ofPlatonism. With the Carolingian revival of learning in the ninth century began a period ofeducational activity which resulted in a new phase ofChristian thought known as Scholasticism. The first masters of theschools in the ninth centuryAlcuin,Rabanus, etc., were not indeed, more original thanBoethius orCassiodorus; the first original thinker in the Scholastic era was John the Scot (seeJOHN SCOTUS ERIUGENA). Nevertheless they inaugurated the Scholastic movement because they endeavoured to bring the Patristic (principally the Augustinian) tradition into touch with the new life ofEuropean Christianity. They did not abandonPlatonism. Theyknew little ofAristotle except as alogician. But by the emphasis they laid ondialectical reasoning, they gave a new direction toChristian tradition inphilosophy. In the curriculum of theschools in which they taught, philosophy was represented by dialectic. On the textbooks of dialectic which they used they wrote commentaries and glosses, into which, little by little, they admitted problems ofpsychology,metaphysics,cosmology, andethics, so that the Scholastic movement as a whole may be said to have sprung from the discussions of the dialecticians.

Method, contents, and conclusions were influenced by this origin. There resulted a species ofChristianRationalism which more than any other trait characterizes Scholastic philosophy in every successive stage of its development and marks it off very definitely from the Patristic philosophy, which, as has been said, was ultimatelyintuitional and mystic. WithRoscelin, who appeared about the middle of the eleventh century, the note ofRationalism is very distinctly sounded, and the first rumbling is heard of the inevitable reaction, the voice ofChristianmysticism uttering its note of warning, and condemning the excess into whichRationalism had fallen. In the eleventh and twelfth centuries, therefore, Scholasticism passed through its period of storm and stress. On the one side were the advocates of reason,Roscelin,Abelard,Peter Lombard; on the other were the champions ofmysticism,St. Anselm,St. Peter Damian,St. Bernard, and the Victorines. Like all ardent advocates, theRationalists went too far at first, and only gradually brought their method within the lines oforthodoxy and harmonized it withChristian reverence for the mysteries of Faith. Like all conservative reactionists, the mystics at first condemned the use as well as the abuse of reason; they did not reach an intelligent compromise with the dialecticians until the end of the twelfth century. In the final outcome of the struggle, it wasRationalism that, having modified its unreasonable claims, triumphed in theChristianschools, without, however driving the mystics from the field.

Meantime, Eclectics, likeJohn of Salisbury, andPlatonists, like the members of the School ofChartres, gave to the Scholastic movement a broader spirit of toleration, imparted, so to speak, a sort ofHumanism to philosophy, so that, when we come to the eve of the thirteenth century, Scholasticism has made two very decided steps in advance. First, the use of reason in the discussion of spiritualtruth and the application of dialectic totheology are accepted with. out protest, so long as they are kept within the bounds of moderation. Second, there is a willingness on the part of the Schoolmen to go outside the lines of strictecclesiastical tradition and learn, not only fromAristotle, who was now beginning to be known as a metaphysician and apsychologist, but also from the Arabians and theJews, whose works had begun to penetrate in Latin translations into theschools ofChristian Europe. The taking of Constantinople in 1204, the introduction ofArabian, Jewish, and Greek works into theChristianschools, the rise of theuniversities, and the foundation of themendicant orders — these are the events which led to the extraordinaryintellectual activity of the thirteenth century, which centered in theUniversity of Paris. At first there was considerable confusion, and it seemed as if the battles won in the twelfth century by the dialecticians should be fought over again. The translations ofAristotle made from the Arabian and accompanied by Arabian commentaries were tinged withPantheism, Fatalism, and other Neoplatonicerrors. Even in theChristianschools there were declaredPantheists, likeDavid of Dinant, and outspokenAverroists, likeSiger of Brabant, who bade fair to prejudice the cause ofAristoteleanism.

These developments were suppressed by the most stringent disciplinary measures during the first few decades of the thirteenth century. While they were still a source of danger, men likeWilliam of Auvergne andAlexander of Hales hesitated between the traditionalAugustinianism of theChristianschools and the newAristoteleanism, which came from a suspected source. Besides,Augustinianism andPlatonism accorded withpiety, whileAristoteleanism was found to lack the element ofmysticism. In time, however, the translations made from the Greek revealed anAristotle free from theerrors attributed to him by the Arabians, and, above all, the commanding genius ofSt. Albertus Magnus and his still more illustrious disciple,St. Thomas Aquinas, who appeared at the critical moment, calmly surveyed the difficulties of the situation, and met them fearlessly, won the victory for the new philosophy and continued successfully the traditions established in the preceding century. Their contemporary,St. Bonaventure, showed that the new learning was not incompatible withmysticism drawn fromChristian sources, andRoger Bacon demonstrated by his unsuccessful attempts to develop the naturalsciences the possibilities of another kind which were latent inAristoteleanism.

