St. Augustine - Historian of Philosophy.pdf

8/12/2019 St. Augustine - Historian of Philosophy.pdf

1/58

Loyola University Chicago

Loyola eCommons

Master's Teses Teses and Dissertations

1934

St. Augustine as a Historian of PhilosophyJames Patrick BroganLoyola University Chicago

Tis Tesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Teses and Dissertations at Loyola eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in

Master's Teses by an authorized administrator of Loyola eCommons. For more information, please [email protected].

Tis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Aribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.

Copyright 1934 James Patrick Brogan

Recommended CitationBrogan, James Patrick, "St. Augustine as a Historian of Philosophy" (1934).Master's Teses. Paper 73.hp://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_theses/73
http://ecommons.luc.edu/http://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_theseshttp://ecommons.luc.edu/tdmailto:[email protected]://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/mailto:[email protected]://ecommons.luc.edu/tdhttp://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_theseshttp://ecommons.luc.edu/


2/58

A M D G

ST. AUGUSTINE AS A HISTORIAN OF EHILOSO?HYA Thesis submitted tothe Graduate .l 'acultyof ~ o y o l Universityin part ial fulfillmentof the requirementsfor the degree of Masterof AI"ts,

Loyola UniversityChicago I l l1934.

37

JAMES ?ATRIC BROGAN


3/58

Vita.

I was born July 2 1911, in the CLty of Toledo,Ohio. I attended the m m a c u l ~ t e Conception grammox school.Upon completion of the eig ht year course I enrolled at St.John s High School, from which I w ~ s g r ~ d u a t e d in 1 ~ 2 9 IReceived the degree of Bachelor of Arts f r o ~ n St. John s Uni-versity n June 1933.


4/58

VitaIntroductionThalesAnwcimunderA naximenesPythagorasHeraclitusAO axagorusArchelausDiogenesDemocritusSophistsSocrb tesA ntisthenesA ristippusPlato

TaB1E OF CONTENTS

Successors of ElatpAristotleStoicsEpicureansPlotiuusPorp b ryConclusion

?age

178911121;151616192022232434353742454750


5/58

In his introduotion to his work: Early Greek ?ai l -osopky J. Burnet te l l s us that i t is impossible to write ahistory of philosophy. A man s philosophy is too personal athing, ae thinks, and i t i s impossible for a man to capturethe true spir i t of i t . Nevertheless, many - ~ varied aTe

1.

been the atterupts ~ e b ~ mea seeking to present a true pic-ture of the progress of philosophy since i t s ear l ies t beginning.There i s no doubt t h ~ t these histories have be0n of great ser-vice to mankind and h ~ v e aided students no l i t t l e in the pur-sui t of philosophy. They h ~ v e presented a picture of i t s pro-gress and ave aided us in gaining an insight into the livesand philosophical systems of those me.n, through the efforts ofwhom, the s t u d ~ of philosophy w ~ kept alive and give.n the im-petus whic.i. aided i t in gaining the position w.b.ich was i t sdue.

Nearly al l philosophers have incorporated cons-ciously or unconsciously, in their writings, a history of phil-osop.b.y at least a history of those men who .la.ave preceded themin this department. I t is e s n e c i ~ l l y in those whose writingshave been prolif ic , that we find frequent references to t.b.ewritings of others. Now among the philosophers of antiquity,we find the name of St. Augustine holding a prominent place.He was a pioneer in the f ield of Christian philosophy and wasone of t.be greC;i.test speculative thinkers, the greatest , perhaps,


6/58

2.since Aristotle. He synthesized a l l the best elements of paganphilosophy into a system of Christian thought. St. Augustineis ~ n o w n as the founder of the Philosophy of History, which isexemplified in his g r ~ t work: De Civitate Dei. e are now go- _____ing to present him in a .new role - as a histor ian of Greekphilosophy.

St. Augustine was born at Tagaste in Numidia the sonof Patricius, a pagan, and Monica who was a devout Christian.He was educated at Tagaste and from there he went to Carthageto continue his studies. He devoted his attention to the studyof Rhetoric, which subject he intended to teach. e learn fromhis Confessions, that in his youth, he posessed noile of thoseadmirable qualities for which, in his la ter years, he becamefamous. He was given to immoralities and travelled witb loosecompanions. St. Augustine had a great deal of spare time onhis hands during his youth and this did not serve to improvehis character or his morals.

Throughout his . > ~ o u t h and early ma.n.b.ood Augustine continued his immoral l i fe , and remained in the company of evilcompanions. He did, however continue his studies and advancedin wisdom for which he had an ardent love. In his Confessions,ae te l l s us that at this time he came across a book of Cicero'swhich was enti t led Hortensius and which contained A exhor-tat ion to philosophy. This book changed his affections and

c:Book: l l i , Cia. II: ~ -


7/58

3.started him upon the study of pb.ilosophy. He was led astrayby the doctrines of the Manicheans and became one of their sectdrawi.ug ot.b.ers after him. After some time however he foundfault with their doctrines and finding that not even Faustusa great bishop of t.be Manio.beea could answer his diff icul t ieshe resolved to leave tbem.

~ u g u s t i n e continued his profession as teacher of:ahetoric a t Rome und Milan where he came into contact with thesaintly bishop Ambrose. Through his influence Augustine became a Cathecumen in the Catholic Church and made his breakwith the Manicheans definite. Augustine gradually abandonedmany of the errors into which he had fallen; he desired absolute certainty. He became an ardent adherent of the Platonicphilosophy by which he w ~ s strongly influenced throughout a l lhis wri tinge. ihen lle was thirty-three years of age St. Au -gustine decided to devote his l i fe to God ~ n was received intothe Catholic Church. I t was not long before he was ordained apriest and eventually became Bishop of Hippo in Africa.

From this short sketch of his l i fe we can see thatSt. Augustine was well qualified to write a history of Greekphilosophy. He came into contact with many of the writings ofthe Greek philosophers as we read in various places in theConfessions. Having been an adherent of both the Manichean andAcadelliic sects. he doubtless learned much about Greek philosophy from them. Moreover Augustine himself was not so far


8/58

removed from the era in which Greek philosophy florished, sothere was doubtless a great deal of information available on

4.

these men in his time. In his Co.nfessious he reaarks that hehad reci.d o.nd well rewembered much. of the philosophers; i t ishighly probable that the term philosophers., here refers toGreeie philosophers. Thus we see thut s t . Augustine would becompetent as a historian of r e e ~ philosophy.

Throughout Augustine's works we find frequent ref-:erences to the philosophical systems of others, and i t i s ouraim here to present .b.is views on Greek philosophers. In BookVIII of Augustine's De Civitate Dei, we find a short sketch ofthe history of philosophy from tbe begiuni.ng, up to and including ?lato. I t is upon this that we have based our worktogether with the other philosophical works of Augustine inwhich were found expressed opinions on Greek Philosophers andPhilosophies.

I t i s more or less a matter of conjecture as toAugustine's authorit ies for the statements he makes regardingGreek philosophers. Except for a very few instances he makesno mention of the authorit ies upou whom he ma.r have rel ied.Au5ustine was forced to rely on Latin translations for his~ o w l e d g e of Greek philosophers. In his Confesgions he men-tions the fact that he disliked the study of Greek v-ery muchas a boy; in various other works similar statements are made

Book V Ch. I I I 3.


9/58

5.so t h ~ t i t i s pretty oertain that Augustine s knowledge ofGreek: was very med.gre, i f he knew any a t a l l . There w w manyaut.borities extant in Augustine s time, of whose work:s he mighthave mo.de use. Some of these along with their works are:Plato: Dialogues :Ar i s to t le : M e t a p h y s i c s ~ h y s i c s and otherworks; Cicero: Various works; Dioge.aes L


10/58

Deus semper idem, noverimme noverim te S o l i l i q u i a ~I I 1, 1.}Feaist i nos ad te, et i n q u ~ e t u mest cor nostrum donee requiesaatin te . ( Confessions }

6 .

These s t ~ t e . e n t s give the whole scope of A u g u ~ t i n i ~ philosophy.Jiirui Deo i s t e ..b.1ghest good; i t is the very p e a ~ of phil

osophy. In the De Civita;te Dei, we get his defini t ion of atrue philosopher: Verus philosophus est amator Dei . Thusfrom the foregoing we see that with Augustine, philosophieswill either s t ~ or fa l l according as they voice theirthoughts concerning God and the soul. lie will apply th iss t a n d ~ r d w ~ a i l i n g l y in his cr i t ic ism of other philosophicalsystems. Nith this standard, of course, Augustine's views wliillbe somewhat different from those of the .modern histprians whowil l adopt cl:ifJ..erent Stdnd rds iJ.l their judgments on Greek:philosophers. I t i s with Augustine's views, however, t ~ t weare here concerned; the views of the modern historians arebrought in more or less as a check on the stt::Ltements of St. Au-gustine - to note the points on which tbere may be agreement ordissension. In choosing our modern authori t ies, we have chosen1uen representative of the modern view-point.

