|
|
|
Rudolf Steiner e.Lib
|
|
The Philosophy of Thomas Aquinas
Rudolf Steiner e.Lib Document
|
|
The Philosophy of Thomas Aquinas
On-line since: 31st January, 2017
V
THE
APPLICATION OF INTELLIGENCE TO THE HUMAN BODY
“Thomas
could get no further than the abstract affirmation that the
psychic-spiritual really has its effect on every activity of
the human organism.” [p. 96]
This “abstract affirmation” is — as emerges
from the trend of the three addresses — in no sense to be
taken as a toying with concepts invalidated by the “pale
cast of thought.” The whole drama which surges in the
background of scholastic thought, lives in this
“abstrahere,” this “abstracting,” in
this up-building of the scholastic-gothic cathedral. In this
mighty building there is this abstracting, from the bottom to
the top; first, from the material things of the world, the
“phantasmata,” the sensory images, through the
activity of the senses; then from these images, the
“species,” the special concepts, through the
“intellectus agens,” and finally, the
“universalia,” the general concepts, through the
“intellectus possibilis.” But this
“abstracting” from below upwards, through which man
draws into his thought as it unfolds itself “post
res,” what before lay “in rebus is to serve the
purpose of fitting the created human reason into the spirit
forms, through which the Creator's power which works”
ante res acts from the top downwards.
The
innermost impulse of this “abstract affirmation”
applied to the ideal transfiguration of the human body (which
is found by Thomas to be a vision of the future real
transfiguration of the risen body) appears in the works of
Thomas Aquinas in the passage which Rudolf Steiner analyses as
the dramatic climax: when the problems of creation, of human
knowledge and of human individuality concentrate, as it were,
in a knot. It is clearest in the answer to the question: Why
one human soul differs from another.
Since the soul as such (i.e. when abstracted from the body) is
not composed of matter and form, the differentiation of one
soul from another could only be formal, if they were
differentiated only according to their existence as pure soul.
But a formal differentiation involves a division of the
species; (i.e. men would not then all belong to the same class,
but each would be a species in himself, which Thomas grants to
the Angels, but not to men). But the division according to mere
number within one and the same species arises out of the
material difference. And the soul cannot have this
material difference from Nature, out of which it is created,
but from matter in which it is created. Thus, we can
presume the existence of many human souls, which are different
within the same species according to their number, if they are
united to bodies from their own beginning, (i.e. if they have
not a pre-existence in the Kingdom of Nature, out of which they
are created) so that their differentiation originates from
union with the body as the material principle, even if their
differentiation originates from God as the effective principle.
(Quaestion Of the Might of God. III. 10.)
In
the chapter “Reincarnation of the Spirit and Destiny”
of the book
Theosophy,
Rudolf Steiner carries on with compelling logic this Thomistic thought:
“... The man who rightly ponders over the essence of
biography, comes to see that spiritually every man is a
species in himself” This means “secundam
naturam ex qua fit,” according to the pre-existing
individual “nature” which after previous
incarnations enters on birth, the individual human being is a
species of his own. The “materia in qua fit,” the
bodily material, is no longer the “principle of
individuation” though it may retain its full significance
as the object, on which the spiritual individual, in accordance
with his destiny, works.
But
this Thomistic train of thought is a necessary preliminary,
from the point of view of spiritual history, to the spiritual
individualism of Rudolf Steiner. The second of the foregoing
quotations comes from the midst of the fight against
Averroës. The “material individualism” —
if one may call it so — of Thomas is a fortress built of
earthly stone as a protection of human individuality against
the doctrine of Averroës, who snuffs out the intellectus
possibilis and individuality in a universal spirit. Man
acquires — according to Thomas — his individual
nature precisely by living in this earthly body, from which
state (as one then pre-existing) God will after the day of
Judgment vouch him eternal life in a transfigured body through
the Grace promised by Christ [p. 180].