WithDuns Scotus, a genius of the first order, but not of the constructive type, begins the critical phase, of Scholasticism. Even before his time, theFranciscan and theDominican currents had set out in divergent directions. It was his keen and unrelenting search for the weak points inThomistic philosophy that irritated and wounded susceptibilities among the followers ofSt. Thomas, and brought about the spirit of partisanship which did so much to dissipate the energy of Scholasticism in the fourteenth century. The recrudescence ofAverroism in theschools, the excessive cultivation of formalism and subtlety, the growth of artificial and even barbarous terminology, and the neglect of the study of nature and of history contributed to the same result.Ockham'sNominalism andDurandus's attempt to "simplify" Scholastic philosophy did not have the effect which their authors intended. "The glory and power of scholasticism faded into the warmth and brightness ofmysticism," andGerson,Thomas à Kempis, andEckhart are more representative of what theChristian Church was actually thinking in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries than are theThomists,Scotists, andOckhamists of that period, who frittered away much valuable time in the discussion of highly technical questions which arose within theschools and possess little interest except for adepts in Scholastic subtlety. After the rise ofHumanism, when theRenaissance, which ushered in the modern era, was in full progress, the great Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese commentators inaugurated an age of more healthy Scholasticism, and the greatJesuit teachers, Toletus, Vasquez, and Francisco Suárez, seemed to recall the best days of thirteenth century speculation. The triumph of scientific discovery, with which, as a rule, the representatives of Scholasticism in the seats of academic authority had, unfortunately, too little sympathy, led to new ways of philosophizing, and when, finally,Descartes in practice, if not in theory, effected a complete separation ofphilosophy fromtheology, the modern era had begun and the age known as that of Scholasticism had come to an end.

The Scholastic method

No method inphilosophy has been moreunjustly condemned than that of the Scholastics. No philosophy has been more grossly misrepresented. And this istrue not only of the details, but also of the most essential elements of Scholasticism. Two charges, especially, are made against the Schoolmen: First, that they confounded philosophy withtheology; and second, that they made reason subservient to authority. As a matter of fact, the very essence of Scholasticism is, first, its clear delimitation of the respective domains ofphilosophy andtheology, and, second, its advocacy of the use of reason.

Theology and philosophy

Christian thinkers, from the beginning, were confronted with the question: How are we to reconcile reason with revelation,science withfaith, philosophy withtheology? The first apologists possessed no philosophy of their own. They had to deal with apagan world proud of its literature and its philosophy, ready at any moment to flaunt its inheritance of wisdom in the face ofignorantChristians. The apologists met the situation by a theory that was as audacious as it must have been disconcerting to thepagans. They advanced the explanation that all the wisdom ofPlato and the other Greeks was due to the inspiration of theLogos; that it wasGod'struth, and, therefore, could not be in contradiction with thesupernatural revelation contained in the Gospels. It was a hypothesis calculated not only to silence apagan opponent, but also to work constructively. We find it inSt. Basil, inOrigen, and even inSt. Augustine. Thebelief that the two orders oftruth, the natural and thesupernatural, must harmonize, is the inspiration ofintellectual activity in the Patristic era. But that era did little to define the limits of the two realms oftruth.St. Augustine believes thatfaith aids reason (credo ut intelligam) and that reason aidsfaith (intelligo ut credam); he is, however, inclined to emphasize the first principle and not the second. He does not develop a definite methodology in dealing with them. The Scholastics, almost from the first, attempted to do so.

JohnScotus Eriugena, in the ninth century, by hisdoctrine that alltruth is a theophany, or showing forth ofGod, tried to elevate philosophy to the rank oftheology, and identify the two in a species oftheosophy.Abelard, in the twelfth century, tried to bringtheology down to the level ofphilosophy, and identify both in aRationalistic system. The greatest of the Scholastics in the thirteenth century, especiallySt. Thomas Aquinas, solved the problem for all time, so far asChristian speculation is concerned, by showing that the two are distinctsciences, and yet that they agree. They are distinct, he teaches, because, while philosophy relies on reason alone,theology uses thetruths derived from revelation, and also because there are sometruths, the mysteries of Faith, which lie completely outside the domain ofphilosophy and belong totheology. They agree, and must agree, becauseGod is the author of alltruth, and it is impossible to think that He would teach in the natural order anything that contradicts what He teaches in thesupernatural order. The recognition of these principles is one of the crowning achievements of Scholasticism. It is one of the characteristics that mark it off from the Patristic era, in which the same principles were, so to speak, in solution, and not crystallized in definite expression. It is the trait which differentiates Scholasticism fromAverroism. It is the inspiration of all Scholastic effort. As long as it lasted Scholasticism lasted, and as soon as the opposite conviction became established, the conviction, namely, that what istrue intheology may befalse inphilosophy, Scholasticism ceased to exist. It is, therefore, a matter of constant surprise to those whoknow Scholasticism to find it misrepresented on this vital point.

