The Metaphysics of Causation in the Creation Accounts of Avicenna and Aquinas

225 Pages·2017·1.8 MB·English

Purdue University
Purdue e-Pubs
Open Access Dissertations Theses and Dissertations
Fall 2013
The Metaphysics of Causation in the Creation
Accounts of Avicenna and Aquinas
Julie Ann Swanstrom
Purdue University
Follow this and additional works at:https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/open_access_dissertations
Part of thePhilosophy Commons
Recommended Citation
Swanstrom, Julie Ann, "The Metaphysics of Causation in the Creation Accounts of Avicenna and Aquinas" (2013).Open Access
Dissertations. 58.
https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/open_access_dissertations/58
This document has been made available through Purdue e-Pubs, a service of the Purdue University Libraries. Please contact [email protected] for
additional information.
Graduate School ETD Form 9
(Revised 12/07)
PURDUE UNIVERSITY
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Thesis/Dissertation Acceptance
This is to certify that the thesis/dissertation prepared
By JulieA.Swanstrom
Entitled
TheMetaphysicsofCausationintheCreationAccountsofAvicennaandAquinas
DoctorofPhilosophy
For the degree of
Is approved by the final examining committee:
JeffreyBrower

Chair
JanCover

DanFrank

PaulDraper

To the best of my knowledge and as understood by the student in the Research Integrity and
Copyright Disclaimer (Graduate School Form 20), this thesis/dissertation adheres to the provisions of
Purdue University’s “Policy on Integrity in Research” and the use of copyrighted material.

JeffreyBrower
Approved by Major Professor(s): ____________________________________
____________________________________
Approved by: MatthiasSteup 08/02/201 3
Head of the Graduate Program Date
THE METAPHYSICS OF CAUSATION IN THE
CREATION ACCOUNTS OF AVICENNA AND AQUINAS

A Dissertation
Submitted to the Faculty
of
Purdue University
by
Julie A. Swanstrom

In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
of
Doctor of Philosophy

December 2013
Purdue University
West Lafayette, Indiana
ii

For my family, with gratitude to their support and encouragement.
iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to express my deep gratitude for those who have helped me with this
project. Primarily, I would like to thank my dissertation committee for their work. Dan
Frank encouraged me to pursue this topic, suggesting avenues to explore. Jan Cover
provided me with helpful comments on my initial prospectus that allowed me to compose a
much stronger dissertation. My dissertation director, Jeffrey Brower, deserves special thanks
both for his support for and engagement with this project and for his support and
encouragement throughout my graduate education. I would also like to thank Paul Draper
for his questions and comments on the final draft of my dissertation. Attendees at the
Aquinas and the Arabs conference in Paris in June, 2013 provided several important
criticisms and helpful suggestions, so I thank Dr. Richard Taylor and Dr. Luis López-Farjeat
for the opportunity to present. Over the course of my educational career, three individuals
have (more than the many others) supported and encouraged me on this journey, so I offer
special thanks to Dr. Nancey Murphy, Dr. Kimlyn Bender, and Mr. Leo Kallis. Most of all, I
would like to thank the members of my family, who have each shown me grace, patience,
encouragement—and, most gratifyingly—interest in my work as it progressed.
iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................................... v
CHAPTER ONE: HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION ................................................................ 1
Creation .................................................................................................................................... 2
Aristotelian Efficient Causation ........................................................................................ 13
Neoplatonic Emanation....................................................................................................... 18
Problem of Creation ............................................................................................................. 30
CHAPTER TWO: AVICENNA ON CREATING .................................................................... 40
A Neoplatonic Approach .................................................................................................... 40
Emanation as a Type of Efficient Causation .................................................................... 69
CHAPTER THREE: AQUINAS ON CREATING ................................................................... 96
An Aristotelian Approach ................................................................................................... 97
Efficient Causation without Patients ............................................................................... 119
Emanation as a Type of Aristotelian Efficient Causation ............................................ 132
CHAPTER FOUR: CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................... 163
Comparison ......................................................................................................................... 163
Metaphysics of Causation .................................................................................................. 175
Aristotelian Efficient Causation and Neoplatonic Emanation as Creation ............... 190
BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................................... 203
VITA .................................................................................................................................................. 212
v

ABSTRACT

Swanstrom, Julie A., Ph.D. Purdue University, December 2013. The Metaphysics of
Causation in the Creation Accounts of Avicenna and Aquinas. Major Professor: Jeffrey
Brower.