Each human body is, in the sense of Thomas, the concrete tool,
by which God — if one may put it so — takes up the
material with one hand from the realm of Nature, by Him
created, and into which with the other hand, he impresses the
anima humana through the first act of creation of each separate
man. The so-called “Creationism” — the
doctrine that every soul at birth is created by God absolutely
anew — is the inevitable consequence of a thought-system
which through “abstract affirmation” would allow
heaven to triumph completely over the earth in man,
without having the disposal even of the powers of the human
Ego, which have been acquired with difficulty through
centuries, during which the Ego had to find and assert itself
without God or spirit in the universe of material reality,
suppressed by Nominalism with its feeble abstractions.
The
whole force of “abstract affirmation which lives in
Thomas' effort to find a knowledge of the body, is an
expression of the will: to get an insight into the working of
God's” right hand which by the preparation of the body of
the newly-created human soul ordains the conditions of its
individual form, and there with the conditions of its earthly
and heavenly destiny.
God as
Perfect Creator of the Imperfect
The
effect pre-exists according to its power in the effective
cause. To pre-exist in the power of the effective cause,
does not mean, however, to pre-exist in a less perfect, but in
a more perfect mode; even if pre-existence in the potentiality
of the material cause is pre-existence in a less perfect
mode, because matter as such is imperfect, whereas an
“agent” as such is perfect. Now, since God is the
first effective Cause of things, the perfections of all things
must pre-exist in God in a still more eminent degree. And
Dionysius touches this thought when he says of God, in the book
Of Divine Names: “… He is certainly
not this thing; but He is all things, being the
Cause of all.” (S. Theol. /. 4.
II.)
Of the
Creation of the Body of the First Man
Since God is perfect in His works, He gave perfection to all
creatures after their kind ... He Himself is perfect by reason
of the fact that He prepossesses all things in Himself: not in
the manner of something composed of different elements, but
simply and solely, as Dionysius says: that is, in the manner in
which different effects pre-exist in their causes, according to
their single power. Thus, to the Angels He communicates His
perfection in the knowledge of all natural things in divine
forms, a perfection which is received by man after an inferior
manner: for man has not the knowledge of all natural things.
For he is to a certain extent composed of all things; from the
type of spiritual substance he has the rational soul. From his
likeness to the heavenly bodies he has the differentiation from
the opposites by virtue of the extreme balance of his
constitution. The elements, however, are substantial in him,
and indeed in such wise that the higher elements predominate
according to power, namely Fire and Air, since life is passed
agreeably divided between warmth, the quality of Fire, and
moisture, that of Air; but the lower elements prevail in him
according to substance. For in no other way could there be a
balance of the mixture, unless the lower elements, with their
smaller power, outweighed the higher in man in quantity. And
there is this justification, that the body of man is made from
a clod of earth, for earth mixed with water is called a clod.
Therefore, also, man is called a “small world”
because all creatures of the world are somehow found in
him.
Man's body had to be created out of the matter of the four
elements, so that man might be in agreement with the lower
bodies — standing half-way between the spiritual and
material substances.
|
If
Fire and Air, which are greater in effective power, were to
predominate also in quantity in the composition of the human
body, they would attract the other elements completely to
themselves, and there could be no balance which in man's
composition is necessary for the excellence of the sense of
touch which is the basis of the other senses: for the organ of
each sense may not have anything in reality contradictory,
which the sense can test, but only in potentiality,
either in such a manner that it is altogether free of
every kind of this contradiction, as the pupil lacks colour, in
order to be “in potentia,” towards all colours
— which, however, was not possible with the sense of
touch, since it consists of just those elements whose qualities
it experiences — or else so that the organ might
hold the middle place between the opposites, as is necessarily
the case with touch. For the middle is “in
potentia” to the extremes ...
All
natural things are created by divine art, and are therefore
equally God's work. But every master endeavours to give his
work the best form, not simply for itself, but with an eye to
his general purpose. And if this form necessitates leaving
something out, that does not worry the master: as a master who
prepares a saw for cutting, makes it of steel, so that it is
fit to cut; it does not occur to him to make it of glass, which
is a more beautiful material, because such beauty would be an
obstacle to its purpose. So God constructed every natural
thing, also not simply for itself, but according to His
arrangement for its particular purpose, as Aristotle says
...
