I am really thankful for this article. I have learned a lot from it.
I wondered if you could clarify Aquinas in ST 1.13.11. You are suggesting he is doing a metaphysical move by naming God HE WHO IS and, therefore, he is expressing that being is the ultimate metaphysical principle instead of Goodness.
But I read Aquinas as doing epistemology when discussing the name of God. Isn’t he saying that the way we receive God is through his goodness since it is by definition relational. And therefore, there must be something “further in” about God that is harder to know since it is incomunicable—i.e. his being.
Great question. Thanks, Luke. My article does not discuss whether Aquinas deals with metaphysics or with epistemology. I think it is true that he talks about how we *name* God most properly. For Aquinas, all the divine names are controvertible metaphysically speaking, in the light of divine simplicity. However, the move we make in naming God most properly (for Aquinas) as HE WHO IS is not an indifferent move. Aquinas is rather emphatic that our naming of God as Being is more proper than our naming of him as Goodness. Of course, on his understanding, the two are identical in God (a point I make on p. 225). But since we, creatures, can understand God only by way of analogy, we must prioritize (ST I.13.4, sed contra). This is, indeed, an epistemological move, but it is obviously an important one to Aquinas, which leads him to prioritize Being above Goodness in our naming of God. By contrast, Dionysius places Goodness above Being, both metaphysically and epistemologically.
Thank you so much for your response. This helped clarify much for me.
Does your last sentence imply that Dionysius (and possibly others in the platonic tradition) did not have a view of Divine Simplicity like Aquinas would later develop? One like the identity thesis in which goodness and being are ontologically the same.
Yes, that is correct, Lukas. It's a view of simplicity affected by the essence-energies distinction in the East. You may perhaps find my recent essay in First Things on this helpful. See here: https://hansboersma.org/p/modernity-and-god-talk. I also discuss this in more detail in my forthcoming book, Theophanizing Love (Eerdmans).
Thanks for posting this Dr. Boersma. I would be grateful to know of a discussion forum either for this paper or the topic. I am interested to know about the extent of an intersection with process philosophy (which I find scientifically compelling), and the possibility of preserving some form of univocity that preserves a special place for God, e.g., as being qua being. Apologies if these questions are out of place here.
Thanks for your question, John. I’m afraid I am not a fan of process theology, which cannot retain divine transcendence as does classical Neoplatonist Christianity. For similar reasons, I retain analogy of being. In my forthcoming book with Eerdmans, Theophanizing Love, I explain my reasoning in somewhat greater detail. I hope you can wait with fuller rationale till then. Peace!
I am really thankful for this article. I have learned a lot from it.
I wondered if you could clarify Aquinas in ST 1.13.11. You are suggesting he is doing a metaphysical move by naming God HE WHO IS and, therefore, he is expressing that being is the ultimate metaphysical principle instead of Goodness.
But I read Aquinas as doing epistemology when discussing the name of God. Isn’t he saying that the way we receive God is through his goodness since it is by definition relational. And therefore, there must be something “further in” about God that is harder to know since it is incomunicable—i.e. his being.
Or am I misunderstanding him here?
Great question. Thanks, Luke. My article does not discuss whether Aquinas deals with metaphysics or with epistemology. I think it is true that he talks about how we *name* God most properly. For Aquinas, all the divine names are controvertible metaphysically speaking, in the light of divine simplicity. However, the move we make in naming God most properly (for Aquinas) as HE WHO IS is not an indifferent move. Aquinas is rather emphatic that our naming of God as Being is more proper than our naming of him as Goodness. Of course, on his understanding, the two are identical in God (a point I make on p. 225). But since we, creatures, can understand God only by way of analogy, we must prioritize (ST I.13.4, sed contra). This is, indeed, an epistemological move, but it is obviously an important one to Aquinas, which leads him to prioritize Being above Goodness in our naming of God. By contrast, Dionysius places Goodness above Being, both metaphysically and epistemologically.
Thank you so much for your response. This helped clarify much for me.
Does your last sentence imply that Dionysius (and possibly others in the platonic tradition) did not have a view of Divine Simplicity like Aquinas would later develop? One like the identity thesis in which goodness and being are ontologically the same.
Yes, that is correct, Lukas. It's a view of simplicity affected by the essence-energies distinction in the East. You may perhaps find my recent essay in First Things on this helpful. See here: https://hansboersma.org/p/modernity-and-god-talk. I also discuss this in more detail in my forthcoming book, Theophanizing Love (Eerdmans).
Appreciate you! Looking forward to the book.
Thanks for posting this Dr. Boersma. I would be grateful to know of a discussion forum either for this paper or the topic. I am interested to know about the extent of an intersection with process philosophy (which I find scientifically compelling), and the possibility of preserving some form of univocity that preserves a special place for God, e.g., as being qua being. Apologies if these questions are out of place here.
Thanks for your question, John. I’m afraid I am not a fan of process theology, which cannot retain divine transcendence as does classical Neoplatonist Christianity. For similar reasons, I retain analogy of being. In my forthcoming book with Eerdmans, Theophanizing Love, I explain my reasoning in somewhat greater detail. I hope you can wait with fuller rationale till then. Peace!
Thank you for the reply. I may have misread your footnote 7. I look forward to the book.