Plato, and a wide variety of ancient, Arabic, and medieval Platonisms had a significant influence on Aquinas. The Corpus, with its quasi-Apostolic origin for Aquinas, was his most authoritative and influential source of Neoplatonism. His most influential early sources of Platonism came from Aristotle and Augustine, that is besides the Dionysian Corpus and the Liber. Aquinas greatly acknowledged the Neoplatonic, and the Peripatetic, commentaries and paraphrases he gradually acquired, because they enabled getting to the Hellenic sources. A great part of (...) Aquinas's last writing was devoted to explicating Aristotle's works including the Liber de causis, which was attributed to him. Aquinas wished to understand the philosophical schools such as their characters, the differences between and within them, their memberships, influences, histories, and the extent to which they are complementary. Aquinas gave an extended treatment of the history of philosophy, including lists of differences and agreements between Plato and Aristotle, beginning with ‘the opinions of the ancients and of Plato’ in his On Separate Substances. When Aquinas treated Aristotle in On Separate Substances, he did not leave his Neoplatonic framework behind. There is much more in On Separate Substances concerning the numbers, including an elaborate reasoning that saves the verbally opposed positions of both Proclus and Dionysius. (shrink)

In Truth in Aquinas Catherine Pickstock and John Milbank continue Radical Orthodoxy's ‘reinterpretation’ of the history of philosophy and theology by evaluating philosophy as metaphysics so that ‘metaphysics collapses into sacra doctrina’ in Thomas Aquinas. Their strategy for saving Aquinas from Heideggerian ‘onto‐theology’ is the opposite of that Jean‐Luc Marion who in ‘Saint Thomas d'Aquin et l'onto‐théo‐logie’ keeps philosophy and metaphysics distinct from sacred teaching. The article examines some of the questions involved by reconsidering the nature of philosophy as textual (...) commentary in late Antiquity and in the Middle Ages. It goes on to examine what Aquinas means by ‘the truth of things’, and concludes by looking at how he treats the aspects of metaphysics and the relation of metaphysics and sacra doctrina. Hankey judges that Marion is right on this question. The author suggests that what is involved with Milbank and Pickstock is not a reinterpretation of Aquinas. What they have written depends on mistakes and misrepresentations of basic points in his teaching, e.g, participation, intellectual intuition and abstractions, God's being and his existence in things, with the result that Thomas looks more like Descartes or Spinoza than himself. (shrink)

Radical Orthodoxy is the most radical and influential theological development in a generation. Many have been bewildered by the range and intensity of the writings which constitute Radical Orthodoxy. This book spans the range of the history of thought discussed by Radical Orthodoxy, tackling the accuracy of the historical narratives on which their position depends. The distinguished contributors examine the history of thought as presented by the movement, presenting a series of critiques of individual Radical Orthodox 'readings' of key thinkers. (...) Contributors include: Eli Diamond, Wayne Hankey, Todd Breyfogle, John Marenbon, Richard Cross, Neil Robertson, Douglas Hedley, David Peddle, Steven Shakespeare, Hugh Rayment-Pickard, and George Pattison. (shrink)

Aquinas contradicts Isaiah VI. 6 because of his following of the ps. Dionysius, who is in turn reproducing the logical structures of Iamblichus and Proclus. These came to prevail despite doubts raised by earlier medieval theologians with the exception of Eriugena. Here are considered Thomas’ principles of biblical interpretation and the character of his Aristotelianism. His thought is shown to be a form of neoplatonic systematizing as developed by Iamblichus and Proclus.

This paper contrasts the reception of Dionysius in relation to non-Christian philosophy during the Latin Middle Ages with his reception in twentieth-centuryChristian thought. The medievals, including Eriugena, Thomas Aquinas, Nicholas of Cusa, and many others, as a rule refuse to divide religion from philosophy and they distinguish or unite thinkers by their teaching rather than by their confessional adherence. Hence they see no need to set Dionysius in opposition to non-Christian philosophers such as Plato, Aristotle, and Proclus, or to repudiate (...) the latter in favor of the former. By contrast, Vladimir Lossky and Jean-Luc Marion, with their shared background in Etienne Gilson, celebrate Dionysius in opposition to the non-Christian Neoplatonists, whom they polemically misrepresent as reducing God to conceptual categories. These twentieth-century figures evince a sectarian religious narrowness that blinds them to the textual and philosophical community of Dionysius with his non-Christian sources. (shrink)

We begin with the kinds of knowing and ignorance in Plato’s allegory of the Line in the Republic, and go on to the problem of the relation of human reason and divine intellection in Aristotle’s Metaphysics, I and XII, De anima, II and III, and, especially, Nicomachean Ethics X, 7 and 8. Plato and Aristotle do not establish the human firmly vis-à-vis the divine and leave the Platonic tradition with a deep philosophical, theological, and religious ambiguity. Passing to Boethius’ Consolation (...) of Philosophy and Aquinas in his Summa theologiae and Aristotelian commentaries, we consider how they take up the Platonic-Aristotelian problematic and define the human in relation to the divine, partly by way of the notion of participation which Aristotle rejected. Aquinas is the most determined humanist among the thinkers considered. After outlining features of his position, we conclude with reflections on medieval humanism. (shrink)