We shall present Augustine's views us extracted fromhis writings, and then present the-modern view, which, as wehave seid, i s to act as a check on the statements of Augustine.


11/58

7 .

rn our presentat ion of his views o Greek philosophers we shal lfollow as far as possible the order in whiuh the men and thevarious systems made thei r appearance. Ne shal l begin our pre-sentation with Thalea.Thalea:

Thalea of Miletus Augustine t e l l s us in Book VIIIof the De Civitate Dei was the fou.nder of the Ionic school ofphilosophy. He was among those who were st.tlea. the seven sagessix of whom were distinguished b; the kind of l i fe they l ivedand by certa in maxims which they gJ.ve forth for the conduct ofl i fe . Thalea however was distinguished as an investigator in-to the natural causes of things. That w h ~ h especially rendered him eminent Augustine holds was his abi l i ty by m e ~ n s ofastronomical c ~ l u u . l ~ t i o n s to predict eclipses of tbe su.n andmoon. Thales thpught t b l : i t wc.ter wc s the f i r s t prin\ ;iple of

t h ~ . n g s and tb.t.t of i t a l l the elements of the world and eventhe world i t se l f consi:::Jts. This is one point on whiuh Augus-t ine cr i t icizea Thales - the fact tb.t:.t he hb hdEL;water to be thef i ro t principle - thus m a ~ r i n g the fir;;;t principle of a l l thingsmaterial. He classes T.b.ales among those whose minds are en-

laved to their bodies. Au.gu.stine also t e l l s u s that Thalescommitted his dissertat ions to writing in orJ.er that he mighthave successors in his school. He makes no mention of any ofthe particu.l ar works with which he might have been acquainted

De Civitate Dei Book VIII 5.


12/58

8.bowever.

J. Burnet whose w o r ~ : Early Greet Philosophy willbe our main source inregc;a.rd to the modern views on those early

G r e e ~ philosophers t e l l s us that Thales the founder of theMilesion school was, to a l l appearances the f i r s t hu.ruan beingwno c< iJl be r ight ly called a I 4 ~ l l of science. Things which Augustine seems to have s t ~ t e as posit ive facts about ThalesBurnet mentions s being of popular t r ~ i t i o n and does not ap-pear to place much fai th in them. That the principle of a l lthings i s water which ;l ugustine recognized as the main tenetof Thales is regarded by Burnet merely as a guess of Aris-to t le there being no evidence in support of i t . Burnet dis-agrees with .Augustine about the writings of Tb. .les, for heholds tho.t Tha.les does not appear to have writ ten anything.a.naximander:

TAl successor of Thales ac0ordint to Augustine wasAnaximC:Ulder, who held o different opinion concerning the natureof things. For he did not hold t h ~ t i;i.ll things spring from oneprinciple but thought tho.t et..c.b thing springs from i t s ownproper principle. These principles he thought to be inf in i tein number, and he thought that they genera. ted innumerc.;.bleworlds and t-11 the things wh ch arise in them. lie also thoughttho.t these worlds were subject to ulternate dissolution and re-generation each one continuing for 6. longer or shorter periodof time according to the nature of the c ~ s e He i s l i ~ e w i s e


13/58

9.

classed w.uong those who fai led to at tr ibute anytb.i.ng to a divinemind in the production of things.

Burnet gives Anaximander a m u ~ h fu l ler t r e u t m ~ n t .He refers to book writ ten by Anaximander of which Augustinemakes no mention. He holds that Anaximander did not seem to

t h i n ~ i t necessary to f ix upon a i r or w ~ t e r as the original andprimary form of the body; he preferred to represent i t ~ s abuu.nd.less something from which a l l th.ingl:3 r ise and to whichthey re turn ag:.iin. He was struck b.t t h ~ fact th


14/58

10.

does not in the l e ~ s t move the man who understands that, sincethe ir is certainlJ not God, there is no l i ~ e n e s s between themanner in which the uir is generated, and the manner, understood by none except through divine inspiration, in which Hewas begotten a1ho is the dord of God. He remarks th t even inr e g ~ r d to material things, a person speaks foolishly who suystho.t the c.ir is g e n e r ~ ; ~ , t e d , and is at the S


15/58

l l .

made ~ St. Augustine. Burnet also affirms that .A.naximenesthought of air as being a god. Anaximenes' o s m ~ l o g y i s spokenof by Burnet, as being reactionary.Pythagoras:

The I tal ic school ba d as.:.i ts founder, Pythagoras ofSames, according to Augustine. The term philosophy also owesi t s origin to Pythagoras; for Pythagoras, on being asked whathe professed, replied that he was a philosopher, that is ,lover of wisdom. Augustine divides the study of wisdom intoaction and contemplation. The contemplative part, which has todo with the investigation into the causes of nature and intopure trut.h, is that depart;:Jent in which Pythagoras is sc.id tohave excelled, acuording to s t . Augustine. For he suys thatPythagoras g ~ v e more attention to the contemplative p&rt, bring-i rJ b to bear on i t ' 'a l l the force of his great intel lect .

Moderns also spea.te highly of Pythagoras. Burnetsass of him that he must have been one of the world's greatestruen, but that he wrote nothing, and thus i t i s hard to say howmuch of tbe Pythagoreun doctrine is to be attr ibuted to him andhow muoh to his followers. He was famous as a mo n of scienceand was ulso thefoander of mathematics. Augustine makes nomention of this . The fame of Pythagoras, acuording to Burnet,was due to his discovery that what gives form to the Unlimitedis the Limit. I t is through this that the Pythagoreans

De Civitate Dei VIII, 4 ,


16/58

12.

discover the conception of form, the correlative of matter, theconception of which had been reached w the Milesians.

There ow uomes a gap in Augustine s history ofphilosophy. For he passes over, without ny n.ention whatever,such men as Parmenides, ~ e n o p h a n e s zeno of Eleu, and .U.elissus ..::..ugustine gives o reason for ami tti.ng these nwnes. dhether ~ edid not consider them of sufficient importance to mention isonly a matter of conjecture. These men are a l l considered nhistor ies of philosoph; r written by moderns. Augustine takes uphis story again with Heraclitus.Heraclitus:

Augustine does .uot mention Heraclitus by name al-though he does cri t ic ize a doctrine whioh i s attr ibuted to him.For n the e Civitate Dei, Book VIII, II he ~ a y s t h ~ t thereare some who think that this is the only world, but that i tdies and i s born again at fixed intervals, and this times with-out number. However Augustine states, they n.ust acknowledgethat the u m ~ race existed before there were others to begettbem. For the,t cannot suppose that, i f the whole world wouldperish. some men would be l e f t alone in the world, as they mightsu.zvi ve n floods and fi-res, which these speculators suppose tobe partta.l, and thus from which they could re.;.sonably arguethat a few men survived whose posterity would renew the popu-lation. For, ,ugustine goes on since they believe that the

Early Greek P h i l o s o ~ ~ Ch. I I


17/58

13.

world i t se l f is renewed out of i t s own q1aterial so they n.ustbe:J..ieve t h ~ t out of i t s ow.n elements tbe human re:;.ce was pro-duced.

In tleating of Heraklei tos Burnet holds that he isn.uch too big for treatment by our formulas. There is no

s ~ i e n t i f i c discovery which can be attr ibuted to him however.His cosmology was reactionary to that of his predecessors.Burnet uoes not refer to the theory of Herakleitos which Augus-t ine had cri t icized

Another man who is always considered bF modern his-toria.ns of philosophy and .vhom Augustine f i l s to mention i sEmpedocles. ~ ~ s in the former cases Augustine gives no reasonfor the omission. The next man to be considered by Augustinei s .Anaxs.goras.Anaxagortl.S:

A.naxagoras i s .a.entioned by Augustine as having beenthe pupil of .A.Daximenes. He perceived that a divine mind wasthe productive cause of l l things which we see. He held that

l l the various kinds of things a c ~ o r d i n g to their severalmo des and species were produced out of an inf in i te matter con-sis t ing of homogeneous part icles but by the efficiency of a

Idivine mind. In his Letters Augustine col llil,ents on referencesmade ~ Cicero on A n x ~ o r ~ s . Here he says that Cicero speaksas i f A.naxagorb.S had said that mind, to which he ascribed the

e t ~ e r cx.vrii, 24.


