Transcendentals: From Plato to Thomas Aquinas

For more resources for studying Aquinas and medieval philosophy, go to: www.thomisticm...
For my (Prof. Elliot Polsky) about page with student resources, go to: www.elliotpols...

[@muhammeterdogan4704]

I'm studying Aquinas' concept of truth and this video helped me understand the topic. Thanks for posting

[@MT-2020]

tnkx for posting another great lecture... :)

[@PalingenesisRebirth]

I have some questions about the Boethius' proof that all beings are good - firstly, how can all things seek good if they have different concepts of good? Secondly - how does all seek what is like itself? One could easily deny this premise. Thanks in advance for any answer!

[@ElliotPolskyPhilosophy]

"Good" is not a univocal concept, but an analogical one. So, what is good for a rock is different than what is good for a tree, which itself is different than what is good for a dog or human. Nevertheless, the word "good" is not totally equivocal in each of these instances, but rather has a common aspect in virtue of which we can call diverse things good. Although what is perfective (i.e., completing) for dogs, trees, rocks, and humans is different, whatever that perfective or completing thing is, it can be called "good" on the grounds that it is perfective or completing. With regard to your second question. That is a difficult point. Boethius does not explain why it is that everything seeks what is like itself, and he even says that this thesis is self-evident. The way Aquinas explains it is this: If we seek something, we, by that fact, must have it potentially. But if we have it potentially, we are, in a sense, the same as it potentially. Thus, it is self-evident that whatever we seek, we are like potentially.

[@antoniomoyal]

Very good but i missed reference to beauty as a trascendental

[@ElliotPolskyPhilosophy]

Indeed! There's an argument to be made that St. Thomas does think that everything in every category is, in some sense, beautiful. So, you could, in principle, say it is a transcendental for him, but he gives it next to no attention. Those today who give make it one of the big three (truth, goodness, beauty) are acting under the influence of Plotinus and 20th century authors who themselves are influenced by Plotinus. I personally don't like the big three list (truth, goodness, beauty) because it is very un-Aristotelian and un-Thomistic. If you are going to list three besides being, they should be truth, goodness, and unity. Beauty, if it is a transcendental, is basically a composite transcendental of goodness and unity. Goodness and unity are more fundamental.

[@hanskung3278]

I became interested in the transcendentals thru Nietzsche ....but it's still abstract for me

[@hanskung3278]

Isn't saying a "Being is One" a tautology?

[@ElliotPolskyPhilosophy]

Not for Aquinas. He explains this in De veritate, q. 1, a. 1 and in In IV Metaphysics, lec. 2, among other places. Although "one" and "being" both signify substance, not an accident added to substance, they signify it under a different aspect (ratio).

[@hanskung3278]

Jesus! My eyes are starting to bleed!

[@hanskung3278]

Help!

[@jitheshdsouza98]

Good lecture. I just know that everything that exists is good since God's created them.