- 24-26 October 2024
- Venue: the Baroque refectory and the large lecture room of the
- Registration: registration form
- Registration deadline: until 18 October 2024.
- Fee: 400 CZK – please pay to no. 6375022/2700, VS 1274
It is possible to attend the lectures without prior registration, and registered participants will have a reserved seat in the hall.
PROGRAMME:
Thursday – 24 October 2024
9:00-10:00 h
Tomáš Machula (South Bohemian University, Czech Republic).
In the context of the growing interest in virtue ethics, humility is often pointed out as a virtue that was thematized only by Christianity. Today, humility is usually defined as a true view of oneself. This brings before us the question of the relationship between humility and truthfulness. Thomas Aquinas understands humility as a virtue associated with artifice. He then distinguishes truthfulness into a relation to oneself (which concerns all virtues) and a relation to others (which belongs to justice). This talk will analyze Thomas’s conception of these virtues with an emphasis on their applicability to contemporary discussions of humility. Last but not least, this question continues to inspire Dominican spirituality, which emphasizes knowledge and the proclamation of truth.
10:15-11:15 h
Petr Dvořák (CMTF UPOL, Czech Republic).
This paper will present Thomas’s teaching on the will, its determination and freedom, in the context of the contemporary debate between compatibilists and incompatibilists. Specifically, it will be concerned with determining to what extent and in what sense Thomas recognizes the existence of alternative possibilities and what role this existence plays in terms of the free character of the free act. The second, logically related question is then what type of determination of the free act is compatible with freedom according to Thomas and what is no longer compatible with freedom. An associated question concerns Thomas’s view of the validity of theological and natural determinism. Answering these questions will allow us to determine whether Thomas was a libertarian or a compatibilist (as understood by today’s analytic philosophers) and what the implications of his position are for moral responsibility for action.
11:30-12:30 h
Contemporary evangelical theology in conversation with Thomas Aquinas
Renewed Catholic scholarship on Thomas has brought a new perspective on his work – it has also allowed for a new perspective on Thomas by evangelical theologians. This paper will present some publications from the evangelical or evangelical milieu that explicitly claim inspiration from Thomas and Thomism, from Geisler’s classic writings of the early 1990s to a publication from this year.
14:00-14:45 h.
A
Samuel Lovas OP (SR): Human Freedom and Habit Formation: Materialistic Pessimism and Thomistic Optimism
One of the intrinsic limitations of freedom is represented by our habits. Contrary to common perception, Thomas’s view of them is quite optimistic. The lecture will discuss how, according to him, habits in general can give rise to acti hominis, but they do not give rise to action that is human in the true sense of the word. For they cannot cause reason to necessarily prefer one thing to another. As second nature, habit makes our action quasi-natural and consequently pleasurable. In dialogue with contemporary human sciences, we shall see that automation in habits reduces the need for self-control and thus man can experience his activity in a new quality. Habits also allow their possessor, who already has his will focused on a particular object, to increase the intensity of his activity. In this way one experiences oneself not as a “puppet in the hands of fate” but as a real actor – an artist who creates his ultimate work: himself.
B
Marián Janík, Matej Moško (Institut of science and technology Austria, Institute of Physics of the Slovak Academy of Sciences, SK).
Contemporary natural sciences seem to bring with them only a kind of materialism, according to which macroscopic phenomena are reducible to the spatio-temporal arrangement of their microscopic parts, evolving according to natural laws. This interpretation is insufficient because it does not offer satisfactory explanations of phenomena such as quantum entanglement and the emergence of macroscopic chemical and biological substances. These phenomena
on the contrary, they create a picture of nature in which the causal properties of things are not reducible to an arrangement of parts but, on the contrary, are embodied in their forms as determining, unifying, and organizing principles. Developing the metaphysical principles of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, we argue that hylomorphism offers a robust framework for capturing the aforementioned observations of modern science. Moreover, these principles can mediate a fruitful dialogue between science, philosophy, and theology as they harmonize their views of reality, for example, on the questions of the soul as a form of the body, teleology in nature, or the doctrine of transcendence.
14:45-15:30 h.
A
David Peroutka (CTF UK, Czech Republic): Natural Law and the Is-ought Problem
D. J. O’Connor, in his Aquinas and Natural Law (1967), asserted against Thomas’s ethics the Humean objection that one cannot derive (moral) norms from facts (here, facts about nature). Thomas’s defenders have responded in various ways. G. Grisez, J. Finnis, and J. Boyle thought that this derivation was unnecessary. “Derivationists”, on the other hand, have in one way or another tried to find viable ways of derivation: in this sense, H. B. Veatch referred to Aristotelianly conceived potencies, R. McInerny to the “desirable” nature of the good, A. Lisska or S. J. Jensen to the end, and P. Seipel to God as Eternal Law. In my paper, I will briefly sketch the significance of this discussion and, loosely following M. Gorman, I will try to argue in favor of the normative character of essence. I will present the derivation of norms as a manifestation of “conceptual logic” (the validity of which is not questioned by “formal logic” but, on the contrary, presupposed).
B
Kateřina Kutarňová (FLÚ AV ČR): Does AI have a will? What would Thomas Aquinas say
AI will cause nuclear war. “Artificial intelligence will wipe us out!” “AI will make slaves of humans.” Similar statements and assessments of the future development of AI have been made in recent months by people who have themselves been involved in the development of AI. They have no doubt at all that AI thinks. However, for AI to do any of these things, it would need to be able to make choices – and that requires will. Does will originate in thought? It is
thought dependent on matter? Do AI designers return to the Aristotelian-Thomistic belief that there is nothing in “mind that was not previously in the senses”? In this paper, I will consider how these questions can be answered on the basis of Thomas’s understanding of intellect as a mental force partially independent of matter, and of will, which, while it works closely with, influences, and is influenced by intellect, has no source in thought. This source is for Thomas the somewhat mysterious “essence of the soul.” So can AI have a will?