For Radical Orthodoxy participatory poiēsis is the only form of authentic postmodern theology and determines its dependence upon, as well as the character of, its narrative of the history of philosophy. Th is article endeavors to display how the polemical anti-modernism of the movement results in a disregard for the disciplines of scholarship, so that ideological fables about our cultural history pass for theology. Because of the Radical Orthodox antipathy to philosophy, its assertions cannot be proven rationally either in principle (...) or in fact, and its followers are reduced to accepting its stories on the authority of their tellers. The moral and rational disciplines are replaced with a postmodern incarnational neo-Neoplatonism in which the First Principle and sensual life are immediately united, without themediation of soul or mind. With this disappearance of theoria, surrender to the genuinely other, or even attentive listening, become impossible. (shrink)

For Radical Orthodoxy participatory poiēsis is the only form of authentic postmodern theology and determines its dependence upon, as well as the character of, its narrative of the history of philosophy. Th is article endeavors to display how the polemical anti-modernism of the movement results in a disregard for the disciplines of scholarship, so that ideological fables about our cultural history pass for theology. Because of the Radical Orthodox antipathy to philosophy, its assertions cannot be proven rationally either in principle (...) or in fact, and its followers are reduced to accepting its stories on the authority of their tellers. The moral and rational disciplines are replaced with a postmodern incarnational neo-Neoplatonism in which the First Principle and sensual life are immediately united, without themediation of soul or mind. With this disappearance of theoria, surrender to the genuinely other, or even attentive listening, become impossible. (shrink)

Recent philosophical and theological writing on Augustine in France, England and North America is sharply divided between readings which serve either a historicist, anti-metaphysical, postmodern retrieval or an ahistorical, metaphysical, modern reassertion. The postmodern retrieval begins from a Heideggerian «end of metaphysics» and goes at least some distance with Jacques Derrida's development of its consequences. This essay starts from engagements with Augustine by Derrida and Jean-Luc Marion, moving then to Rowan Williams on the De trinitate, read to prevent comparison with (...) Descartes' Meditations, and considers how Williams relates Augustine to Plotinus. The opposed modernist interpretation appears in Stephen Menn's Descartes and Augustine, which sees a continuity between Plotinus, Augustine and Descartes. Finally, the essay treats Plotinus and Augustine on God and self-knowledge, maintaining that Augustine's De trinitate is better understood from within a modern ahistorical stance which, within metaphysics, places Augustine together with Plotinus and Descartes. This view better captures his difference from Plotinus than the alternative postmodern perspective tending to assimilate Augustine to Plotinus. (shrink)

I outline features of the emerging consensus that philosophy has now liberated itself from the horizon of onto-theology with respect to the history of metaphysics. I draw on Jean-Marc Narbonne, Hénologie, Ontologie et Ereignis (Plotin-Proclus-Heidegger), conferences presented at La métaphysique: son histoire, sa critique, ses enjeux held at Laval University in 1998, and other recent work, showingwhy Heidegger’s horizon does not encompass ancient or medieval Platonic or Aristotelian philosophy. Noting that both French Neoplatonic studies after Bréhier and Heidegger in Identität (...) und Diff erenz were opposing Hegelian accounts of the history of philosophy, I suggest that: (1) both were reacting to the same problem, (2) French Neoplatonism was motivated by Heidegger’s questions, (3) Heidegger’s account of Being beyond the diff erence of Being and beings resembles the Neoplatonic account of the One. (shrink)

In Truth in Aquinas Catherine Pickstock and John Milbank continue Radical Orthodoxy's ‘reinterpretation’ of the history of philosophy and theology by evaluating philosophy as metaphysics so that ‘metaphysics collapses into sacra doctrina’ in Thomas Aquinas. Their strategy for saving Aquinas from Heideggerian ‘onto‐theology’ is the opposite of that Jean‐Luc Marion who in ‘Saint Thomas d'Aquin et l'onto‐théo‐logie’ keeps philosophy and metaphysics distinct from sacred teaching. The article examines some of the questions involved by reconsidering the nature of philosophy as textual (...) commentary in late Antiquity and in the Middle Ages. It goes on to examine what Aquinas means by ‘the truth of things’, and concludes by looking at how he treats the aspects of metaphysics and the relation of metaphysics and sacra doctrina. Hankey judges that Marion is right on this question. The author suggests that what is involved with Milbank and Pickstock is not a reinterpretation of Aquinas. What they have written depends on mistakes and misrepresentations of basic points in his teaching, e.g, participation, intellectual intuition and abstractions, God's being and his existence in things, with the result that Thomas looks more like Descartes or Spinoza than himself. (shrink)

_Leading scholars engage the later contributions of Maurice Merleau-Ponty._.