…The primary purpose of the human body is the rational
soul and its accomplishments. For the matter is there for the
sake of the form, and the tools are there for the sake of the
efficiency of the worker. I say, therefore, that God has given
the human body the best combination in the sense of fitting it
to this form and these accomplishments. And if something is
found to be lacking in the construction of the human body, it
must be remembered that such a defect follows from the
necessary arrangement of matter with regard to that which the
body requires, so that there may be the right relationship of
the body to the soul and its accomplishments.
…The sense of touch, the basis of the other senses, is
more perfect in man than in any other creature that has a soul;
and for this purpose man had to receive the most temperate
constitution. And man also exceeds the other creatures in the
inner powers of the senses. (N.B. — The doctrine of the
four inner senses — the social sense, imaginative power,
capacity to reason, and the sense of memory, cannot be
discussed shortly.) But from a certain necessity it appears
that man falls short of the animals in some outer senses; thus,
among all creatures with souls man has the worst sense of
smell; for man had necessarily to have the largest brain among
all in proportion to his body, so that the accomplishments of
the inner sensory powers could develop more freely, which he
needs for the achievements of the intellect — and also so
that the coolness of the brain might moderate the warmth of the
heart, which again must be large in man on account of his more
erect posture. The size of the brain is an obstacle to the
smell because of its moisture, for the sense of smell is
dependent on dryness. And similarly the reason can be given why
certain animals have a keener sight and a finer hearing than
man — because of the retardation of these senses which is
necessarily postulated in man through the complete balance of
his constitution. The same reason can be adduced for certain
animals being speedier than man, since an immoderate speed is
contrary to the balance of his constitution.
…Horns and claws, the weapons of certain animals, the
thickness of the hide, of hair or feathers, which serve animals
as covering, show the preponderance of earthly elements, which
are contrary to the balance and delicacy of man's composition;
and therefore they were not adapted to him. But instead he has
reason and hands, wherewith he can arm himself with weapons and
protection and other requirements of life in endless variety.
So that Aristotle calls the hand “the organ of
organs” — which, however, really applies still more
to the power of reasoning, which is open to countless ideas,
and gives him an illimitable capacity to make tools.
…The erect posture was given man for four reasons:
First, because man was given the senses not only to
provide himself with the necessaries of life, like the other
animals with souls, but also to appreciate. So while the other
animals rejoice in the senses only in so far as they are
concerned with nutriment and reproduction, man alone rejoices
in the beauty of things as such. And because the senses live
pre-eminently in the countenance, the other animals have bent
their eyes to the ground, in order to search for food and find
nourishment — but man has raised up his countenance in
order to be able to appreciate freely material things on every
side, heavenly as well as earthly, through the senses and
especially through that of sight, which is the noblest and
reveals the greatest number of varieties in things, so that he
may reap the intelligible truth from all. Secondly, so
that the inner senses might be more free for their
accomplishments, by reason of the fact that the brain in which
they are perfected is not depressed but raised above all other
parts of the body. Thirdly, because man, if he were bent
down, would have to use his hands as fore-feet, which would
destroy their fitness for carrying out manifold works.
Fourthly, because, if he were in this position, he would
have to seize his food with his mouth; and for this he would
have to have a prominent snout, and hard thick lips and a hard
tongue, as one sees in animals in order not to be injured by
things. But such a construction would completely prevent
speech, the peculiar work of the understanding.
Although man has an erect posture, still he is the furtherest
removed from plants. For man has raised his upper part, his
head, towards the upper part of the world, and his lower part
is towards the lower part of the world, and is therefore
arranged the best in accordance with the total arrangement. But
plants have their upper part towards the lower part of the
world (for the roots correspond to the mouth). Animals behave
in a middle manner: for the upper part of an animal is that
through which it takes in nourishment, and the lower part that
through which it rejects waste. (S. Theol.
Quaestio 91, from several articles.)