18/58

14.

power of ordering and fa.shioni.ug a l l things, ht;1d sensation suchas the soul hu.s b.. means of t.b.e body; for wha.tever is perceivedby sensation i s not c o n c e ~ l e d from the whole soul. However,Anaxagoras had not said anything about bodily sensation. He.cefers again to Cicero, who na.d said that mind, according to.;UJ.axa.goras, i s a kind of a body a.nd has within t an animatingprinciple, because of which t i s called a.nimal. I f then i t isan a n i m ~ l i t must have oome exterior body. Augustine holds that

i ~ e r o speaks here as i f A n a x a g o r ~ s had said that mind cannotbe otherwise tha.a belo.nging to some animal. A.nd yet, .Augustinegoes on, ~ g o r ~ held the opinion that essent ial Supreme Wis-dom i s mind, ~ t h o u g h t i s not the } : i e c a l i ~ ; . . r property of anyl iving being, since Truth is near to a l l souls alike who breable to enjoy i t . Thaa u g u s t ~ n e holds that A n a x a g o r ~ s per-ceived the exJ.stence of this Supreme . fisdorn and apprehended i tto be God. He says farther thut we should not think ourselvesm.;;,de wise merely y ac -tllaintb.llce wi tb the name A.naxagoras, noreven by oar having the G:nowledge }hrough which AnaxEa.goras ltnewthis t ruth. ], 'or he holds that t ruth ought to be deEz.r to us, notmerely because i t was not llllknown to AnuXagoras, but b e c ~ a s e i tis the t ruth .

e learn from Burnet t h ~ t Anaxagoras was an adherentof the philosophy of Anaximenes, thus confirming Augustine sview. Mind, Burnet holds, was referred to by . ..naxagoraa as the

Chan. IY, pp. 76 81 .


19/58

15.source of motion. Burnet also holds that i t is not incorporeal:thus he d i s ~ g r e e s with Augustine's view. According to Burnet,mind, a.s viewed by .A.naxagoras, is sort of a f luid, and unmixed.t enters into some things and not into others; tbus is ex-

plained the dist inction between the .;illimu.te and the inanimate.The way in which i t separates things and orders them is byproducinl a rotatory motion which begins a t the center andspreads out. Thus, Mind, in Burnet 's opinion, is sor t of a

deus ex machintl.". He o.lso says t.b.6l.t Anaxagorb.s cal ls only thesource of motion, God, while, ~ s we have seen, Augustine holdsthat .h.Oaxagoras said tha.t essential Supreme wisdom i s mind, andthis essentio.l Supreme W1sdom he apprehended to be God .Archelaus:

Anax4goras, says Augustine, was succeeded by hisdisciple Archelaus. Archelaus also held that that al l thingsconsisted of homogeneous part icles of which each particularthing was made, but t ~ t these particles were pervaded by adivine mind, which perpetually energized al l the eternal bodies,namely those particles, so tha.t the.f were al ternately unitedand separated.

Burnet merely refers to 1 ..rchelaus in passing. He s a y ~th;;;..t .A.rciJel


20/58

16.

Dioge.nes:Dioge.nes i s also mentioned by Aagasti.ne ci a papil

of J..na:xillienes. He held that a certain o.ir was the originalsabota.nce out of which a l l things were p r o d a ~ e d . He also addathat i t was posessed of a divine reason, without which nothingcoald be p r o d a ~ e d from i t

The importance of Dioge.nes, Burnet holds, i s due totbe f ct that he was tbe r euns b_y which the doctrines of Ion-ian Science were carried to Socrates. In the fragments of hiswritings is foand the f i r s t explici t j u s t i f i c ~ t i o n for the oldMilesiun doctrine that the primary sabsta.nce must be one. Hefollowed _...naximenes in his doctrines.Democritus:

Democritas is not mentioned by bt. ~ a g u s t i n e inBook VIII of the e Civitate D e i ~ where he gives a short his-torical sketch of the philosophers who preceded Plato, bat hemakes freqaent references to hirn in other parts of his works.In his ~ e t t e r s he remarks thut i t woald h ~ v e been ~ u c h bet terhbd he .never heurd the name of D e m o ~ r i t a s than t h ~ t he shoaldnow with sorrow ponder the fact that a man who was so highlyesteemed in his own age, who thoaght that the gods were images

w h i ~ h emanated from solid bodies, but were not solid themselves;and t h ~ t circl ing th is way and that wav by their independentmotions, glide into the minds of men, and rr.t.: ke the divine

ItCh. VIII. p.l23. I e Civ. Dei . VIII 1Let te r CXVIII, 27


21/58

17.

power enter into the region of their thoughts. For these philosophers Atomists), s ys ~ u g u . s t i n e conceive of no cause ofthought in ou.r minds. except when images of those bodies which

~ r e the objects of our thought, come and enter into our minds.In cri t icizing this, Augustine s ~ y s that there are many thingswhich are without material form and which b.re inte l l igible and

~ r e apprehended by us. He quotes us an example essential Wisdom and Truth. He holds t h ~ t i f philosophers can forlli no ideaof these, he w o u ~ r s why they dispute concerning them a t a l l . .u.gu.stine remb.I'ks tho.t Democri tus differs froffi Epicuru.s in hisdoctrines on physics. For Democritu.s holds that there is inthe concourse of the ..-toms a certuin viti;.l.l and breathing power,b. which power he affirms t h ~ t the images thelliselves - not a l limuges, bu.t the i m ~ g s of the gods.- are endowed with divineattr ibutes, and thi:..t the f i r s t beginnings of the mind are inthose universal elements to which he ascribed divinity. Healso holds that these imo.ges posess l i fe inasmuch as they ~wont either to benefit or hurt u.s. He SaJS iu.rther t h ~ t he wonders why Democritu.s was not convinced of the error of his philosophy. even by this fact , that su.ch i m ~ g s coming into ourminis which ~ r e so small. i f being as the Atomists hold, materi a l could not possibly, in the entirety of their size, come into contact with i t For when a small body i s brought into contact with large body, i t cannot in any way be touched a t t ;es ~ time b a l l points of the lurger, How then asks


22/58

~ .18.jAu.gustine are those in.a.ge s at the same moment in their wholeextent objects of thought seeing that they c ~ n 1 1 t in theirwhole extent either f inJ entr...nce nnto a body so small orcome into contact with so small a mind? He holds thut Demo-cri tus cannot be assailed with this o.rgu.mant i f he holds thatthe mind is imrn...J terta.l. But in thc.t event he says that Demo-cri tus should hu ve perceiveu. th.;;.t t is at once UJlJlecessaryand impossible for the mind. being immaterial to thinkthrougathe approach of material images.

Augustine continues his cri t icism of Democritus andthe Atomists. He r e m a r ~ s that the mere atatements of theiropiJlion.should have suffi.oed to secure their rejection withoutanyone going to the trouble of refuting them. He says thattheir opinions. as soon as they were enunciated ought to havebeen rejected with contempt by the slowest intel lects. He holdsthat we are not even a.t l iberty to grant t he existence of theatoms themselves. For the absurdity of atoms can be proven fromthe statements of the Atomists themselves. o ~ they affirmthat there is nothing else in nature but atoms and the void andthe forms which result from the clashing of these. Augustine

~ s ~ s then under what category they would put the images whichthey suppose to flow from the more solid bodies but which i fthey are bodies posess so l i t t l sol idi ty that they are not

except by their contact with the eyes when we ;seethem. For these men hold t h ~ t these images can proceed from


23/58

19.the material object and come to the eye or the mind, whichnevertheless, they hold to be material. Augustine u s ~ s dothese bodies flow from atoms or from.themselves f t h ~ y donot flow fom these atoms, then something can be tiJ;e object ofthought without such images, which they deny, He s ~ s also,whence have they acquired a tnowledge of atoms, since they canin lO way become an object of thought to us He then savs thathe is ashamed for having even thus far ventured to refute them.

urnet speaks of Democritus as h ~ v i n g been one ofthe greatest writers of antiquity. He says he was one of the

~ s c i p l e s of Leukippos, of whom Augustine m ~ e s no mention. Hereceived his cosmological systm mainly from Anaxagoras, andhis t h e o r ~ of atoms ~ n d the void from Leukippos. Burnet, ofcourse, gives far more c o n s i d e r ~ t i o n to Democritus than did St.Augustine, who was concerned mainly, as we have seen with thecriticism of the Atomic theory of knowledge. Democritus, inthe opinion of Burnet, refused to m ~ e an absolute separationbetween sense and thought. Burnet also mentions Democritus'theory on conduct, no menpion of which is made by J.ugustine,The Sophists


24/58

under the scrutiny of Augustine i s Socrates.Socrates:

20.