The medieval conception of monotheistic creation is this: God voluntarily creates
the universe from nothing. Endorsed by medieval philosophers, this conception of creation
is in tension with their understanding of causation more generally. Each theory of causation
available—Aristotelian efficient causation in which an agent acts upon a patient, and
Neoplatonic emanation in which beings are produced through a series of emanations—have
attractive explanatory features, but neither theory aligns perfectly with divine creation. Since
God acts to create, efficient causation seems to include creating; yet, efficient causation is
not causation ex nihilo. Since emanation accounts for producing being ex nihilo, it seems to
include creating, but emanation is neither voluntary nor non-necessary production. Thus,
medieval philosophers face what I call the ‘problem of creation’: they must either (a) deny
the apparent contradiction; (b) modify their understanding of creation; or (c) develop an
entirely new account of causation that is compatible with creation.
In my dissertation, I examine the causal theories of two prominent philosophers,
Avicenna and Aquinas. Both attempt to articulate comprehensive causal theories which
include an analysis of God’s creation of the universe. Despite their distinct cultural and
religious milieus, both men describe creating as an action performed by God. I examine how
vi
each navigates commitments to his faith tradition and to both Neoplatonic emanation and
Aristotelian efficient causation. On the surface, their theories appear similar: they each
attempt to solve the problem of creation by selecting option (a). However, this similarity
masks underlying differences: each privileges one causal theory in his creation account, and
this has implications for understanding their causal theories.
In chapter one, I clarify the problem of creation by discussing each of these
traditions in detail. To both Avicenna and Aquinas, solving the problem by selecting option
(b) is undesirable, for each would be loath to jettison the claim that God creates either ex
nihilo or voluntarily. Option (c) is equally undesirable given the medieval inclination to retain
as much of one’s heritage as possible. Each selects option (a), but they do so in distinct ways
that are explored in chapters two and three.
In chapter two, I contend that Avicenna assumes the truth of Neoplatonic
emanation as a model of causation in creation, but he explains that Neoplatonic emanation is
not incompatible with divine creation. Avicenna does not take every characteristic of
Neoplatonic emanation to be essential to that model, explaining that God emanates
voluntarily and non-necessarily (that is, God’s action is subject to no internal or external
constraints). He also speaks of creating in terms of Aristotelian efficient causation, although
to do so, he must develop (and defend developing) the implications of Aristotle’s explication
of efficient causation. Efficient causation can be natural—involving an agent activating some
potentiality in a patient—or metaphysical—involving an agent producing being ex nihilo. I
argue that Avicenna prefers Neoplatonic emanation in understanding divine creation.
In chapter three, I contend that Aquinas assumes the truth of Aristotelian efficient
causation as a model of causation, but he explains that Aristotelian efficient causation is not
vii
incompatible with the Christian conception of creating. Aquinas, like Avicenna, develops the
implications of Aristotelian efficient causation, and Aquinas understands efficient causation
to be an action performed by an agent. Aquinas also speaks of creating in terms of
emanation, which is both voluntary and non-necessary. Ultimately, Aquinas denies every
characteristic of Neoplatonic emanation except that (i) God emanates and (ii) God produces
being ex nihilo. I argue that not only does Aquinas prefer Aristotelian efficient causation as
the manner of discussing and understanding creating, but Aquinas strips from his
conception of emanation its uniquely Neoplatonic connotations and implications.
In the final chapter, I offer an analysis of Avicenna’s and Aquinas’s discussions of
causation in creation. I offer a careful analysis of their theories of causation, including the
relation between Aristotelian efficient causation and Neoplatonic emanation. Fundamentally,
I make clear that it is overly simplistic to assert that Avicenna or Aquinas have philosophies
that are purely Aristotelian or purely Neoplatonic. Both adopt the language of each theory,
but they each take pains to clarify what is truly entailed by each theory.
1

CHAPTER ONE

I. Introduction
In this chapter, I set up the problem explored in this dissertation, namely how
Avicenna and Aquinas attempt to explain God creating the universe1 in philosophical terms,
using philosophical concepts that seem not to align with the monotheistic conception of
divine creation to which both men subscribe. First, I will examine the monotheistic
conception of divine creation, paying particular attention to those numerous points on
which Avicenna’s Islamic and Aquinas’s Christian traditions agree. Given the fact that both
traditions rely heavily upon the account of divine creation provided in the Hebrew bible,
these similarities are somewhat unsurprising. Next, I will discuss the two prominent
philosophical accounts of causation that could be applied to God’s creative activity. The first
is the broadly Aristotelian account, primarily Aristotle’s account of efficient causation, and
the second is the Neoplatonic account of causation by emanation. In this chapter, I do not
attempt to explicate the historical Aristotle or any one strain of Neoplatonic thought;
instead, I discus the Aristotelian and Neoplatonic models that served as a source for
Avicenna’s and Aquinas’s views. These three traditions—the account of creation derived
from the Hebrew Scriptures, along with the two philosophical accounts of causation—shape

1 In what follows, I use the term ‘universe’ as a catch-all term meaning the physical universe—the empyrean
heavens, the terrestrial realm, and all that populates them—and the immaterial beings other than God (beings
that, according to Avicenna and Aquinas, exist). When speaking of a particular part of the universe (such as the
terrestrial realm versus the celestial realm), I will specify that I am doing so.