Aquinas, Averroes, and the Human Will

292 Pages·2017·2.05 MB·English

by  Traci Ann Phillipson

Marquette University
e-Publications@Marquette
Dissertations (2009 -) Dissertations, Theses, and Professional Projects
Aquinas, Averroes, and the Human Will
Traci Ann Phillipson
Marquette University
Recommended Citation
Phillipson, Traci Ann, "Aquinas, Averroes, and the Human Will" (2017).Dissertations (2009 -). 733.
http://epublications.marquette.edu/dissertations_mu/733
AQUINAS, AVERROES, AND THE HUMAN WILL
by
Traci Phillipson
A Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School,
Marquette University,
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
August 2017
ABSTRACT
AQUINAS, AVERROES, AND THE HUMAN WILL
Traci Phillipson
Marquette University, 2017

Scholars have largely read Aquinas’ critique of Averroes on the issue of will and
moral responsibility in a positive light. They tend to accept Aquinas’ account of Averroes’
theory and its shortcomings, failing to read Averroes’ theory in its own right or take a
critical eye to Aquinas’ understanding of Averroes. This dissertation will provide that
critical eye by addressing four key issues associated with the location and function of the
will: (A) the nature of the Intellects as both separate and “in the soul,” (B) the notion that
the Intellects are “form for us,” (C) the relationship between the individual human being
and the intelligibles in act, and (D) the location and function of the will.
In addressing these four issues several questions will be raised and answered. First,
it will be necessary to examine whether Aristotle, on whom both medieval thinkers rely
for their disparate understandings of will and intellect, has a faculty of will in his system
and what role the intellect plays in moral decision making. Next, we must determine what
Averroes and Aquinas positions are on these issues and how they relate to that of
Aristotle. Finally, the two philosophers must be brought into dialogue with one another as
we determine the strength and cogency of Aquinas’ critiques of Averroes’ view of the will
and the intellects. Is it coherent?
Through the course of this examination it will be demonstrated that Aristotle did
not have a faculty of will in his philosophy and that the understanding of will attributed to
him by Averroes and Aquinas actually has its roots in Stoic, Neoplatonist, and Peripatetic
philosophy. It will also be demonstrated that, despite the view of many contemporary
scholars of Aquinas, Aquinas’ particular critiques of Averroes regarding the will are not
tenable. Despite this, we will see that the nature of the intellects and, more importantly,
the intelligibles in act is central to moral agency for Averroes; here, Aquinas’ criticisms
are more convincing.
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Traci Phillipson
First I want to thank my family for their support and encouragement during the
long process of writing this dissertation. I want to thank Dr. Richard Taylor for his invaluable
advice, help, and encouragement. I do not think I would have completed this project without his
aid and counsel. I want thank him for the many hours of discussion, proofreading, and practical
advice. I also want to thank Dr. Owen Goldin for his valuable suggestions throughout. I also
thank Dr. Andrea Robiglio for being such a kind host during my time at KULeuven and for his
willingness work on this project from afar.
ii
ABBREVIATIONS
CNE Sententia Libri Ethicorum and Commentary on the Nicomachean
Ethics
conf. Confessiones
deUnitate De Unitate Intellectus and On the Unity of the Intellect Against the
Averroists
SCG Liber de Veritate Catholicae Fidei Contra Errores Infidelium seu
<<Summa Contra Gentiles>>
LCDA Averroes Cordobensis Commentarium Magnum in Aristotelis De
Anima Libros and Long Commentary on the De Anima of Aristotle
lib. arb. De libero arbitrio
MCDA Middle Commentary on Aristotle’s De Anima
QDAnima Quaestiones Disputatae De Anima and Questions on the Soul
Sent Scriptum Super Libros Sententiarum magistri petri Lombardi
Episcopi Parisiensis
ST Summa Theologiae
trin. De trinitate
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………………………………..i
ABBREVIATIONS……………………………………………………………………….ii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………1
1.1 General introduction…………………………………………………………..1
1.2 The Issues……………………………………………………………………...3
1.2.1 Does Aristotle have a faculty of will in his system? What is his view
of the intellects?…………………………………………………………...4
1.2.2 Are either Averroes or Aquinas following Aristotle regarding the will
or the intellects?…………………………………………………………...6
1.2.3 What is Averroes’ position and what motivates this position? Is it
coherent?….…………………………………………………………………….…7
1.2.4. Does Averroes’ view hold up against the critiques of Aquinas?……9
1.3 Methodology……………………………………………………..…………..12
1.3.1 Aristotle and other influences……………………………………...12
1.3.2 Reading Averroes and Aquinas on their own terms………………..14
1.3.3 Assessing Aquinas’ critique…………………………………….….16
1.4 Conclusion.…………………………………………………………………..18
CHAPTER 2: THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CONCEPT OF WILL BEFORE