In continuing his short history of the philosopherswho preceded Plato which he undertook in Book VIII of the De

C i v i t ~ t e Dei A ~ u s t i n e next considers S o c r ~ t e s Socrates i ssaid to huve been the f i r s t to have directed the entire effortof his philosophy to the correction and r e g u l ~ t i o n of morals.Augustine is of the opinion t h ~ t his reason for doing so cannotbe determined accurately. He holds that one c ~ n n o t be surewhether Socrates did this bec use he was wearied of obscure anduncertain things and so wished to devote his mihd to the dis-covery of sowething manifest tl.lld certain which was necessaryin order to the obtaining of a blessed l i fe or whether he didi t because he was unwilling that minds defiled with earthlythings should attempt to raise themselves upward to divinet ~ i n g s He saw, says Augustine t ~ t the c uses of things weresought for by people ~ n d these causes he believed to be ult i -m a purified mind. Thus he thought that al l diligenceought to be given to the purification of l i fe b.i good moralsin order that the mind might be delivered from the depressingweight of lusts and thus be enabled to rd.ise i t se l f u p w ~ ; ~ r d todivine things. Thenoe i t might with purified understandingcontemplate tho.t nature which is incorporeal o.nd unchan.geable


25/58

21.

l ight, where live the causes of l l created things. as to hismethod, augustine remarks thu.t i t is evident that he had awonderful pleasantnes8 of style and argument. In his divisionof philosophy into the active and the contemplative, Atgustineholds that Socrates is aaid to htive excelled in the active partof the study. Augustine makes no further remarks on Socratesor on his philosophy.

Socrtites i ~ given a l l i U ~ b ful ler treutment by themoderns. Burnet s treatment of Socrates begins with the statement th t there are two thi.ugs which may be f i r ly attr ibutedto Socrates, nwnely, universal ief ini t ions ;j.nd inductive reason-ing. No mention of either of these is made bJ St. Augustine.The reason which Burnet advances as to wh; Socrates formulatedhis theory of goodness, was e c ~ u s e he was dissat isf ied withthe teach.l.ng of the Sophists. Au.justine, as we saw above, wasof the opinion that the reason could not be determined accurately. Burnet also mentions thi:..t Socrc;.tes identified knowledgeand goodness, W says that there is no doctrine more closeiyassociated with Socrates, and none better attested to. Augus-tine dmes not mention this in coru1ection with his treatment ofSocrates.

Another modern authority o the b.iotury of philosophy, who is rated highly, is Zeller who h ~ s a work enti t ledSocrates nd The Socratic Schools. He holds that there is

Chap. VIII IX


26/58

22.c o n s i J e r ~ b l e diff icul ty in arriving ~ t an u . c c u r ~ t e view of thrphilosophy of B o c r ~ t e s owing to the d i s c r e p ~ n c i e s in the writings of the originc:.l authori t ies . He says th t there is nodoubt thut the purpose of Socro.tes was to find true knowledgein the serviue of the Delphic God. He referred a l l claims ofmorality to the claims of knowledge. Zeller looks upon Socates as n intel lectual and moral reformer.

A. E. T&)lor, another modern cr i t ic with a good reputation, has published a work ent i t led Socrates. He looksupon Socrates with ~ great deal more respect t h ~ n did St. AUgustine, and at t r ibutes far more to him. He holds that Socrcites creb.ted the intellectu&.l and moral tr di t ion by whichEurope ha.s ever since l ived. Socrates, says Taylor, broughtphilosophy down from heaven to earth . Taylor ~ l a o at t r ibutesto Socrates the introduction of the idea of teleogy into philosophy, which, he clcdms, was to be ful ly worked out u.nd t rans-mitted to la ter times as the chief heritage of Greek philosoph

SLical thought b,/ :Plato, Plotinus and Aristot le . n his consid-eration of Socrates, Augustine does not bring in thio idea.The followers of SocrQtes Qre given a somewhat cur-sory treatment bi Augustine. The ...:irst of whom he speaks arethe Cynics, mentioning o n l ~ y their founder AUtisthenes.A.ntisthenes:

In his short history of the p r e P l Q t o n i ~pp. 53-123 ~ PP l ~ G 1 7 3


27/58

23.

philosophers Augustine llierely meutions Antisthenes in p ;;.4.ssing.He states that the followers of Socrates held diverse opinionsconcerning the f inal good a thing which is to be s c ~ r c e l ycredited to the followers of one master. A.ntisthenes he r e ~ ...marks placed the f ina l good in virtue. This is the only ment ion of Antisthenes by Augustine.

Zeller in his .york Soorutes .And The Soc:eatic Schoolsgives a much ful ler treatment of Antisthemes and the CynioSchool. He mentions J:Ultisthenes as being the founder of th issect . Although th is philosoph7 uloims to be the t e t ~ c h i n g ofSocrates. the many sided view of Socrates Zeller holds wasabove the powers of Antisthe.ues who was ne;.turv .lly of a dul land n a r ~ o w comprehension.j l i s t ippus 6 Cyrenaica

Aristippus is p l ~ o e d in the SJme category as Antis-theues by St. Augustine. He


28/58

24.

conditional good. He concludes his views on Aristippus withthe following sto.tement:

Granting t h ~ t Aristippus was nota false follower of S o c r ~ t e s , hewas certainly a very one-sidedfollower, or r ~ t h e r he, au,onga l l the followers of Socrates, wasthe one who least entered intohis muster 's teaching. (Zeller:Socrates And The Socr tic Schools.p. 3 ~ 1 ) .e now uome to consider one of the outstanding ig

urea in the history of philosophy - ? l ~ t o I t i s , of course,to be expected t h ~ t A u g ~ s t i n e will devote ~ g r e ~ t d e ~ l of spaceto the exposition of the ? l ~ t o n i c ?hilosophy, since this philosophy influenced his own to such a gre' 't extent. In f, ct ,Augustine is often referred to c_; S the Christian Plato . Thusi t might be well to keep in mind the fuct of P h t o s influenceon A.ugustine, in considering Augustine's views on Plt.:.to's pos-i t ion in the history of Greek philosophy.

~ l a t o ~ The P l ~ t o n i s t s :In one place A.ugu0tine terms Plato as follows:

Pl::: to, vir sapientissimus e t erudi tissimus temporum suorum''.This quot'- tion i s indeed characteristi..: of ~ u g u > J t i n e s views onPlato. .Augustine holds tho.t uli l i lg the followers of Socrates,Plato ,1us the one who shone with a glory vJhlcb. far excelled thatof the others. To Plato i s due the p r ~ i s e for having perfectedphilosophy by combining the c_;.Ctive i:ind the contempl t ive parts

Contra A C C ; ~ . d e m i c o s III , XVII. 1ligne: Pat. Lat. I


29/58

25.of the study into one. He divides philosophy into three parts;moral, natural .s.nd rat ional . Augustine is of the opinion thati t is very difficult to discover w h ~ t Platp thought on variousu.attera, for he SCJ.ys that as Plato liked and constantly affect-ed the well known method of his master, Socrates, i t i s just

~ a difficult to discover what Plato a true opinions were asi t was to learn tbose of Socrates. Thuswe should not make anyrash affirmations about the opinions of ?lato.

The P l a t o n i ~ t s have distinguished those t h i ~ swhich are aonceived tiy the mind from those which are perceivedby the senses. A ugust ne states that they neither take s.wayfrom the senses anything to which they are competent, nor dothey at t r ibute anything to them beyond their uompetency. Thel ight of our understanding by which al l things are learned byus, they have said to be the sel f s ~ m e God by Whom a l l thingsare made They h ~ v e seen that no material body is God, andtherefore hQve transcended a l l bodies in seeking for God Theypreferred the intel l igible nature to the sensible.

t is because of their thoughts concerning God;, thatAugustine is of the opinion that the xlatonists deserve to beexalted above other philosophers. In this he s ~ y s that theyapproach nearer to us (Christiana) than al l other philosophers.For Plato determined the f inal good to be to l ive acuording tovirtue, and held that he only can at ta in to virtue who knows : ;and imitates God, which ~ o w l e d g e and imitation, Plato holds,


30/58

26.

are tae only cause of blessedness. Thus Plato held that topailosopaize is to love God. PlLiloaophy is directed to theobtaining of a blessed l i fe Augustine further tes t i f ies tothe preferment of the Platoniata when he says, concerning theirthoughts about God:

~ u i u m q u e igi tur pailosophi deDeo summo et vero i s ta senserunt,quod e t rerum creaturum s i t ef-fector e t lumen cog.noscenda.rw:r.et bonu.m agerula.rum; quod a.b i l lonobis s i t et principium naturae,et veritas doctrinae, et feleci-tas vitae; De Civ. DeiVIII , 9.

w are told by Augustine tb.at those who are fraisedas aavi.ng most closely followed Plato, and who are said tohave manifested the g r e ~ t e s t acuteness in understanding himhave, peraaps entertained such an idea of God as to admit thatin Him are to be folllld the cause of existence, the ultimatere ;i...i:lOn of the understcw.ding and the end in reference to whichthe whole of hU lan l i fe is to be regulated. Of w.b.icb threethings, Augustine says, the f i r s t partains to tbe natural, thesecond to the r a t i o n e ~ . l and the third to the moral .part ofphilosophy. Here he is again referring to the division ofphilosophy which is attributed to Plato.