…it was ordained that the woman should be formed from a
rib of the man. First, as a sign that there should be a
union of a special kind between man and woman; for woman is to
be neither the lord over man — otherwise she would have
been formed from his head — nor looked down upon by man
as his slave — otherwise she would have been formed from
his feet. Secondly, because of the Sacrament: for the
Sacraments, namely, blood and water, out of which the Church
(the Bride of Christ) has been erected, flowed from the side of
Christ as he fell asleep on the Cross. (S. Theol.
I. Quaestio 92. Art. III.)
|
From
Thomas' Teaching concerning the Heart
Thomas' teaching concerning the heart is the heart of Thomism.
In the heart intellectual activity comes to an end: in the
“verbum cordis,” in the heart's word, each thought
takes a definite shape. From the heart every movement of the
body, and therefore also speech, the formation of the
“verbum oris,” the mouth's word, originates. The
rhythm of the pulse-beat follows the laws of the heavenly
movements: but disturbances of the rhythm come from passions
that rise in the earthly body. In the heart given to God
passions are purified into virtues: as, for instance, the
burning red of anger becomes the illuminant red of charity.
Here is translated a passage from Thomas'
Commentary on the Treatise of Aristotle
“On the Soul,”
which shows how through “abstract
affirmation” Thomas attempts so to
“intellectualize” the form and movement of the
heart, that all the manifold facets can combine with the
imaginative and conceptual image already there.
Aristotle says that the prime mover in the organism must be of
such a kind that in him must be both origin and end of the
movement, as in a sort of circulation between a convex and a
concave form, of which one is the result, but the other also
the origin. For the concave appears as a reality, but the
convex as an origin of the movement. By virtue of its concavity
the heart is compressed, but by virtue of its convexity it
expands. And because origin and end are contained in it, and
the origin of every kind of movement must all the same be
unmoved — as the arm remains still when the hand is
moved, and the shoulder, when the arm is moved, and as every
movement arises from some sort of non-movement — so there
must be something at rest in the organ of movement, the heart,
in so far as the heart is the origin of movement, but causing
movement in something else, in so far as the movement attains
its object in it. And these two, namely, the stationary and the
moved are different in their behaviour, though inseparable
according to their basis and their size. And that the heart
must be at the same time origin and end of the movement, and
consequently at the same time stationary and in motion is
explained by the fact that every movement in a soul-endowed
creature consists of thrust and pull. The thrust is that which
gives motion, the origin of it, because that which thrusts
something pushes it away from itself. In the pull is also that
which gives motion, the objective of the movement, because the
puller draws the pulled to itself. And therefore the first
organ of the local movement must, in a soul-endowed being, be
arranged at the same time as origin and objective of the
movement. And there must be a stationary part in it, yet it
must all the same be capable of starting movement; as in a
circular movement. For a rotating body does not change its
position as a whole except relatively, because its centre and
its axis remain stationary and stay as far as the whole and its
basis are concerned in the same spot. Its parts, however,
change their position not only relatively but basically. Thus
it is in every movement of the heart. For the heart remains
fast in the same place in the body, but moves in the sense of
expanding and contracting, in order to produce the movements of
thrust and pull. In one way therefore it is moving, and in
another stationary.
With all this it must be carefully noted that the heart is not
presented as a pump for the blood. Scholasticism has as
yet no conception of the circulation of the blood. The
movements of the heart's thrust and pull are rather regarded as
a perpetually available supply, from which the soul when it
desires to institute some definite thrust or pull in the body,
transmits the necessary movement-action by means of the warmth
that moves freely in the body, and the inner life-spirit, to
the organ concerned.
Noble
and Ignoble Bodily Qualities
The
teaching of “the foundation of the senses,” the
sense of touch, is very closely connected with the teaching
concerning the heart. We differentiate between hard and soft,
warm and cold, dry and moist, etc., not (like colours and
sounds) through an organ which is itself without the qualities
it perceives, but through our body which is provided with these
qualities — but which has in the origin of the heart and
lungs a general balance, and this enables it from “the
golden mean,” to differentiate the extremes. The real
organ of touch is, according to Thomas, the heart and lung
region; the flesh is only a medium of touch — like the
“transparent” in vision and the atmosphere in
hearing. From the formation of this medium, through which we
are connected with the elements — particularly, as
“earth-clods,” with the heavy elements —
deductions can be drawn concerning the “nobility”
of individual man.
