 |
| Saint Thomas Aquinas by Carlo Crivelli, downloaded from Wikipedia |
Both the video and the audio lecture are by Fr. James Brent, OP. The video is good; it gives a summary of the principle of non-contradiction (PNC) and why it's important. But don't miss the audio lecture. Who knew that a 35 minute lecture could demonstrate the power of PNC? The readings give Aristotle's thinking on PNC (and so is a good place to start). The other reading selection is from Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange on the importance of PNC. I thought the following quotes were powerful. Without the light of PNC:
4. It would mean the destruction of all truth, for truth follows being;
5. It would destroy all thought, even all opinion; for its very affirmation would be a negation.
The lecture, "The Principle of Non-Contradiction Yesterday, Today, and Forever," starts with Pope St. John Paul II's Fides et Ratio on the three tasks of philosophy. From the encyclical:
"philosophy needs first of all to recover its sapiential dimension as a search for the ultimate and overarching meaning of life." (81)
"this sapiential function could not be performed by a philosophy which was not itself a true and authentic knowledge, addressed, that is, not only to particular and subordinate aspects of reality—functional, formal or utilitarian—but to its total and definitive truth, to the very being of the object which is known. This prompts a second requirement: that philosophy verify the human capacity to know the truth, to come to a knowledge which can reach objective truth by means of that adaequatio rei et intellectus to which the Scholastic Doctors referred." (82)
"The two requirements already stipulated imply a third: the need for a philosophy of genuinely metaphysical range, capable, that is, of transcending empirical data in order to attain something absolute, ultimate and foundational in its search for truth." (83)
Fr. Brent went on to demonstrate how PNC could be used to fulfill those three requirements. It's interesting that Fr. Brent used St. Thomas Aquinas' method of disputation in the Summa. He presented two disputed questions: 1) Whether human beings have the capacity to know the truth and 2) Whether the principle of non-contradiction is as significant as the ancient and medeival philosophers thought it was. He used PNC to demonstrate that question one can be answered in the affirmative, from which one can intuit the the answer to the second question. I'll give an outline to the first question.
Question 1. Whether human beings have the capacity to know the truth
objection 1: Fact of disagreement
obj. 2: Fact of deception
obj. 3: Antinomies everywhere
obj. 4: Subjective perspectives
obj. 5: Solipsism
obj. 6: Fallibilism
obj. 7: Constructivism (theory construction: theories developed according to our social condition)
Sed contra, from Aristotle's Metaphysics book 4 chapter 3 in his demonstration of PNC, at least one person knows the truth about being, and so then it's possible for human beings to know truth.
Fr. Brent's "I say" begins with three ways to state PNC according to Thomists:
1. It is impossible for something to be and not to be at the same time [and in the same respect] (attributes possessed by a thing)
2. It is impossible for something to exist and not to exist ... (act of existence )
3. It is impossible for a statement to be true and false at the same time and in all the same senses of the terms (logic)
And so Thomists see a distinction between the metaphysical (the first two ways) and the logical (the third way) to express PNC.
About PNC, it is a first principle of metaphysics, and indeed, all arguments presuppose the truth of this axiom. It is self-evident even though it may be difficult to grasp at first. But once a person grasps it they cannot deny it. Indeed, as Aristotle points out, no one can deny it in thought (that is: to think something is and is not at the same time). It's impossible to be mistaken about PNC (it's true, true, and not false). Once it has been demonstrated, one "sees" the truth then one knows the truth.
The truth of PNC is not determined by evidence or the senses. It is an a priori reflection and has an a priori justification for it. Indeed, the modern sciences presuppose the truth of PNC. Another way of expressing this principle is saying that all being is self consistent.
Therefore, human beings have the capacity to know the truth.
The reply to the objections are presented in a way to see how the objections are mistaken.
1. There is no disagreement of PNC in thought (but in words, it's possible say you disagree).
2. It's not possible to be mistaken by PNC (indeed it doesn't require the senses), and so we know something about being.
3. It is because we know already about PNC, that antinomies are alarming for us, and antinomies lead us to investigate further to understand better the object of investigation.
4. PNC is not anyone's perspective, and it shows there is objective truth (it's a doorway to truth).
5. Modern philosophy is really epistemology, where there is a dichotomy between the internal and external world, but PNC exists prior to any distinction of internal and external. Being IS. And the mind is nothing but access to being.
6. Science is not the ultimate account of things; it is not the first philosophy. And as has been shown about PNC, it does not require modern science to demonstrate it. Additionally, Fr. William Wallace gave the example of demonstrative knowledge from nature which one can be sure won't be overturned by new evidence such as the moon is spherical.
7. Research and inquiry are a social acts, but object of research and investigation is the truth of things where we discover the truth. PNC is an example of a truth beyond politics and prior to science.
It may be that my outline of Fr. Brent's disputation is inaccurate. Please listen to the lecture. It's very good and you won't regret it (however, that is a subjective opinion, unlike PNC).
No comments:
Post a Comment