All plLilosophers, Augustine holds, who. with theirminds enslaved to their boJies, suppose the principle of al lthings to be material, must give place to the Platonists, whom,he says, he has not undeservedly exalted above al l others.


31/58

27.

?late s thoughts concerning God are derived from the Scriptures,which Sacred Books, Augustine avers, Plato was aciu inted with,although m C ~ . n . y have held opinions to the contrary.

Augustiae now chooses to ~ r g u e with the Platonistsbecause they held t.b.at honors ought to be performed to manygods. For they hold that there is a three-fold division of al lanimo..ls endowed with a r t ~ . t i o r u l soul: gods, demons and J ~ e n .They are of the opinion that the gods occupy the lof t ies t place,the men the lowest, while the demons ocoupy the middle region.They think that al l of the gods are good ~ n honorable andfriendly to the virtues of the wise. Thei hold i t unlawful tpthink ot.b.erwise concerning the gods.

The ?latonists look upon the demons as either goodor bad while we, says s t . - ~ u g u s t i n e are wont to look upon al ldemons as bad. They attr ibute to demons the power of mediatorswhich Augustine at t r ibutes to angels. Even though these demonsare bad, the Platonists .bold that divine honor must be paid tothem. AuguBtine devotes a somewhat lenethy treatment to theseopinions of the Platonists. He comes to the conclusion thatthe PL tonists, though knowing so.rr.ething of the Creator of theUniverse, have misunderstood the true worship of God by givingdivine honor to angels, good or bad.The souroe of al l the foregoing on Plato und the Platonistsis Books VIII IX of the De Civitate Dei.


32/58

28.St . ugustine o.lBo decries the theory of Plato that

al l mortal n i m ~ l s o.re not c r e ~ t e d by God Himself, but by otherlesser gods whom God cre.::oted and to whom He delego.ted thepower of creating. He says th1:1.t i f only those who held this

opinion could be delivered from the superstition which promptsthen. to seek a reason :ror payilng divine honors to these gods,they could easily be disent '.ngled from this error. For, he ar-gues, i f God, as Plato maintainea, embraces in His eternal in-telligence, the ideo.s of both the universe and al l th 't is ini t why then should He not, with His own hands, matce them ll fCould He be unwilling, Augustine asks, to be the constructor of

Iworks, the plan of which called for His intell igence ?The Pl1:1.tonists looked upon the soul as being immort-

al and eternal. As regards the eterni ty of the soul they ar-gued th


33/58

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -29.

persuade us that the ~ o u l s of men l ived here even before theybore these bodies. Hence Plato concludes that those thingswhich are learnt are rather remembered as having been known a lready, than as ta.l\:en into the mind as something new.

In regard to the c r e ; ; ~ t i o n of the .1o:cld, ?lato as-signs this as God s reason in creating i t - thut good worksmight be made y a good God. Augustine holds that he does nottcnow whether l?lato perueived this through his quiuk sightedgenius, or ~ v h t h r he was instructed regt..rding this :point bysomeone else. Although some Platonists ~ o o k upon this world as

b e i 1 ~ eternal , Plato, Augustine avers, most plainly states thatthe world had a b e g i n n i n g . ~ .As regards the elements of theworld, :?lato held that the two g r e : ~ t e s t elements and the furthereat removed from one another - earth and f i re - are coupledand united bi the two intermediate elements - a i r and water.The earth is at the base of the series, the water i s above theearth, the air is above the water, and above ....11 is f i re . They

1/attr ibute a l l these elements to God their Creator. In his5Letters, Augustine te l l s us that in regard to ?hysics, the ? la t -

onists taught that the originating cause of a l l natures i s animmaterial Wisdom. The ?latonists held, in regard to the

1De. Civ. Dei XI, 21. ~ o p ci t . ~ I I 21. op c i t . j:XII, 11t ' I .p. c ~ v 5 CXVIII, 18.


34/58

30.

government of the world, that i t was governed by the Providenceof God.

w find also in his e t t e r s ~ t h e opinion of Augus-tine as to why the doctrines of the Platonists did not receivesuch a wide o.cueptWJ.ce at the time of their promulgation. Hesays that the people of their time were so enthralled by theflesh, and too g r e ~ t l y immersed in material things, to acceptthe views advocated by the Platonists. For with al l the falsephilosophies assailing them at that time, the ? l ~ t o n i s t s ratherconcealed their own doctrines to be sought for, rather thanbring them out into the l ight to be vi l i f ied He states furth-er, that the ?la.tonists were unable to convinve men that thefinal end of man is to enjoy God. The r e ~ s o n for this, heholds was that, God, being spir i tual , could not be grasped by

t h ~ i r senses, and thus could not be understood by those people.For al l of them had a love of earthly things and of thingsmaterial.

Such were Augustine s views on Plato o.nd the .Pl :; .ton-i s t s That they exercised n influence on his philosophy isapparent f ~ o ~ t h e opinions he uttered concerning them. Thoughhe opposed them on some few points his words of praise forthem are much more numerous than his words of censure. I t wil lbe interesting now to consider the viewa of Sollie of the modernauthorities on Plato and the Platonists.

De Civitate Dei IX. ~ C X V I I I 18.


35/58

31.

Burnet i s of the opinion that t is very difficultto interpret the central doctrines of :Clatonic thought, since?lata did not vommitt i t to writing. We have to rely on Aristot le for much of our information and Aristotle, he avers, isa very unsympathetic cr i t ic of Plato 's teaching. Burnet givesto Plato the credit for bringing God into philosophy for thef i r s t time. He looked upon God ~ s a l iving soul and also asbeing good which two points he believed he had established byscient if ic reasoning. Burnet states t h ~ t we can h ~ r l y doubtthat Plu.to was u monotheist. He hold.ci that we c1;;1 n look uponthe many gods mentioned in the Timaeus as belonging to theniythology of thv.t dialogue. Thus Burnet would disagree withAugucltine ~ h o censured the ?l tonists for giving divine honorto many gods. Burnet agrees with Augustine in that the .?laton-i s t s looked upon the soul us being i ~ l i o r t a l He gives as theirreason, that the souls are not indestructible of their ownnature, but because to a.estroy what He has m .de, i s inconsistent

Iwith the goodness of God.Burnet substantiates Augustine's statements as to

the Platonist ' s belief in the elements of the world. li aretold by him that they looked upon the world as made up of thefour elements, earth, ai r f ire ~ n d water, which ~ o n g themform one :proportion. Thete is a per::?etual ebb and flow of theelements; the di versi ty_lof ll.i.atter i the cause of the constunt

ch. XVII PP b 3 6 ~ 3 8


36/58

32.

motion. The srum of the four elements consti tute the universe.Burnet has ~ o t h e r work ent i t led Platonism, in

which he r e g ~ r d s Flato in the same l ight as does at . Augustine.In the very f i r s t pQrt of his work he says:

I have to speak to you ofone who Jb S in ma ny waysthe greatest wan t h ~ t everlived, Plato of Athens. ~Plato, we are informed, has been the source of a l l that is bestin our civilizo,tion. In anot.ber place he refers to him as thegre tes t man t h ~ t ever l ived . Thus we see tha t .Bilrnet alsoregards Plato and his followers in high l ight .

Zeller, in his work, Plato And The Older Academy,attr ibutes ? la ta s g r e ~ t m e s s to this - t h ~ t he was able to givethe progress of philosophy an impulse so p o ~ i e r f u l and onewhich so f ~ r transcended the l imits of his own system, and tonroclaim the deepest principle of ~ right speculation - theideulism of thought - with such energy and enthusiasm, that tohim, despite his scientif ic deficiencies belongs the honor ofconferring philosophi


37/58

33.

the dist inct ion a t t r i b u t e ~ to Augustine by ?lato, namely tha t?lato divided philociophy into three parts, Dialectics, Physics,and i:thic s

Zeller attaches g r e ~ t significance to ? la to s theoryof ideas, no mention of vJhich i s made by s t . Augustine. He substantia tes A u g u ~ : : > t i n e s statement as to l ~ t o looking upon Godas the creator of the universe. i.leller also refers to the factt h ~ t Plato recognized visible and created gods. Their signif i -canoe, he holds, i s liiL.ited to their n(;l.tural connection withthe world and to the sett ing forth of the eternal laws. Asregards the demons, to which Augustine devotes a grec.:..t dec11 ofspace in discussing, Zeller says, that ;;;..lthough ?lato mentions

t h e ~ , he nowhere says a word to imply t h ~ t he real ly believedain tf;em.