In
the Commentary on the 19th chapter of Aristotle's work
on the sensibility of the senses (with respect to the treatment
of the sense of smell) Thomas writes:
Man
has the most reliable sense of touch among all soul-endowed
creatures, if in other senses he falls behind certain animals.
Because of this he is the cleverest. And among the race of men
we find from the quality of the sense of touch, and not of any
other sense, that some people are endowed with talents and
others not. For those people whose flesh is hard and who have
in consequence a poor sense of touch are mentally ill-equipped;
but those whose flesh is soft and whose sense of touch is
consequently good, are mentally well-equipped. And the other
beings endowed with souls have also harder flesh than man. To
this it might be objected that the capacity of the spirit
corresponds more with the excellence of sight than with that of
touch, because sight is the more spiritual sense and reveals
more numerous and more diverse sides of the senses. But against
this must be said that for two reasons the excellence of the
spirit corresponds with the excellence of the sense of touch:
first, touch is the foundation of all the other senses; for the
sense is obviously distributed throughout the whole body, and
what is an instrument of every other sense is the instrument of
touch. And touch is that by which anything is characterized as
material. It follows from this that if someone has a better
sense of touch, he has a more sensitive nature, and in
consequence a better intellect; for excellence of the sense
means a disposition to excellence of intellect. But from the
fact that a man hears or sees better it does not follow that he
plainly has more acute senses, or has a more sensitive nature,
except in a particular respect.
The
other reason is that the excellence of the touch-sense follows
the excellence of the whole constitution or of the balance. For
since the instrument of touch cannot be free from the class of
touchable qualities, because it is composed of the elements, it
must thereby be “in potentia” to the extremes, so
that it keeps the mean between them. Good composition of the
body results in nobility of soul, because every form is
proportioned to its matter. And from this follows that men with
good sense of touch are of nobler soul and acuter mind.
|
Touch is “Tactus,” tact! “Tact” as a
psychophysical quality is for Thomas the basis of man's
sense-nature, on which through the functioning of the
intellectus agens and the intellectus possibilis he builds up
the gothic cathedral of scholastic wisdom. How thoroughly
“kneaded” the clod of earth is apportioned by God
to each soul at birth — as delicate or coarse flesh
— from this Thomas Aquinas, the scion of generations of
highest nobility, the cousin of the Emperor Frederic II of
Hohenstaufen, recognizes the “nobility of the soul”
in each man.
But
this bodily delicacy is already a foretaste on earth of the
quality of that spirit body which the blessed souls will
receive after the day of Judgment, through the transfiguration
of earthly bodies put off for a time at death:
|
Because the Blessed soul will be noble and virtuous in the
highest degree, in tune with the primeval principle of the
world, the body united with it by God's disposition will be
substantial in the noblest way, so that the soul can keep it
completely in its control, wherefore it will be delicate and
spiritual as a breath. It will also be distinguished by the
noblest quality, the glory of clarity. And thanks to the virtue
of the soul, this body will be incapable of being deflected
from its construction by any agent; i.e. it will be impervious
to all suffering. And because it will be completely obedient to
the soul, as the tool is to the person who moves it, this body
will be mobile. Transfigured bodies will therefore possess the
four following characteristics: subtilitas, claritas,
impassibilitas et agilitas ...
(Compendium Theologica. Chap. 169.)
A
comparison of this “Anatomy” of transfigured bodies
with Thomas' doctrine of the Hierarchies [p. 66 et seq.]
shows that the transfigured body will resemble the Holy Ghost
in spiritual substance, the first Hierarchy in the
quality of light, the second in power, and the
third in mobility. It will be “sicut Deus”
and will have assumed the characteristics of pure Spirits.