Scholastic rationalism

Scholasticism sprang from the study of dialectic in theschools. The most decisive battle of Scholasticism was that which it waged in the twelfth century against the mystics who condemned the use of dialectic. The distinguishing mark of Scholasticism in the age of its highest development is its use of thedialectical method. It is, therefore, a matter, once more, for surprise, to find Scholasticism accused of undue subservience to authority and of the neglect of reason.Rationalism is a word which has various meanings. It is sometimes used to designate a system which, refusing to acknowledge the authority of revelation, tests alltruth by the standard of reason. In this sense, the Scholastics were notRationalists. TheRationalism of Scholasticism consists in the conviction that reason is to be used in the elucidation of spiritualtruth and in defence of thedogmas of Faith. It is opposed tomysticism, which distrusted reason and placed emphasis onintuition and contemplation. In this milder meaning of the term, all the Scholastics were convincedRationalists, the only difference being that some, likeAbelard andRoscelin, were too ardent in their advocacy of the use of reason, and went so far as to maintain that reason can prove even thesupernatural mysteries of Faith, while others, likeSt. Thomas, moderated the claims of reason, set limits to its power of proving spiritualtruth, and maintained that the mysteries offaith could not be discovered and cannot beproved by unaided reason.

The whole Scholastic movement, therefore, is aRationalistic movement in the second sense of the termRationalism. The Scholastics used their reason; they applied dialectic to the study of nature, ofhumannature and ofsupernaturaltruth. Far from depreciating reason, they went as far as man can go — some modern critics think they went too far — in the application of reason to the discussion of thedogmas of Faith. They acknowledged the authority of revelation, as allChristianphilosophers areobliged to do. They admitted the force of human authority when the conditions of its valid application were verified. But intheology, the authority of revelation did not coerce their reason and inphilosophy and in naturalscience they taught very emphatically that the argument from authority is the weakest of all arguments. They did not subordinate reason to authority in any unworthy sense of that phrase. It was an opponent of the Scholastic movement who styled philosophy "the handmaid of theology", a designation which, however, some of the Schoolmen accepted to mean that to philosophy belongs the honourable task of carrying the light which is to guide the footsteps oftheology. One need not go so far as to say, with Barthélemy Saint Hilaire, that "Scholasticism, in its general result, is the first revolt of the modern spirit against authority." Nevertheless, one is compelled by the facts of history to admit that there is moretruth in that description than in the superficial judgment of the historians who describe Scholasticism as the subordination of reason to authority.

Details of Scholastic method

The Scholastic manner of treating the problems ofphilosophy andtheology is apparent from a glance at the body of literature which the Schoolmen produced. The immense amount of commentary onAristotle, onPeter Lombard, onBoethius, onPseudo-Dionysius, and on the Scriptures indicates the form of academic activity which characterizes the Scholastic period. The use of texts dates from the very beginning of the Scholastic era inphilosophy andtheology, and was continued down into modern times. The mature teacher, however, very often embodied the results of his own speculation in aSumma, which, in time became a text in the hands of his successors. TheQuestiones disputatae were special treatises on the more difficult or the more important topics, and as the name implied, followed the method of debate prevalent in theschools, generally called disputation or determination. TheQuodlibeta were miscellanies generally in the form of answers to questions which as soon as a teacher had attained a widespread renown, began to come to him, not only from the academic world in which he lived, but from all classes ofpersons and from every part ofChristendom. The division of topics intheology was determined by the arrangement followed inPeter Lombard's "Books of Sentences" (see SUMMAE), and inphilosophy it adhered closely to the order of treatises inAristotle's works. There is a good deal of divergence among the principal Scholastics in the details of arrangement, as well as in the relative values of the sub-titles, "part", "question", "disputation", "article", etc. All, however, adopt the manner of treatment by which thesis, objections, and solutions of objections stand out distinctly in the discussion of each problem. We find traces of this in Gerbert's little treatise "De rational) et ratione uti" in the tenth century, and it is still more definitely adopted inAbelard's "Sic et non". It had its root inAristotelean method, but was determined more immediately by thedialectical activity of the earlyschools, from which, as was said, Scholasticism sprang.