Zeller affirms ?luto s belief in the imraortali ty ofthe soul. This i s a point, the s t r i c ~ dogmatic s i g n i f i c ~ t i o nof which ~ least be doubted. Zeller is of the opinion thatPlato considered his doctrine of :Lteccolection as being a myth.He adds that ?lato looked upon myths o.s being hints of the t ru t Thus i t i s seen that the modern cr i t ics agree withAugustine on ID


38/58

34.

They substaniate him in I L ~ a n y of his sta..tellients. Of course asis to be expected there s a divergance of view point .on somematters. Some of the doctrines which Augustine at t r ibutes to?lato as specific beliefs ~ r e referred to by moderns as myths.On the whole, although they real ize the importance of Plato inthe history of philosophy they are not apt to at t r ibute to himas much significti.nce as Augustine does.

The succesdors of ? l ~ t o in his school were accordingto St. Augustine Speusippus X e n o c r ~ t e s Polemo. and ~ e s i

A u g u ~ t i n e does not devote much attention to them, ap-parently thinking i t suffiuient to mention that they were thesuccessors of 2lato ~ s the head of the Academy. Even in his

:awork Contra Academioos, Augustine merely mentions them np ~ s s i n g . In his ~ e t t e r s he says t h ~ t they devoted t h e ~ s e l v e sto the task of refuting the Stoics ~ d ~ i c u r e u n s .

In speciking of these men, Zeller in his work, Plato3And The Older Academy, s ~ ; y s that we kno v oo l i t.le Cl bout them,

that i t s often impoldsible to uombine, even bJ conjecture thescattered fragments of their doctrines which h ~ v come downto us into any connected whole. He does though give a greatdeal more consideration to them than does s t A u g u ~ t i n e .

The next philosopher to come under the attention ofSt. Augustine is Aristotle. I t will perhaps be of surprise

l e t te r CXVIII, 17. Ql III XVII.


39/58

35.to some, to find that . A J : _ : : . : ~ t : J e does not attrib11te to Aristot le the position \1S\1a.lly a t t r i bu.ted vtor,il.im by the modernhistorians of phileaophy This is explained however, by Hie-'by, in .bis work, St. A l811Stine's City Of God. Here he states

t h ~ t the philosophy of ~ i s t o t l e was in decadence dt1ring thetime of Au.g11stine, and did not assu.me the position of importance which was i t s d11e u.ntil i t s revival by later philosophers.Aristotle:

Keeping in mind the ~ b o v e statement of R i c ~ b y s , wecan u.nderstand the few references made by s t . A11g11stine toar is tot le . He refers to him ~ s a disciple of Plato. In one

..place he speaks of him as n man of eminent abi l i t ies inferiorin eloqu.ence to Plato, bu.t far saperior to many in that respect2Th11s he l o ~ k s u.pon Aristotle as being inferior to f la to . Au.gu.s-tine looks u.pon him as the fou.nder of the Peripatetic sect.When he i s disc11ssing passions and pert11rbations, he remarksthat the Platonists and Aristotelians both held that even thewise man i s l llbjeot to perturbti.tions, though they are moderatedby reason, which imposes laws upon them and keeps them withintheir ~ r o p e r bou.nds. His reason for the agreement between theAristotelians and Platonists is that A r i ~ t o t l e was a discipleof Plato 's . In hie o n f e s s i o n s ~ he refers to the fact th""'t hehad read the "Ten Predicaments of Aristotle. He then looked

Boolc VIII. tlDe Civ. Dei VIII, 12. )op. c i t . IX, 4.~ I I I IV, 7.


40/58

36.

upon t b e name of J.ristotle as being something g r e ~ t and divine.Augustine east.ly understood this work although he says thatthere were others who understood t only with g r e ~ t diff iculty.In his De Util i ta te Credendi: he speaks of the philosophy ofAristotle as b e i ~ deep and obscure. A statement such as thiswould lead one to believe that naaattme must have known a greatdeal about the philesophy of Aristotle. However he makes nofurther references about the philosophy of Aristotle so t sn1ore or less a matter of conjecture as to his knowledge of thisman.

As s to be expected modern historians attribute farmore to Aristotle than did St. Augustine. e have chosenZeller as being representative of the modern view point onAristotle. He has a lengthy t reat ise on Aristotle enti t ledAristotle And The Peripatetics which s divided into two vol-umes. His philosophy we ~ r e told s to be understood as adevelopment and t l evolution of that of Plato a. ;e are nothowever to look upon Aristotle as a mere follower of P l a t ~ ;although he took over some of the principles laid down by Platoand S o c r ~ t e a , he developed and combined these into a systemwhich went far beyond their systams. In speaking of AristotleZeller says:

JVI 13.He was not only one of thehighest speculative thinkers -


41/58

he was also one of the most~ c ~ u r t e and untiring observers , and one of the most eru

~ i t e men of learning t h ~ t theworld Knows.

37.

from this i t can be seen thut Aristotle is valued much morehighly by the moderns thun he was by St. Augustine. Zellertben goes on to cor1sider the whole ~ i s t o t e l i a n system, showingthe perfectlon of i t s development. He shows the debt thatphilosophy owes to the genius of .Aristotle. In the opinion ofthe majorJ.ty of modern hilstorians Aristotle occupies a plo.ceof g r e ~ t e r prowinence in the h i s t o r ~ of philosophy t ~ does.Plato. Thus we see that there would be some disagreement be-tween Augustine Ci.lld the moderns on this point. However i tmust be ~ e p t in mind as was stated dbove tha.t the philosophyof Aristotle was in decddence during the time of Augustine, aothere i s p e r h ~ p s some excuse for his uursory t r e ~ t m e n t of thisman who i s rated ao highly bJ[ the modern historians.The Stoics:

;a _Zeno and Chrysippus are mentioned by Augustine asbei.ug the fow1ders of the school of ph losophy t >:nown o..s thedtoics. The highest good is s ~ i d by 4eno to be virtue and hewho i s virtuous a t t ~ i n s to a blessed l i fe . In commenting onthis , .Augustine s ta tes that there h a v ~ been some who have beenashamed to plo.ce man s gooJ in the body and, by placing i tin the mind he avers, have unquestionably assigned to i t a

I I IV p. 175. ~ e Civitate Dei, l l 5


42/58

38.lower sphere t.b, n that assigned. to i t by reason. .Among Greekphilosophers who have held th is view, the chief place, bothin the number of adhorents and in subtlety of disputution hasbeen held b Y the ~ t o i c s . They h::...ve however:,. succeeded. inturning the mind from carnal, i f not from LUa.terial, objects.In regard to Dii.alectics, the dtoioa pla.ced the sta.nd;:;1.rd oft ruth in the senses, ~ l t h o u g h they admitted thut the senses a.re

~ t i m e s mistaken.~In the Contra A c a d e m i ~ Augustine st 'tes tho.t ~ e n o

held and taught th(,j.t there could be no certain lr.uowledge. Hesalso t e l l s us here thut when Zeno cume to the Academy, which

c..t t h ~ t time w ~ s in c h ~ r ~ e of ?olemo, he suspects that Zenowas not tbe type of man to whom the AcudemJ.cs would reveb.l thedoctrines of .?lato. ~ e n o also tuught th_t the soul was notillilllorta.l. He held to no world other tho.n that of sense. Hebelieved o n l ~ in r u ~ t e r a a l things and taught that God, H i m s e l f ~ was f i re . ?olemo w ~ s succeeded as the h e ~ d of the Academy byA.rces.ilaus who w s an ~ : ~ s i : > o u i a t e of leao ,; bile : eno s errorwc..s g o ~ abroad, A r c e s i l G ~ . U S in the opinion of .tlu.gustine,prudently and efficient ly concealed the teachings of Plato,

;thinking i t better to do so.Zeno was persistent in spreading the pernicious

Letter CXVIII , 12-19. LII , VI. siii XVII~ C o n t r a Academicos, III , XVII


43/58

39.

belief that there was nothing that was not a body, I t alsolived n his associate Chrysippus who helped to spread the

doctrines more widely. The errors of the Gentiles in ethicsphysics and the mode of seeting t ruth were conspicously represented in the schools of philosophy of the dtoics and theE-picureans. Augustine holds that the.,y cannot think of anythinga.which is not material.

There have been manJ philosophers who .bu.ve held tothe inseparu.ble coexistence of th.e virtues. The Stoics how-ever are the only ones who d ~ r e d to maintain the equality ofsins in opposition to the unanimous sentiment of mankind. Thisi s an absurd tenet we are told and i t can be easily disproved b,,l referring to Holy Scripture. As regards the inseparable coexistence of the virtues Augustine would hold this.3tp be a correct doctrine.