From
Thomas' Teaching concerning the Passions
But
because substance, quality, virtue and mobility do not
“in via,” on the earthly Pilgrim's road, have the
perfection they will have “in patria,” in the
Fatherland, the path to heaven must be fought for on earth by
spiritual building as a guide to the soul's growth. In order to
get at least an idea of the mighty edifice which in the second
part of the Summa Theologica brings the whole medley of
human passions under the influence of the virtues, some
chapters from his Teaching concerning them are appended in
conclusion. They make clear how Thomas throws the bridge from
his knowledge of the body to the spirit world by means of
“abstract affirmation.”
Of
Fear
…in the passions of the soul the formal element is the
movement of the power of desire itself, whereas the material
element is the bodily metabolism; and both stand in a definite
relationship with each other. Therefore, the bodily change
begins after the likeness and standard of the desire-movement.
Now Fear brings with it a certain contraction of the
soul's desire-movement. The basis of it is that Fear arises
from imagining a threatening Evil, which can with difficulty be
driven away ... But that something can with difficulty be
driven away comes from the inadequacy of strength ... The more
inadequate the strength is, the less far can it reach. And so
there results from the imagination itself, which produces Fear,
a certain contraction in the desire; as we see in the dying,
that nature withdraws into the inside on account of the
insufficiency of strength, and as we see in the case of a
community, that the citizens, when they are afraid, retire from
the outer quarters of the town and concentrate as much as
possible in the centre. And similarly with these contractions,
which take place in the desires of the soul, there appears also
in the body a contraction of warmth and life-spirits into the
interior.
...
but, as Aristotle says ... even if in one who is afraid the
life-spirits are withdrawn from the outer organs to the inner,
still the movement of the spirits in one who is afraid and one
who is angry is not identical. For in an angry man on
account of the warmth the subtlety of the life-spirits which
arise from the desire for revenge, an inner movement takes
place from the lower to the upper organs, whereby warmth and
the spirits are collected round the heart. Hence it follows
that the angry become skilful and bold to attack. But in the
fearful, on account of the increased cold which arises from the
imagined lack of strength, the spirits move from the upper to
the lower organs, and so warmth and the spirits of life are not
only not increased round the heart, but rather flee from it.
Therefore, the fearful do not proceed promptly to attack, but
run away.
The
man or animal that is always suffering, seeks every
means to be rid of the trouble which causes him pain. Thus we
see suffering animals belabouring themselves with mouth or
horns. But the greatest help for everything, among animals, is
warmth and the life-spirit; and therefore Nature in pain
collects them into the inside, in order to use them in fending
off the harmful. For this reason, Aristotle says ... that air
is provided for the spirit and the warmth which are collected
in the interior, through the voice; and therefore sufferers can
scarcely suppress cries of pain. But in the fearful the
movement is from the heart to the lower organs, and so Fear
prevents the production of the voice, which takes place by the
emission of the life-spirit upwards through the mouth. Hence
Fear induces dumbness as well as trembling ...
Danger of death works not only contrary to the soul's desires,
but also contrary to Nature, wherefore in this kind of Fear
there is not only a contraction of desire but also of the
body's nature. The soul-endowed creature, when in imagining
death, it withdraws the warmth inside behaves exactly as if it
were in reality confronted with death; and therefore those who
are a prey to the fear of death become pale ... But the evil
which shame fears is not contrary to Nature, but only to
spiritual desire, wherefore there follows a certain contraction
in proportion to the spiritual desire, but not in proportion to
bodily nature; and the soul keeps itself free from the movement
of the life-spirits and the warmth, as if it were itself
contracted, which results in their diffusion into the outer
members. Hence those who are ashamed blush.
...
the result of Fear is a contraction from the outer into the
inner organs; wherefore the outer organs become cold. This
gives rise to trembling, which is caused by the
inadequacy of the strength which holds the limbs together. But
such an inadequacy is chiefly the result of a lack of warmth,
which is the instrument by which the soul produces movements,
as Aristotle says.
