I wanted to ask what you think are the strongest reasons to prefer thomistic metaphysics/classical theism over something like Gerson's more purely platonic view, and vice versa.
I agree that it's divine simplicity or bust, though I can't tell how much further the harmony thesis between Plato and Aristotle can be extended to Aquinas, or on what grounds we ought to pick one over the other. By natural reason alone, it appears as though the analogy of being and the triplex via permit an almost seamless harmony, but an ambiguous one. I'd say in favor of Aquinas that the primacy of Being among the transcendentals entails the metaphysics of esse, which in turn requires The One be understood as pure actuality. Pure actuality requires the identity of The One and The Good be further understood as an unrestricted act of understanding; the super-eminence of each securing the absolute simplicity of all.
For Plato, I’d say The One interpreted as the superordinate idea of the good permits a deeper and more comprehensive axiology than Aquinas’s perfectionism. In the sense that motivates metaethical nonnaturalism, where goodness can be predicated absolutely, and the good entails the right. Moral platonism isn’t burdened with the same difficulties of formulating a version of natural law that gives God the appropriate role in securing moral obligations that doesn’t either make it subject to the open question argument or another euthyphro dilemma. However, the purely platonic first principle of being, intelligibility, and goodness is so “beyond” that it almost feels like attributing unlimited power to absolutely nothing at all: ex nihilo omnia.
So as a fellow member of the big platonic tent, I’d appreciate anything you might have to share with accounting for the identity of The One and The Good that gives full expression to their place among the divine names without sacrificing something of the other.
Thanks, man! It’s something I’m really trying to think through and never sure who to ask. Like I just emailed Terrence Cuneo about whether non-naturalism is consistent with divine simplicity and he was totally unsure. Lemme know if you know of any work addressing that topic.
Pat,
I wanted to ask what you think are the strongest reasons to prefer thomistic metaphysics/classical theism over something like Gerson's more purely platonic view, and vice versa.
I agree that it's divine simplicity or bust, though I can't tell how much further the harmony thesis between Plato and Aristotle can be extended to Aquinas, or on what grounds we ought to pick one over the other. By natural reason alone, it appears as though the analogy of being and the triplex via permit an almost seamless harmony, but an ambiguous one. I'd say in favor of Aquinas that the primacy of Being among the transcendentals entails the metaphysics of esse, which in turn requires The One be understood as pure actuality. Pure actuality requires the identity of The One and The Good be further understood as an unrestricted act of understanding; the super-eminence of each securing the absolute simplicity of all.
For Plato, I’d say The One interpreted as the superordinate idea of the good permits a deeper and more comprehensive axiology than Aquinas’s perfectionism. In the sense that motivates metaethical nonnaturalism, where goodness can be predicated absolutely, and the good entails the right. Moral platonism isn’t burdened with the same difficulties of formulating a version of natural law that gives God the appropriate role in securing moral obligations that doesn’t either make it subject to the open question argument or another euthyphro dilemma. However, the purely platonic first principle of being, intelligibility, and goodness is so “beyond” that it almost feels like attributing unlimited power to absolutely nothing at all: ex nihilo omnia.
So as a fellow member of the big platonic tent, I’d appreciate anything you might have to share with accounting for the identity of The One and The Good that gives full expression to their place among the divine names without sacrificing something of the other.
Simple, right?
This is a great comment—a great question! Let me see about writing something on this in future.
Thanks, man! It’s something I’m really trying to think through and never sure who to ask. Like I just emailed Terrence Cuneo about whether non-naturalism is consistent with divine simplicity and he was totally unsure. Lemme know if you know of any work addressing that topic.