The Stoics also maintained th t things do not cometo pass by necessity although they do contend th.;;.t thingshappen ~ o r d i n g to ch nce. They fear that necessity wouldtake away the freedom of the will . But s ~ y s Augustine i f necessity is defined as that according to which i t i s necessarythat ~ n y t h i n g be of such ~ n d such a nature or be done in such

Contra Academicos, I I I XVII. ~ e t t e r CXVLlL 26.J Letter CXYIII, 5.


44/58

and s ~ c h a manner. there s h o ~ l d not be ~ n y d r e ~ d of thatnecessity taking away the freedom of the will .

40.

The Stoics taught tha..t f i re one of the f o ~ r elerr.ents of which th is world was constituted, was both l iving aniin te l l igent . They t l l o ~ h t of t as the m o . ~ e r of the world andof a l l things contained in i t - th ; t t was, in fu.ct, God.They have been only uble to suppose tha.t which their heurts,ensl&ved to sense, have suggested to them. And yet, says A ~ -gustine, the;{ have wi b ~ n themselves something which:_they can-not see; theJ represented to themselves inwardly things whichthe; hA. seen wi h o ~ t even when they vvere not seeing them, but

Lonly thinting of them.A ~ g u s t i n e gives us some further ideas in r e g ~ r d to

their dialect ics. They ascribe to the bodilJ senses the expertness in d i s p ~ t o . t i o n of which they t h : ~ n k so highly, maintaining that i t i s from the senses tho.t the mind conceives thenotions of t h i r ~ s which they e x p l i c ~ t e by defini t ion. T h ~ s hemaintains, is developed the whole pll;lll cill d connection of theirle8.rning and teaching. In regard to this , A.ugustine wondershow they uan say that none o.re b e d u t i f ~ l but the wise, for, heasks, by what bodily sense h ~ v e tbBy perceived ths t b e a ~ t y

In regard to mental passions and perturbations theStoics agree with the Platonists and Peripatet ics . l ,or they do

D . V .J?. t C i v _ ~ ~ op. c i t . VIII 5. Ibid.


45/58

41.

not hold these passions to be vices since they also agree thatthey assai l the wise man without forcing him to act against

r e ~ s o n and virtue.Zeller in i ~ work Stoics E ~ i c u r ~ a n s And Sceptics

states th..-.t the real business of a l l philosophy according tothe Stoics was the moro.l conduct of ma.n Philosophy is theletine in rego.rd to the Dia-lect ics of the Stoics. For he holds t h ~ t there caru1ot be avery high estimate formed of the logiu of the Stoics. Although

..a_De Civ. Dei IX 5. Ch. IV


46/58

42.

there is very l i t t l e known of th is branch of the Stoical system,there is saff icient to just i fy our judgment.

Zeller diao.grees with Augustine, in that he holdsthat the Stoics believed in the doctrine of necessity. Hemaint.:..ins that this do;.;trine of theirs was a direct consequenceof their : P ~ n t h e i s m . For the divine force which g o v ~ r n s theworld could not be the absoluteuniting cause of a l l t h i n g ~ asthey hold i t to be, i f there existed anything, in any sense in-dependent of i t se l f unless i t were the one W l c h ~ n g e a b l e con-necting cause of al l things. Divine Providence does not extendto individuals in thems lves, but only in so far as they formpart of the universe. Zeller also holds an opinion contraryto Augustine, in t h ~ t he holds that the Stoics did not recog-nize the freedom of the wil l .The E p i c u r e ~ s :

Kpicurus was the founder of that sect of philosophersnamed after him the Epicureans. The3 held that the highestgood of man wus p l e ~ a u r e as we l e ~ r n in the ~ T r i n i t ~ t e . ~They are l i s ted among ths.t group of :::>bilosophers who place thesupreme good of man in the body and so s t i r up drowds of dis-orderly carnal minds. In fact they are said to have enjoyed

~the greatest popularity with the niul t i tude.In regard to Dialectics the E picurei.;Lns held that the

Ch. VII ~ I I I 4. ..) Letter CXVIII 15.


47/58

43

senses were never deceived. They attr ibute to the bodilysenses the faculty of discriminating t ruth. They thought that

l l we learn is to be m e ~ s u r e d by the untrustworthy and f l -lacious rules of the senses The Epicure.;;..ns could not thinkof anything that was not material. Augustine i s of the opinionas was stated above that the many errors of the Gentiles inphysics ethics and the mode of seeking t ruth are conspicouslyrepresented in the philosophies of the Stoics and the Epi-cureans.

In h i ~ c o n s i d e r ~ t i o n of the origin of the worldEpicurus did not assume anything in the f i r s t e g i n n i r ~ s ofthings but atoms which ure certain corpuscles so minute t h ~ tthey cannot be divided or perceived by sight or touch. Heclaims thc ; t ~ the fortui tous concourse of these e..toms, thereis brought into existence innumertJ-ble worlds a nd l iving thingsand also the ~ o u l s which unim te them. Likewise are broughtinto existence the gods who do not inhabit th is world but arelocated outside of t h ~ s world. No o j e ~ t of thought is allowedbeyond things material . In order th: J t thingi;:) become an objectof thought images more subtle than those which come to oureyes flow o i from those things which ~ r e formed of atoms andenter into our IIlinds. Thus does he expl.;iin knowledge, follow-ing in the footsteps of Democritus. Augustine r e m u r ~ s that he


48/58

44.

~ - o u l d h ~ v e been convinced of the error of this , from the con-s i d e r ~ t i o n of the f ~ c t t h ~ t such i m ~ g e s , in their entirety,could not possibly uome into conto.ct with the mind, which, be

i.ng uonfined within the body i s necessari ly small.The Epiuure .:;.nd were also of the opinion th t the

world is etern l a.nd without begin..'1.ing, .:l.n.i th&.t consequentlyi t htJ.S not been made by God. They, ...ugustine states , are mad-ly deceived s.nd r ~ v e in the incurable madnesid of their impiety.For the world i t se l f bf i t s well ordered ch,l.nges .::.nd movements,and by the fuir appearance of a l l things visible, bears a. tes t i -mony of i t s own that i t hc..s been c:ce__ _ ted and th;.4.t i t could not

a..h ~ v e been u r e ~ t e d except by God.We read in ~ e l l e r s work, The Stoics. p i c u r e ~ n s

And Sceptics, th - t the ~ i m of a l l philosophy with the Epicureans w ~ s the promotion of h ~ n a n happiness. Happiness i s promot-ed by knowledge only in so far .as knowledge cle.::.rs away hin-drances to the atte1inment of happiness, Zeller does not thinkso highly of the philosophy of the Epicure 'ns, for he says thatno other s y s t e ~ troubled i t se l f so l i t t l e ubout the foundationsupon which i t rested, as they did. Thus he agrees i i H ~ m e w t f a twith Augustine, in his estiu1ate of their philosophJ. He holdsth t their philosophy is lGt.cking in coherence and consistency .

and th..;.t they involve theiLselves n many contradictiond.

~ e t t e r OXVIII, 29. ~ e .Oiv. D e ~ . XI, 4.


49/58

45.

I I l ler gives us a different version of the dialect icsof the E p i c u r e ~ n s In a s p e c u l ~ t i v e l ight , s e n s ~ t i o n was thestandard of truth; viewed pract ical ly the fe0ling of pleasureor pain was the s t Q n d ~ r d The senses are not to be trusted,nor is knowledge derived from the reason to be t rusted. Therei s no dist inct ive m ~ r k of t ruth. ~ s we h ~ v e seen Augustine re-norted that the Eniuurea.hs believed in the trustworthiness of.the senses.

e come now to consider the l ~ s t group of philosoph-ers with whom we will be conuerned in this work- the Neo-Platonists . The f i r s t of the men whom we will consider willbe Plotinus.Plotinus: .t

Plotinus, we are told, enjoys the reputataon of hav-ing understood ~ l a t o better t ~ all of his other disciples.

3Plotinus held that the way to become blessed was to become l ikeGod. He held t ~ t the soul derives i t s blessedness from thesame source that we (Christians) do. He even includes in thishis world soul. They derive their blessedness from that l ightwhich is i i s t inc t from i t and created by i t and by whose inte l l ig ible i l lumination, i t enjoys l ight in things in te l l ig ible ." nat great Platonist" Augustine says, in referring to .Plot inus, holds that the rat ional soul has no nature superior toi t save God the C r e ~ t o r of the world and of the soul i t se l f .

1Chap. XVI-XXI ~ e Civ. Dei, IX 17. 3op. c i t . X 2.


50/58

46.

