토마스 아퀴나스의 영혼-원동자 이론 비판의 이중적 성격 -신학대전 1부 76문 1항의 “principium intellectivum” 개념 재검토-
Duplex Character of Thomas Aquinas’s Critique Against Soul-Mover Theory: “Principium intellectivum” in Summa Theologiae, Ia, q.76, a.1, co. Revisited
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
It is a difficult task to determine the exact coverage of the term “principium intellectivum” used in Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologiae, Ia, q.76, a.1, co. And it becomes more challenging when this term is coupled with his seemingly indifferent usage of “intellectus” and “anima intellectiva,” because this indifference seems to undermine the central thesis of the Thomistic theory of soul: the distinction between intellective soul and intellect. However, thanks to some eminent medievalists of the Twentieth century, we can at least comfortably settle some difficulties and doubts relative to Thomas’s lifelong consistency on the distinction between the two. It remains however uncertain of the reason why he has used such an expansive or ambiguous term like “principium intellectivum” which can entail some serious misunderstandings concerning his famous distinction between “intellectus”, and “anima intellectiva.” Apropos of this uncertainty, some have suggested taking the terminology in question as “une façon de parler.” However, even though we admit that this could be one of the safest ways to account for the uncertainty therein, we cannot but confess that it is not completely satisfactory. That is why we have attempted in this paper a strong reading on Thomas’s critique against the soul-mover theory in Summa Theologiae, Ia, q.76, a.1. in the context of the medieval controversy over unicity or plurality of substantial form. In this processus, we could find a possible way to interpret that this critique has double objectives and that Thomas serves, before he addresses his full-dress refutations in q, 76 aa. 2-4, the term “principium intellectivum” to set a preliminary critique against his opponents in two camps: the Latin Averroists and the Pluralists. In this line of interpretation, we could conclude that the seemingly indifferent usage of Thomistic terms “intellectus” and “anima intellectiva” are not “une façon de parler,” but “une façon strategique de parler” in strict consistency with his central thesis of the distinction between intellect and intellective soul.
Abstract
It is a difficult task to determine the exact coverage of the term “principium intellectivum” used in Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologiae, Ia, q.76, a.1, co. And it becomes more challenging when this term is coupled with his seemingly indifferent usage of “intellectus” and “anima intellectiva,” because this indifference seems to undermine the central thesis of the Thomistic theory of soul: the distinction between intellective soul and intellect. However, thanks to some eminent medievalists of the Twentieth century, we can at least comfortably settle some difficulties and doubts relative to Thomas’s lifelong consistency on the distinction between the two. It remains however uncertain of the reason why he has used such an expansive or ambiguous term like “principium intellectivum” which can entail some serious misunderstandings concerning his famous distinction between “intellectus”, and “anima intellectiva.” Apropos of this uncertainty, some have suggested taking the terminology in question as “une façon de parler.” However, even though we admit that this could be one of the safest ways to account for the uncertainty therein, we cannot but confess that it is not completely satisfactory. That is why we have attempted in this paper a strong reading on Thomas’s critique against the soul-mover theory in Summa Theologiae, Ia, q.76, a.1. in the context of the medieval controversy over unicity or plurality of substantial form. In this processus, we could find a possible way to interpret that this critique has double objectives and that Thomas serves, before he addresses his full-dress refutations in q, 76 aa. 2-4, the term “principium intellectivum” to set a preliminary critique against his opponents in two camps: the Latin Averroists and the Pluralists. In this line of interpretation, we could conclude that the seemingly indifferent usage of Thomistic terms “intellectus” and “anima intellectiva” are not “une façon de parler,” but “une façon strategique de parler” in strict consistency with his central thesis of the distinction between intellect and intellective soul.
