Plato makes the following epistemic distinctions in his work, the Republic (509d-510a). These steps go in ascending order: in other words, d) comes before c), etc. I have called these steps--"the epistemic ladder." Others make use of this terminology but sometimes apply it differently at times; see
https://repository.usfca.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1068&context=phil
https://academic.oup.com/book/32898/chapter/276569490
In any event, here are the four distinctions that Plato makes along with the objects of their episteme:
a) dialectic thought (noesis)-contemplation of the Platonic Forms/Ideas
b) understanding (dianoia)-reflection on or use of mathematics/geometry
c) belief (pistis)-immediately apprehends sensory sensation
d) opinion (eikasia)-rooted in sensory phenomena
How do these distinctions apply to theology? Thomas Aquinas delineates one potential way:
"The truths that we confess concerning God fall under two modes. Some
things true of God are beyond all the competence of human reason, as
that God is Three and One. Other things there are to which even human
reason can attain, as the existence and unity of God, which philosophers
have proved to a demonstration under the guidance of the light of
natural reason" (Aquinas, SCG 1.3).
To be clear, Aquinas' theology owes more to Aristotle than to Plato, but I'm just showing how the epistemic distinctions of Plato might be applied to theological methods in general. Historically, theologians did make use of Platonic philosophy to shape the contours of their thought: Augustine of Hippo and Justin Martyr are prime examples among the church fathers.
Friday, September 29, 2023
Opinion, Belief, Understanding and Knowledge in Platonic Thought--How Applied to Theology?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
For me the most useful inheretence from Platonism (not just plato but his inheritors) was the concept of participation, or participatory metaphysics. I personally think the Augustinian argument for God (which is really a neoplatonic one) is among the best, and I also think Origen's development of the theology of participation really makes sense of God's relation to the world through the Logos. In my opinion you see the inheretence of Plato filtered through even in the Bible, in John, Paul, and Hebrews, even if it's not directly from Plato but indirectly through Jewish wisdom theology.
I've actually read some of Plato's dialogues to my daughter for the sole purpose of trying to teach/encourage her to think critically by the use of questions.
Some Thomists like Gavin Kerr have argued recently that Thomas has significant influence from neo-platonism.
One more thing I'll say, theres a funny tradition in the early patristic period (I think Philo too) that Plato copied Moses ... probably in reference to the Timeaus, I don't see it, but I wonder where that argument comes from and what it's basis is, and if there is any chance that Plato could have had some knowledge of Jewish thinking.
I agree with you about Augustine's argument for God: he was a thinker and one of the best explicators of Plato's thought. It's also a good point about Aquinas and Neoplatonism and I see that tendency in him too.
I've always been taught that the whole Plato borrowed from Moses narrative is mythical and lacks sufficient historical evidence. I can see why some of the fathers thought that way, but it's just a highly unlike suggestion. See https://muse.jhu.edu/article/851425
Compare https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm
Use search term "Moses"
I agree, it's highly unlikely, but what's interesting to me is that for ancients it was something that could be argued. I always wondered if the Alexandrian method of reading the Hebrew bible was simply a kind of ad hoc platonizing, or if there was something about the genre that made it an appropriate reading. Plato's dialogues are clearly philosophical and dialectic, putting out clear arguments for conclusions, that's not the case with the Hebrew bible (with the exception of Job and Ecclesiastes perhaps), yet you have people in the Alexandrian school, from Philo, to Clement, to Origen, to Eusebius, reading the Hebrew bible as though it was philosophy.
It may just be ad hoc allegorization though.
I submit that there are multiple reasons why the Alexandrians read the Hebrew Bible that way. One thing is likely the Platonism they were taught: check out Justin Martyr's use of the Logos spermatikos concept and what he thought about philosophy's role in the development of Christianity. Both Origen and Philo were likewise trained Platonists although Philo equally shows touches of Stoicism in his writings.
However, a second factor might be the account in Galatians 4:21-26 which seemed to play an important hermeneutic role in the early church. A very helpful book in this regard is Henri de Lubac's four senses of Scripture.
Origen seems to think that if one reads the Hebrew Bible at face value only, then crude absurdities will result.
Roman, see A History of Biblical Interpretation: The Ancient Period (Volume I), (2003) Wm. Β. Eerdmans Publishing Co. Edited by Alan J. Hauser Duane F. Watson.
Frances Young writes an enlightening chapter about Origen and the Alexandrian method in the book.
Post a Comment