Much has been said both in praise and in blame of Scholastic terminology inphilosophy andtheology. It is rather generally acknowledged that whatever precision there is in the modern languages of WesternEurope is due largely to the dialectic disquisitions of the Scholastics. On the other hand, ridicule has been poured on the stiffness, the awkwardness, and the barbarity of the Scholastic style. In an impartial study of the question, it should be remembered that the Scholastics of the thirteenth century—and it was not they but their successors who were guilty of the grossestsins of style—were confronted with a terminological problem unique in the history of thought. They came suddenly into possession of an entirely new literature, the works ofAristotle. They spoke a language, Latin, on which the terminology ofAristotle inmetaphysicspsychology etc., had made no impression. Consequently, they wereobliged to create all at once Latin words and phrases to express the terminology ofAristotle, a terminology remarkable for its extent, its variety, and its technical complexity. They did it honestly and humbly, by translatingAristotle's phrases literally; so that many a strange-sounding Latin phrase in the writings of the Schoolmen would be very goodAristotelean Greek, if rendered word for word into that language. The Latin of the best of the Scholastics may be lacking in elegance and distinction; but no one will deny the merits of its rigorous severity of phrase and itslogical soundness of construction. Though wanting thegraces of what is called the fine style,graces which have the power of pleasing but do not facilitate the task of the learner inphilosophy, the style of the thirteenth-century masters possesses the fundamental qualities, clearness, conciseness, and richness of technical phrase.

The contents of the Scholastic system

Inlogic the Scholastics adopted all the details of theAristotelean system, which was known to the Latin world from the time ofBoethius. Their individual contributions consisted of some minor improvements in the matter of teaching and in the technic of thescience. Their underlying theory ofknowledge is alsoAristotelean. It may be described by saying that it is a system of Moderate Realism and Moderate Intellectualism. The Realism consists in teaching that outside the mind there exist things fundamentally universal which correspond to our universalideas. The Moderate Intellectualism is summed up in the two principles:

In this way, Scholasticism avoids Innatism, according to which all ourideas, or some of ourideas, are born with thesoul and have no origin in the world outside us. At the same time, it avoids Sensism, according to which our so-calledintellectualknowledge is only sense-knowledge of a higher or finer sort. The Scholastics, moreover, took a firm stand against thedoctrine of Subjectivism. In their discussion of the value ofknowledge they held that there is an external world which is real and independent of our thoughts. In that world are the forms which make things to be what they are. The same forms received into the mind in the process of knowing cause us not to be the object but toknow the object. This presence of things in the mind by means of forms istrue representation, or rather presentation. For it is the objective thing that we are first aware of, not its representation in us.

The Scholastic outlook on the world of nature isAristotelean. The Schoolmen adopt thedoctrine ofmatter and form, which they apply not only to living things but also to inorganic nature. Since the form, or entelechy is always striving for its own realization or actualization, the view of nature which thisdoctrine leads to is teleological. Instead, however, of ascribing purpose in a vague, unsatisfactory manner to nature itself, the Scholastics attributed design to the intelligent, provident author of nature. The principle of finality thus acquired a more precise meaning, and at the same time the danger of aPantheistic interpretation was avoided. On the question of the universality of matter the Schoolmen were divided among themselves, some, like theFranciscan teachers, maintaining that all created beings are material, others, likeSt. Thomas, holding the existence of "separate forms", such as theangels, in whom there is potency but no matter. Again, on the question of the oneness of substantial forms, there was a lack of agreement. St. Thomas held that in each individual material substance, organic or inorganic, there is but one substantial form, which confers being, substantiality and, in the case of man, life, sensation, and reason. Others, on the contrary, believed that in one substance, man, for instance, there are simultaneously several forms, one of which confers existence, another substantiality, another life, and another, reason. Finally, there was a divergence of views as to what is the principle of individuation, by which severalindividuals of the same species are differentiated from one another. St. Thomas taught that the principle of individuation is matter with its determined dimensions,materia signata.