참고문헌 (31)
- Johannes de Peckham, "Ioannis Pecham Quodlibeta quatuor: Quodlibeta I-III ad fidem codicum nunc primum edita et Quodlibet IV(Romanum)" (1989), Collegio S. Bonaventura. Padri Editori di Quaracchi
- Johannes de Peckham, "Quaestiones disputatae" (2002), Editiones Collegii S. Bonaventurae ad Claras Aquas
- Johannes de Rupella, "Jean de la Rochelle: Summa de Anima" (1995), J. Vrin
- Mattheus de Aquasparta, "Matthieu d’Aquasparta: Quaestiones disputatae de anima XIII" (1961), J. Vrin
- Thomas de Aquino, "Summa theologiae ad textum S. Pii Pp. 5 iussu confectum recognita" (1953), Collège Dominicain d’Ottawa
- Thomas de Aquino, "In octo libros physicorum Aristotelis expositio" (1954), Marietti
- Thomas de Aquino, "Liber de veritate Catholicae fidei contra errores infidelium, qui dicitur Summa contra gentiles" (1961), Marietti
- Thomas de Aquino, "Sancti Thomae de Aquino Opera Omnia Iussu Leonis XIII P.M. edita, XL-D-E" (1968), di San Tommaso
- Thomas de Aquino, "Sancti Thomae de Aquino Opera Omnia Iussu Leonis XIII P.M. edita, XLIII", pp.1976~ (1976), di San Tommaso
- Thomas de Aquino, "Sancti Thomae de Aquino Opera Omnia Iussu Leonis XIII P. M. edita. XXIV-1" (1996), Les Éditions du Cerf
- Bazán, Bernardo Carlos, "Pluralisme de formes ou dualisme de substances?: la pensée pré-thomiste touchant la nature de l’âme", La revue philosophique de Louvain, 67, pp.30~73 (1969)
- Bazán, Bernardo Carlos, "Le dialogue philosophique entre Siger de Brabant et Thomas d’Aquin : à propos d’un ouvrage récent de E. H. Wéber O.P", La revue philosophique de Louvain, 72, pp.53~155 (1974)
- Boureau, Alain, "Théologie, science et censure au XIIIe siècle : le cas de Jean Peckham" (1999), Les Belles Lettres
- Brady, Ignatius, "Background to the Condemantion of 1270 : Master William of Baglione, O.F.M", Franciscan Studies, 30, pp.5~48 (1970)
- de Libera, Alain, "Archéologie du sujet I : naissance du sujet" (2007), J. Vrin
- Bynum, Caroline Walker, "Material Continuity, Personal Survival, and the Resurrection of the Body: A Scholastic Discussion in its Medieval and Modern Context", History of Religions, 30(1), pp.51~85 (1990)
- Gilson, Étienne, "L’esprit de la philosophie médiévale" (1998), J. Vrin
- Gilson, Étienne, "History of Christian Philosophy in the Middle Ages" (1955), Random House
- Kretzmann, Norman, "The Cambridge companion to Aquinas", pp.128~159 (1993), Cambridge University Press
- Lefèvre, Charles, "Siger de Brabant a-t-il influencé saint Thomas? Propos sur la cohérence de l’anthropologie thomiste", Mélanges de science religieuse, 31, pp.203~215 (1974)
- McInerny, Ralph, "Aquinas against Averroists: On There being Only One Intellect", pp.205~211 (1993), Purdue University Press
- Putallaz, François-Xavier, "Figures franciscaines: de Bonaventure à Duns Scot" (1997), Les Éditions du Cerf
- Pasnau, Robert, "Thomas Aquinas on Human Nature: A Philosophical Study of Summa Theologiae 1a", pp.75~89 (2001), Cambridge University Press
- Pasnau, Robert, "Mind, Cognition and Representation: The Tradition of Commentaries on Aristotle’s De anima", pp.3~20 (2008), Routeledge
- Tracy, Theodore, "The Soul", Boatman Analogy in Aristotle’s De Anima, 1982, pp.77(2), 97~112
- van Steenberghen, Fernand, "Maître Siger de Brabant" (1977), Publications universitaires
- Wéber, Édouard-Henri, "L’homme en discussion à l’Université de Paris en 1270", J.Vrin
- Wilshire, Leland E, "Were the Oxford Condemantions of 1277 Directed against Thomas Aquinas", The New Scholasticism, 48, pp.125~132 (1974)
- 이재경, "토마스 아퀴나스와 13세기 심리철학" (2002), 대구가톨릭대학교출판부
- 정현석, "시제 브라방의 지성과 육체의 관계 이해 －시제 브라방의 『영혼론 제3권의 문제들』을 중심으로－", 중세철학, (19), pp.147~182 (2013), 한국중세철학회
- 정현석, "보나벤투라의 복수 실체적 형상론에서 인간의 통일성의 문제", 현대유럽철학연구, (38), pp.125~154 (2015), 한국하이데거학회