Abstract

As a Christian, Thomas Aquinas holds by faith that the world is created. But as a philosopher, Thomas articulates strictly rational arguments for his position. These arguments are metaphysical in nature and rely primarily on the metaphysics of participation, which has come down to Thomas through the Neoplatonic tradition, and the metaphysics of act and potency, which he learns from Aristotle. ;Using these tools, Thomas delves into the questions most important to someone considering the notion of creation: What does it mean to say that something is created? Can we establish the createdness of something by examining the thing itself? What is the relationship between creator and creature? Does the act of creation diminish or augment the creator in any way? Is there any sense in which a creature is "its own being," has its own dignity? ;This dissertation examines Thomas' metaphysical principles in the context of his discussion of creation in the Quaestiones disputatae de potentia Dei, to understand better the original metaphysics at work in these arguments and its relation to principles articulated by Thomas' primary Neoplatonic sources and by Aristotle. Two chapters examine the primary arguments concerning creation in the De potentia, explaining first those which establish that all things other than God are created, and second those which concern the nature of the creator. Two further chapters examine five of the most important sources for the metaphysics Thomas employs in the De potentia: the Liber de causis, pseudo-Dionysius' De divinis nominibus, Boethius' De hebdomadibus, Aristotle's Metaphysics, and Avicenna's Metaphysics. Examination of these sources shows their importance to Thomas, but also reveals the originality of his own metaphysics. ;The dissertation concludes with an analysis of the distinction between logical and real relations articulated in the De potentia, and shows that Thomas' understanding of that distinction leads him to maintain that creation is an immanent act of the creator. This position requires an understanding of immanent action very different from Aristotle's and shows once again Thomas' willingness to depart profoundly from the views of his teachers in order to step closer to the truth of things