| . YOUNG THOMISTS I: The Search for Truth My name is Robert Delfino, and I suppose I am a "young" Thomist. This isn’t particularly precise language, especially in contrast to the precision of Thomas Aquinas, but it is not entirely misplaced either. Though I am currently under 30 years of age, what really distinguishes a seasoned "veteran" Thomist like Fr. Norris Clarke from young upstarts like me is the extent to which the principles, methods, and spirit of Thomas have permeated one’s mind (under the light of God’s grace, of course). Exactly how one finds himself to be in love with Thomas is often an interesting tale; and while I’m convinced that the path to Thomas always has some similarities, it differs for each individual. In my case I felt the philosophical pull very early in my life, well before I was ten years old. Having been born to an Italian family, I received religious training early in life. Faith in God’s existence was not a problem in my youth, though I wanted to understand certain things about life. I wanted answers to many metaphysical questions, though I did not yet know the word ‘metaphysics’. I was also dismayed by people’s actions to one another, and, much like Plato, the contemplation of Justice consumed my mind. In time my disenchantment with America’s hedonistic and secular culture grew, and I sought meaning and refuge in God. Through prayer God blessed me with peace and happiness, but still I wanted more. I wanted understanding. My heart and mind were obviously searching for truth, and God, unbeknownst to me, was preparing the way--for it is true that if you seek you shall find (Matthew 7:8). So there I was ripe for intellectual training, just as I began attending St. John’s University, NY, where philosophy is a requirement. Several of my teachers there were Thomists and it is there my love for Thomas began. The love affair initially was brought about because finally I had heard a sane and rational voice in an America of intellectual chaos and decadence. But in time and with greater study the affair deepened and matured because I saw how well Thomas explained timeless truths. The light of reason, aided by grace, shown brilliantly in his mind, and he was also gifted in his ability to transmit that wisdom through his clear writings. (Certainly, St. Dominic would have been proud.) Indeed, there are many paths to God
(faith, mystical experience), but anyone on the intellectual path to God rejoices when he
or she encounters Thomas. The profoundity of his mind reflected God’s mind, as a
mirror reflects the sun. This language is too strong, and I shall make some qualifications
later, but one point should be clear: Thomas’ work is a tour de force of reason. And
that’s how I became a Thomist. In later years, I would reflect and say to myself: (1)
God is all knowing, (2) I was created by God, (3) therefore my mind in some way resembles
God’s mind, (4) I should try to live the rational life and bring my mind into
conformity with God’s mind as much as possible. How could anyone embracing this chain
of reasoning not feel himself to be a Thomist?
II: Current Passions I probably should have said that I am a young ‘neo-Thomist’, because my current passion is to both advance the philosophical views of Thomas, using his principles to address topics he never did, and also to correct whatever errors lie in his work. Yes, Thomas was magnificent, but there are errors in his works and these should be corrected. For example, I cringe every time I hear a contemporary Thomist say that matter is the principle of individuation. Whether they say designated, indicated, determinate or indeterminate matter is unimportant--all of these views are false. That is not to say that Thomas did not hold that the principle of individuation was matter, he did, but it is to say he was wrong. As Jorge J. E. Gracia defends beautifully in his book Individuality, it is being (esse for the Thomists), that is the principle of individuation. Of course some have tried to rescue Thomas on this point, as Joseph Owens attempted in his article in Individuation in Scolasticism, arguing that the basic cause of individuality for Thomas is existence. But anyone who has read the Summa Contra Gentiles and Summa Theologiae knows how frequently Thomas just blatantly says that matter is the principle of individuation. This would not have happened had Thomas been keenly aware that being (esse) was the principle of individuation It is also at times when I hear
contemporary Thomists says things like matter is the principle of individuation that I
worry about "Thomist stagnation"--a stagnation that comes about from a mere
uncritical repeating of very old established views, rather than from a fresh evaluation of
Thomas in light of recent knowledge and personal insight received from God. And this
brings me to my second passion: mysticism. Faith seeks understanding, but ultimately the
person seeks to be with God. Fortunately, God is happy to love us and has shared Himself
with many through mystical experience. Nothing can perfect a Thomist more than for his
mind to be illumined by God’s grace. Thomas was quite correct that Grace perfects
nature. And so it is my hope that the Thomists that have had mystical experience will
integrate what they have gathered from their experiences of God with their intellectual
knowledge. I see this as one of the most important vehicles for the advancement of
Thomism. St. John of the Cross in many ways exemplifies this. This may sit uneasy with
some Thomists, but I must remind you that Thomas himself was never afraid of Truth, for he
held God was Truth. Hence, I feel we too should never lack the courage to go where both
reason and God Himself gudies us. Then we shall have a powerful understanding that can
easily hold its own against the many false philosophies that plague the world. The only
alternative is to let Thomism stagnate and die, and submit to the existentialist void that
sings the defeat of God and reason. Robert Delfino |