...
because with Fear the warmth leaves the heart, going from the
upper to the lower organs, the fearful tremble most in the
heart and in the limbs, which have a connection with the breast
where the heart lies. Therefore, also the fearful tremble in
voice particularly, because of the proximity of the windpipe to
the heart; the lower lip also trembles and the whole lower jaw
because of their connection with the heart. From this comes
also the chattering of the teeth. For the same reason the arms
and hands tremble ... but possibly also because these limbs are
more flexible; which applies equally to the knees.
In
the category of bodily tools Fear as such is always of such a
kind that it prevents the outer accomplishment on account of
the lack of warmth, which through Fear occurs in the outer
limbs. But in the sphere of the soul Fear, if it is moderate
and does not confuse the reason too strongly, helps to produce
good by causing a certain anxiousness and leads man to reflect
and act more carefully. Nevertheless, if Fear so increases that
it confuses the reason, it hinders accomplishment also in the
province of the soul. (Summa Theologica, II. 1. Quaestio
44, from different sections.)
Of
Anger
If
we consider the nature of the genus — i.e., the nature of
each man as a soul-endowed being, concupiscence is more natural
to him than Anger, because by reason of a common Nature man has
a certain tendency to desire what serves to maintain the life
of his kind or of the individual. But if we consider human
nature in the domain of the species, namely in so far as man is
a rational being, then anger is more natural to him than
desire, because anger is closer to reason than lust. ... If,
finally, we consider the nature of one definite individual in
accordance with his own temperament, then Anger is more natural
than lust, because from a natural tendency to get angry, which
comes from this temperament, Anger is much more easily let
loose than lust or any other passion. For man is liable to be
angry in proportion as his temperament is choleric. But among
all juices, choler is the quickest roused, it — after all
— resembles Fire; and so one who is liable to Anger
because of his natural temperament, is quicker to become angry
than one who is inclined to concupiscence is to become lustful
...
… In the sphere of bodily temperament it is natural for
man, according to his kind (as rational being), not to have any
excess, either of Anger, or any other passion, because of the
proper admixture of his temperament. But animals, since they
are far removed from this temperate quality, and are extremes
in one direction or another, are correspondingly addicted by
Nature to excess of one or another passion, as the lion to
boldness, the dog to anger, the hare to fear and others
similarly. But in the domain of reason both anger and control
are natural to man, since reason in one sense induces anger, by
making the cause for it conscious, or in another sense assuages
it, in so far as the angry man does not entirely obey the
command of reason ... (Summa Theologica, I.,
i. Quaestio 46,
5.)
…the bodily metabolism stands in a definite relationship
to the rousing of desire ... Every desire strives more strongly
towards its opposite, if it happens to be present [p. 123]. The
rousing of anger, however, is caused by an inflicted insult, as
well as by stubborn opposition, and thus the desire seeks to
the utmost to retaliate for the insult by revenge. Hence the
violence and impetuosity of irate movement. And because the
movement does not occur in the manner of a retirement,
corresponding with cold, but rather in the manner of an
advance, corresponding with warmth, it causes in consequence a
certain glow of the blood and life-spirits round the heart,
which is the instrument of the soul's passions. For this
reason, on account of the great Turmoil in the heart, which
Anger implies, certain signs appear in the outer limbs of those
who are angry. Thus Gregory says: “The heart inflamed by
the pricks of Anger twitches, the body trembles, the tongue is
tied, the face becomes hot, the eyes wild, and friends are no
longer recognized; the angry man shouts with his mouth, but
knows not what he says.”
…Love is felt differently ... True, when a man
experiences through insult a diminution of a beloved
excellence, Love is felt more strongly; and the heart is more
passionately stirred to banish whatever attacks the beloved
object, as if the flame of love grew and became stronger
through Anger. Nevertheless, the glow following the warmth of
love is different from that of Anger; for the warmth of love is
characterized by a certain sweetness and mildness; it extends
to include the beloved possession, and so is assimilated to the
warmth of the air and the blood. Wherefore those of sanguine
temperament are more inclined towards Love; and it is also said
that the liver, in which a certain blood-production takes
place, urges one towards Love. The heat of Anger, on the other
hand, is filled with a bitterness and desire to devour, because
it urges one to punish what opposes it; and therefore it is
assimilated to the heat of Fire and Choler.
