Entry 0237: Aquinas on Saint Anselm
Herwi Rikhof writes: “(1) by
placing Thomas’ criticism on the ratio
Anselmi, as can be found in the Summa
Theologiae, in the context of his discussion of the question whether ‘God
is’ is a propositio per se nota, (2)
by comparing this discussion with discussions in previous systematic works, and
(3) by showing parallels between his way of arguing in this case and in related
questiones, I have tried to defend
the thesis that the common picture of Thomas’ criticism is not correct.
“His criticism is not purely
negative and dismissive. On the contrary: Anselm’s ratio provides an insight, an argument for understanding ‘God is’
as a per se nota proposition.
“Thomas’ criticism is not just
the criticism mentioned in his direct reply, but also and mainly the criticism
against an unqualified acceptance of ‘God is’ as a per se nota proposition. And this criticism is motivated by a
typical theo-logical concern: how to speak adequately, or more precisely, how
to speak least inadequately about God we believe in.
“The conclusion that in God
essence and existence are identical belongs to the heart of the quomodo-non-sit inquiry. This explains
why, for the discussion about ‘God is’ being per se notum, Thomas can point to the identity as satisfying the
(formal) requirement of a propositio per
se nota, while at the same time pointing to the impossibility on our side
to know God’s essence as the basis for a radical qualification. The theoretical
insights about per se notum knowledge
can serve to elucidate our use and understanding of ‘God is,’ but only up to a
point. In Aquinas’ view Anselm’s ratio
does not sufficiently take into account that last qualification.”
See Herwi Rikhof,
“Aquinas and the Ratio Anselmi: A Theo-Logical Analysis of Aquinas’ Criticism,”
Archivio di Filosofia 58 (1990):
137-159. See also, Michael V. Dougherty, “Aquinas on the Self-Evidence of the
Articles of Faith,” The Heythrop Journal
46 (2005): 167-180.