Plotinus believes in the ?rovidence of God. Heholds that from the beauty of the flowers a..nd foliage we co.nsee t h ~ t from the Supreme God Providence reaches down to eventhese earthly things below. He argues that al l these f ra i l~ perishing things could not have such an elabor-te beautywere they not fashioned by the C r e ~ t o r . flotinus also holdsthat be who posesses ~ 1 1 things in a b u n d ~ n o e and yet does notenjoy the vision of God is infini tely miserable.

t ~ a somewhat surprising to f inf that ~ u g u s t i n edoes not comment more ful ly on the philosophy of ?lotinus considering the fact that he was influenced by i t to such n extent . From the few cowuents he does m ~ ~ e i t is evident thathe l o o ~ s upon Plotinus with a greut deal of respect. ~ o r themodern view point on Plotinus we have chosen w.R. Inge who has

w o r ~ of two volumes enti t led The .Philosophy Of Plotinus.In this he deplores the neglect of Plotinua by

students of Greek Philosophy. Plotinus we are told is onegreat genius in an age b t ~ . r r e n of g r e . ~ . t n e s s . He i s regt..rded byInge as a great thinker. Plotinus saw the issue between ma-terialism and the p h ~ l o s o p h y of spir i t more clearly thun anyprevious thinker. Plotinus i s not an idealis t in the modernsense of the word. Inge then goes on to consider the wholesystem of Plotinus. He agrees with Augustine in lookina uponPlotinus as a great thinker. He perhups even thinll:s more of

De Civ. Dei X 14-16


51/58


52/58

48.s t i l l doubts whether these gods of the th.eurgists a.re wickeddemons, or whether he i s merely feigning ignorance in ordernot to of:.Lend the theurgists. A.uguBtine remarks that Porphrymakes himself superior to these theurgic r i tes by his in tel -lectual. l i fe whiuh dispenses with those things as not being'needed by a philosopher.

Had Porphry been t rue and fai thful in his profession,we a.re told, he would h ~ : J v e recognized the ' l irtue and Wisdomof God. There i s one point in Forphry's favor mentioned bys t . . ugustine - that b e acknowledged that the spir i tual partof the soul could be cleansed b ~ the virtue of chasti ty, without the e..id of those theurgic r i tes which he esteemed so high-

Lly.Porphry i s commended for correcting the theories of

Plato and the other Platonists rego..rding the return of souls.For P l ~ t o and Plotinus following after him, held that thesouls of menreturn, after de th, into the bodies of beasts .Porpb.ry abolished these bestia.l prisons. For he held that thesouls of men return into human bodies, not into the bodieswhich they had lef t but into new bodies. He a.lso holds thatthe soul, once th;:;;.t i t has been receival into the l 'ather'spresence, shall never agc:.in return to the i l l s of this l i fe .He holds that the purified soul returns to the F&ther, that tmay never again be entangled in the polluting contact with evil

De _Qiv_. Dei, X 28. ~ o p c i t . X oO


53/58

49.

;;e prefer Porphry s opinion says Augustine, to the idea of acirculation of souls through constantly alternating happinessand misery. Thus i t i s seen that Porphry improved a greatde;.;.l on .Plato and the otber rlatmnists , in regc.::.rd to thisquestion

A s regards a Wliversal wayoof the soul s deli verc.; nceAugustine ma.into.ins that Porphry does not hold that there i sno such way but merely s a ~ s that t has not come to his ~ o wledge. He realized th t the philosophy of which he was n adherent did not posess the way. Nevertheless, he believes thatDivine Providence could not have le f t man dest i tute of a universal way for the soul s deliverd.nce.a.

Thus we see th-.tt Por;:>hry stands in hJ..gh favor withSt. A.ugustine. In regard to points which J..ugustine does notfind ~ u i t e so agreeable in Porpbry s philosophy, he t rys to expluin anl defend Porphry s podition; from this i t can be seenthdt ?orphry stands high in his estimation. The redson forPorphry s preference by .A.u.gu.sti.ne is due to the fact tho:.t Por-phry emphasized the rel igious .;.;.spect of philosophy. Then too,when ;ve remeruber the s t : ~ n d a r d by wh1ch A.ugu.stine judged theworth of other philosophers - eum e t anima.m - we cc;.n rec..dilyunderst


54/58

50.

We find that Porphry i s not r e g ~ r d e d so highly bythe moderns. This i s perhaps, to be explained by the emphasisof re l igion in Porphry s philosophy. The religious ~ s p e t ofphilosophy h ~ s lways been ~ o r e or less neglected, and thusthere has not been much a.ttention paid to the philosophy ofPorpb.ry. The very points which caused Augustine to esteemPorphry would perhaps be the reason for his neglect by the moderns. Of late years the-re ha.s been somewhat of a revival ofthe religious side of philosophy, but apparently no one hasconsidered Porphry of suff ic ient importance to give him muchconsideration. Thus we are obliged to present Augustine sviews on ?orphry, without ~ modern authority to check thestatements which he h s made.

:1e have now come to the end of the h sto:cy of Break:Philooophy c S we founf i t contained ln the works of St. augus-t ine w have seen t h ~ t i t i s not a complete history, sincehe has omitted the names of some of the philosophers who areusuci-lly tred.ted in a history of th is type, but he ha.s treutedthe main f igures. Although i t i s not a complete history ofphilosophy, the men whom augustine has considered, have beenwell handled b.; him, and. he hti.S given to them their place inthe history of Greek thought. Thus we can now ti.dd to the otherlaurels of St. Augustine, that of being a h i t o r i ~ of phil-osophy.


55/58

BIBLIOGRAPHY

~ g n e : St. A ~ g u s t i n e . Opera Omnia. P a t r o ~ o g i c a Latina.Volumes 32 to 47.

Especially:Vol. 32.

ConfessionumSolilquiorum

C o n t r ~ AcademicosVol. 33.

Epistola.e.Vol. 41

De Civitate DeiVol 4

De Util i tate CredendiRev. M a r c ~ s Dodds: The W o r ~ s Of A ~ r e l i ~ s A u g ~ d t i n e . A newTranslation. 16 volumes.

W Watts: The Confessions of St. Augustine. P ~ b l i s h e d by G.P.P ~ t n a m Sons.

E. B. P ~ s e y : The Confes8ions of St. Augustine. Contained inthe Harvard Classics Volume 7.

Hatzfield Ad: ~ t . Augustine. A biography. P ~ b l i shed by Ben-ziger Bros. New Y o r ~ 1898.

Papini Giovanni: Saint A ~ g u s t i n e . P ~ b l i s h e d by HarcourtBrace Co. 1930.

Ricaby J. 8 J : St. A ~ g u s t i n e s City of God A view of the


56/58

Gilson, Etienne:

Various Authors:

contents. Published by Burns, OatesWashburne Ltd. London. 1925.Introduction a l etude de ~ a i n t Augustin.Published by 1ibraire Philosophique J. Vrin.Paris. 1930.A Monument To St. Augustine. Essays onsome ~ s p e c t s of his thpught written in

c o m m e m o r ~ t i o n of his 15th centena.rj. Published by Sheed liard. London. 1930.

Burnet, John: Early Greek Philosoph3. ?ublished by Macmillan Co. Ltd. London, 1936.

Burnet, John: Greek Philosophy. Published by Macmillan Co.Ltd. London. 1928.

Burnet, John: Platonism. Published by University of CaliforniaPress. Berkley Cal. 1928.

Zeller, Eduard: Plato And The Older Academy. Translated by

Taylor, A E.

Zeller Eduard:

~ r a h ?ranced Alleyne and Alfred Goodwin.Published by Longman Greens Co. London.1888.Plato - The Mo n ~ n d His Worlc Publishedby Lleuthuen Co. Ltd. london.Socrates And The o c r ~ t i c Schools. Trans-lated by o J . Reichel. Published by Longman, Greens Co. London. 1888.


57/58

Taflor, A. E :

Zeller Edu.ard :

Zeller Edu.a.rd:

Inge, 71m R :

Turner ifilliam:

Sourc.3.tes.1933.

Pu.blished b ?eter Davies Ltd.

Aristotle And The Earlier ?eripatetios.Translated from Zeller s Philosophy OfThe Greeks, by B F. Costelloe and J. HMu.irb.ead. Pu.blished by Longman GreensCo. London. 1897. Two VolwuesThe Stoics, Epicureans And Sceptics.Translated by o J. Reichel. Pu.blishedby Longamn Greens Co. London. 1870.The Philosophy of Plotinus. The GiffordLeotures at St. Andrews. Two Volumes .Published bJ ~ o n g m a n Greens Co. Lon-don. Third ~ d i t i o n 1929.History of 2hilosophy. Published byGinn co 1903.


58/58

The thesis St. Augustine as a Historiaa of Philosophy,written y James Patrie, Brogan has been accepted bythe Graduate School of Loyola University, with referenceto form and by the readers whose names appear below,with reference to content. I t is therefore, acceptedas a partial fulfilment of the requirements for thedegree of Master of Arts.Dr. Joseph e Blanc July 19, 1934Rev. John McCormick S.J July 20, 1934

Documents

St. Augustine - Historian of Philosophy.pdf