AVERROES AND AQUINAS…………………………………………………………...19
2.1 Introduction………………………………………..………………………....19
2.2 Aristotle and his interpreters…………………………………………………21
2.2.1 The Texts of Aristotle……………………………………….……...21
2.2.2 Interpretations of Aristotle………………………………………....29
2.3 The Greek tradition after Aristotle…………………………………………...32
2.3.1 The Stoics……………………………………………………….….33
2.3.2 The Platonists and Peripatetics…………………………………….43
2.4 Augustine on the will and its freedom…………………….………………....48
2.4.1 The Texts…………………………………………………………...49
2.4.2 Interpretations of Augustine’s view………………………………..58
2.5 The Arabic Tradition…………………………………………………………62
2.5.1 Translating Aristotle into Arabic…………………………………...63
2.5.2 Al-Farabi…………………………………………………………...64
2.5.3 Avicenna………………………………………………………....…69
2.6 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………...79
CHAPTER 3: AVERROES………………………………………………………………83
3.1 Introduction………………………………………………….……………….83
3.2 The Texts…………………………………………………….……………….84
3.2.1 Commentary on Plato’s Republic: The Theoretical/Practical divide
and the the cogitative faculty…………………………………………….85
3.2.2 Commentary on the Nicomachean Ethics: The will and the
deliberative process………………………………………………………92
3.2.3 Commentaries on the De Anima: The cogitative power, and the
Intellects.…………………………………………………………………97
3.2.3.1 Middle Commentary on Aristotle’s De Anima…………...97
3.2.3.2 Long Commentary on the De Anima of Aristotle……….104
3.3 Analysis and interpretation: The resulting view of moral action and
responsibility ………………………….…………..……………………………114
3.3.1 Knowledge and the Intellects……………………………………..114
3.3.2 Willing and the deliberative process……………………………...122
3.4 Conclusion………………………………………………………………….124
CHAPTER 4: AQUINAS………………………………………………………………128
4.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………128
4.2. Aquinas’ view………………………………………………………………129
4.2.1. The soul and its relation to the body………………………….….129
4.2.2. The intellective principle(s) of the human soul………………….142
4.2.3 Internal sense powers and their relation to the intellects: the
importance of cogitation.……………………………………………….149
4.2.4 The view of knowledge attainment which this picture entails—
relation to both universal and practical knowledge…………………….153
4.3 Will and its relation to the intellect and the human being in general….…....155
4.3.1 The relationship between the will and the intellect and their
objects…………………………………………………………….…….155
4.3.2 The function of the will……………………………………….…..162
4.3.3 The process of willing from intellectual consideration to action…171
4.4 The emerging view of moral agency and responsibility……………………176
4.5 Conclusion …………………………………………………………..……..178
CHAPTER 5: AN ANALYSIS OF AVERROES VIEW OF MORAL RESPONSIBILITY
IN LIGHT OF THE CRITIQUE OF AQUINAS……………………………………….180
5.1 Introduction……………………………………………………….………….180
5.2 Issues A (placement of the separate Intellects/ “in the soul”) and B (separate
Intellects as “form for us”)………….……….…………………………….……..181
5.2.1 Averroes’ Coherent Account of the Separate Intellects as “in the soul”
and “form for us”..………………………………………………………….181
5.2.2 Aquinas’ view on the intellects as “in the soul” and “form for us”.….188
5.2.2.1 Aquinas’ position…………………………………………….188
5.2.2.2 Aquinas’ particular critiques of Averroes ……………………194
5.2.3 My critical analysis and assessment………………………………….211
5.3 Issue C (the relationship between the individual human being and the
intelligibles in act)…….…………………………………………………....220
5.3.1 Averroes’ understanding of intelligibles in act……………..……..220
5.3.2 Aquinas’ position and critique of Averroes regarding the nature of the
intelligibles and their relation to the human individual…………...…....225
5.3.2.1 Aquinas’ position……………………………………….225
5.3.2.2 Aquinas’ critique……………………….……………….227
5.3.3 A critical analysis and assessment of the teaching of Averroes…..231
5.4 Summary of these issues regarding the nature of the Intellects and intelligibles
and their relation to the human being…………………………………………..235
5.5 Issue D (the location and function of the will)………………………….….236
5.5.1 Averroes’ view…………………………………………………….236
5.5.2 Aquinas’ position and his critique of Averroes……………….…..239
5.5.2.1 Aquinas’ position…………………………….……..…..239
5.5.2.2 Aquinas’ critique……………………….……………….243
5.5.3. Critical Analysis of Aquinas’ critique of Averroes’s supposed view
of the will…………………………………………….…………………246
5.6 The impact of these critiques on the issue of moral responsibility in
Averroes…………..…………………………………………….……..………..252
5.7 Conclusion…………………………………………………………….……256
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION…………………………………………………..……..259
6.1 Introduction………………………………………………………..…….….259
6.2 Are either Averroes or Aquinas following Aristotle regarding the will or the
intellects? …………………………………………………….………..……….262
6.3 What is Averroes’ position and what motivates this position? Is it
coherent?…………………………………………………………………....…..265
6.4 Does Averroes’ view hold up against the critiques of Aquinas?……………267
6.5 Final Remarks…………………………………………………………..…..271
BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………..……..273