In regard to the nature of man, the first Scholastics were Augustinians. Their definition of thesoul is what may be called the spiritual, as opposed to the biological, definition. They held that thesoul is the principle of thought-activity, and that the exercise of the senses is a process from thesoul through the body not a process of the whole organism, that is, of the body animated by thesoul. The Scholastics of the thirteenth century frankly adopted theAristotelean definition of thesoul as the principle of life, not of thought merely. Therefore, they maintained, man is a compound of body andsoul, each of which is an incomplete substantial principle the union being, consequently, immediate, vital, and substantial. For them there is no need of an intermediary "body of light" such asSt. Augustine imagined to exist. All the vital activities of the individual human being are ascribed ultimately to thesoul, as to their active principle, although they may have more immediate principles namely the faculties, such asintellect, the senses, the vegetative and muscular powers. But while thesoul is in this way concerned with all the vital functions, being, in fact, the source of them, and the body enters as a passive principle into all the activities of thesoul, exception must be made in the case of immaterial thought-activities. They are, like all the other activities, activities of the individual. Thesoul is the active principle of them. But the body contributes to them, not in the same intrinsic manner in which it contributes to seeing, hearing, digesting etc., but only in an extrinsic manner, by supplying the materials out of which theintellect manufacturesideas. This extrinsic dependence explains the phenomena of fatigue, etc. At the same time it leaves thesoul so independent intrinsically that the latter is truly said to be immaterial.

From the immateriality of thesoul follows itsimmortality. Setting aside the possibility of annihilation, a possibility to which all creatures, even theangels are subject, the humansoul is naturallyimmortal, and itsimmortality,St. Thomas believes, can beproved from its immateriality.Duns Scotus, however, whose notion of the strict requirements of a demonstration was influenced by his training in mathematics, denies the conclusive force of the argument from immateriality, and calls attention toAristotle's hesitation or obscurity on this point.Aristotle, as interpreted by the Arabians, was, undoubtedly, opposed toimmortality. It was, however, one ofSt. Thomas's greatest achievements inphilosophy that, especially in hisopusculum "De unitate intellectus", he refuted the Arabian interpretation ofAristotle, showed that the activeintellect is part of the individualsoul, and thus removed the uncertainty which, for theAristoteleans, hung around the notions of immateriality andimmortality. From the immateriality of thesoul follows not only that it isimmortal, but also that it originated by an act of creation. It was created at the moment in which it was united with the body:creando infunditur, et infundendo creatur is the Scholastic phrase.

Scholasticmetaphysics added to theAristotelean system a full discussion of the nature ofpersonality, restated in more definite terms the traditional arguments for theexistence of God, and developed thedoctrine of the providential government of theuniverse. The exigencies oftheological discussion occasioned also a minute analysis of the nature of accident in general and of quantity in particular. The application of the resulting principles to the explanation of the mystery of the Eucharist, as contained in St. Thomas's works on the subject, is one of the most successful of all the Scholastic attempts to renderfaith reasonable by means ofdialectical discussion. Indeed, it may be said, in general, that the peculiar excellence of the Scholastics as systematic thinkers consisted in their ability to take hold of the profoundest metaphysical distinctions, such asmatter and form,potency and actuality,substance andaccident, and apply them to every department of thought. They were no mere apriorists, they recognized in principle and in practice that scientific method begins with the observation of facts. Nevertheless, they excelled most of all in the talent which is peculiarly metaphysical, the power to grasp abstract general principles and apply them consistently and systematically.

So far as the ethics of Scholasticism is not distinctlyChristian, seeking to expound and justifyDivine law and theChristian standard ofmorals, it isAristotelean. This is clear from the adoption and application of theAristotelean definition of virtue as the golden mean between two extremes. Fundamentally, the definition is eudemonistic. It rests on the conviction that the supreme good of man ishappiness, thathappiness is the realization, or complete actualization, of one's nature, and that virtue is an essential means to that end. But what is vague and unsatisfactory inAristotelean Eudemonism is made definite and safe in the Scholastic system, which determines the meaning ofhappiness and realization according to the Divine purpose in creation and the dignity to which man is destined as a child ofGod.

In their discussion of the problems of political philosophy thephilosophers of the thirteenth century while not discarding thetheological views ofSt. Augustine contained in "The City of God", laid a new foundation for the study of political organizations by introducingAristotle's scientific definition of the origin and purpose of civilsociety. Man, saysSt. Thomas, is naturally a social and political animal. By giving tohuman beings a nature which requires the co-operation of otherhuman beings for its welfare,Godordained man forsociety, and thus it is His will that princes should govern with a view to the public welfare. The end for which the state exists is, then, not merelyvivere butbene vivere. All that goes to make life better and happier is included the Divine charter from which kings and rulers derive their authority. The Scholastic treatises on this subject and the commentaries on the "Polities" ofAristotle prepared the way for themedieval and modern discussions of political problems. In this department of thought, as in many others, the Schoolmen did at least one service which posterity should appreciate: they strive to express in clear systematic form what was present in the consciousness ofChristendom in their day.

CONTACT US |ADVERTISE WITH NEW ADVENT