…As a large fire quickly goes out after the fuel is
consumed, so Anger by its very violence, comes soon to an
end.
… although the reason makes use of no bodily organ for
its own ends, bodily disturbances must nevertheless impede the
rational judgment, because it is dependent for its functioning
on the powers of the senses, whose activity is limited by
bodily disturbance, as is seen in drunkenness or sleep. Now
Anger produces a disturbance chiefly in the region of the
heart, so that it is transmitted also to the outer limbs, and
for this reason Anger of all the passions interferes most
visibly with the judgment of reason.
… one says of someone seized with sudden anger, that he
is open, not because it is clear to him what to do, but because
he acts openly without seeking any secrecy. This comes partly
from the interference with the reason, which cannot
differentiate what is to be hidden and what revealed, and
cannot think sufficiently for the cunning required for
concealment. But partly it comes also from the breadth of heart
which is a quality of magnanimity and this is caused by Anger.
Therefore, Aristotle also says of a man with large soul, in his
Ethics, that he is an open hater and an open lover, and
that he speaks and acts frankly. But concupiscence one calls
underground and insidious, because for the most part the
desired object of delight savours to a certain extent of
disgracefulness and voluptuousness, and herein man prefers to
remain unseen. But in those concerns which belong to manliness
and excellence, man seeks to be frank. [Summa
Theologica, II, 1. Quaestio 48, several sections.)
Anger, like every other passion, according to Thomistic
philosophy, is introduced into the Soul, not by reason of the
Soul's own spiritual nature, but by reason of its being tied to
the body — i.e., from outside, in so far as the whole,
composed of soul and body, undergoes the passion. In the
Paradisal condition of “justitia originalis,” the
body was completely subject to the soul, whose lower powers,
from which the passions rise, were subject to reason, and the
reason to God. Through the Fall this condition of
“original justice” was lost. Christ, who had no
“passions” in the sense of Thomas' doctrine of the
passions, because, for instance, his “Anger” was
entirely the effluence of the Divine Will, and his
“Love” entirely the “actio” of the
presence of the Divine Spirit, has through his
“Passion” opened up the way for man from out of the
chains of the “passiones.” With the simple stress
and the endless complexity of a Gothic cathedral, Thomas, in
his doctrine of Virtue, with its base the Cross of the
“passio Christi,” raises man towards heaven out of
the fetters of their “passiones” — towards
that condition of the future transfiguration, where the new
body will be “impassibilis,” freed from the fetters
of passion, [p. 180.]
But
Rudolf Steiner states that “in the 13th century the
Christian principle of Redemption could not be found in the
idea-world,” [p. 108.]
Rudolf Steiner's Anthroposophy, the spiritual
Goetheanum answers the question: “Where
does Thomism dwell in the present day?” In the spirit of
the Risen Christ, who in the form of a mighty wooden statue
appears in the double-domed chamber of the Goetheanum, Rudolf
Steiner in the last of his three Addresses could say:
“The redeemed human reason, which has the real
relationship with Christ, this forces itself upward into
the spiritual world; and this process is the Christianity of
the 20th century, — a Christianity strong enough to enter
into the innermost recesses of human thinking and human
soul-life.” [p. 108.]
After seven centuries the Thomistic contribution to knowledge
of the human intellect crucified in the body, towering up from
the Gothic ground-plan of the Cross, gives way to the
contribution of Rudolf Steiner, envisioning the body and
releasing and awaking the soul, a contribution whose
“Goetheanic” plan is related to the Gothic Cross,
as Easter is to Good Friday.
|
Last Modified: 02-Nov-2024
|
The Rudolf Steiner e.Lib is maintained by:
The e.Librarian:
elibrarian@elib.com
|
|
|
|
|