15:30-16:15 h.
A
Filip J. Scherf (University of St Andrews, UK): The theory of just espionage. Critical reflection and ethical limits
This paper will offer a critical reflection on just war theory (JIT) of espionage. JIT is directly related to just war theory (JWT), which draws significantly on the work of St. Thomas Aquinas, and has become the dominant ethical framework in secular and Christian academic and practical discussions on the ethics of espionage. The first part of this paper will introduce JIT in the context of the complex and varied development of JWT, focusing on the assumption of an analogy between war and espionage, since it is from this assumption that JIT is based. This assumption omits the key premises that guided the thinking on the ethics of war of St. Thomas Aquinas and later just war theorists. The second part will show the general inadequacy of JIT because of the mistaken central assumption and the erroneous conclusions drawn from it. The third and pivotal part will address the Christian critique of the fundamental flaws of JIT in the most ethically problematic espionage activity – working with “human resources.” It is here that the inappropriateness of applying JWT to espionage is fully exposed. Indeed, JIT presents an ethical defense of the exploitation, manipulation, deception, and instrumentalization of persons for the benefit of national security. However, such an approach is (at least) highly unsatisfactory from a Christian perspective due to the devaluation of individual human dignity and the distortion of formative relationality.
B
Daniel Heider (TF JČU, Czech Republic): Aquinas on angelic mind-reading and contemporary neuroscience
In my paper I will focus on the question of angelic mind-reading in Thomas Aquinas. I will defend the thesis that angelic mindreading represents a limit case of what neuroscience might be capable of in the future. I will show how Aquinas’s solution to this question, which consists in the claim of the impossibility of a direct angelic intuitive insight into the contents of the mind of another (both another angel and a human), can be updated in the context of contemporary neuropsychological debates, especially in the context of the debate about so-called neuroproperties such as the right to mental privacy, and the right to control our decisions.
Friday – 25 October 2024
9:00-10:00 h.
Ghislain-Marie Grange OP (Studium des dominicains, Toulouse).
St. Thomas Aquinas inherited Aristotle’s worldview of a harmonious universe centered on Earth. We live in a different worldview, shaped by the enormous advances in the natural sciences, and where God is conspicuously absent. From his philosophical and theological principles, St. Thomas Aquinas helps us to take a Christian view of nature. He shows the autonomy of the sciences, but also the order of creatures that leads us to God.
10:15-11:15 h.
Václav Němec (FLÚ AV ČR).
According to Martin Heidegger, man (being) is a special being, which is decisively determined by its relation to being. Self-alienation, which consists in the fact that stay does not choose its authentic possibilities, is also interpreted by Heidegger as a forfeiture of being and alienation from its own ground, which is being itself. Beginning with the Marburg lecture Grundprobleme der Phänomenologie, Heidegger expresses the distinction between being and being, which is crucial to his philosophy, in the term “ontological difference.” This distinction is linked to his historical-philosophical thesis that the entire Western philosophical tradition failed to recognize the ontological difference between being and being and fell into a “forgetfulness of being” that eventually resulted in European nihilism. On closer inspection, however, it turns out that in the history of ancient and medieval metaphysics there are, after all, certain exceptions to this rule, among them Thomas Aquinas, who clearly distinguished between being and being. The notion of being as the constitutive principle of being plays a fundamental role not only in Thomas’s metaphysical analyses of the structure of created being, but also in his reflections on the goal of human life within moral philosophy and in his theological concept of God as “mere” or “self-existent being.” In my paper I will focus specifically on the points of contact and differences in the conceptions of being and being in Thomas and Heidegger. The comparison of the two thinkers should not only allow us to answer the question of whether an analogue of the Heideggerian ontological difference can be found in Thomas, but also to assess to what extent Thomas’s conception of being can be relevant and inspiring for the contemporary philosophical inquiry into the existential determination of man and for theology in the “post-metaphysical age”.
11:30-12:30 h.
Francois Daguet OP (Institut catholique de Toulouse): What light does Thomas Aquinas shed on contemporary politics?
The political order is currently undergoing a fundamental transformation that goes a long way to explaining the fears of the inhabitants of the old democracies. Modern politics, which established itself as a substitute for the order of Christianity, is now being recalled by postmodernity, which disqualifies its principles without changing its institutions. Returning to ancient sources by proposing principles for the constitution of the common world sheds light on the present situation and allows us to evaluate the dead ends of political societies. If they do not offer a directly applicable therapy, they help to better understand the pathologies that afflict them.
14:00-14:45 h.
A
Helena Machulová (TF JČU, Czech Republic): The notion of bonum commune in Thomas Aquinas and its ancient sources
At the beginning of the Summa Theologiae, Thomas distinguishes three types of good (noble, pleasant and useful). In addition, he also distinguishes between private and common good. The notion of the common good is quite fundamental to ethical and political questions (which are much closer categories in ancient and medieval understanding than they are today). This paper examines the way in which Thomas uses the notion of bonum commune, especially in the two sums, the De regno and the commentary on Aristotle’s Ethics and Politics. It also focuses on the question of the connection between this concept in Thomas and his ancient predecessors, on whom he draws in his work. Finally, he will offer a look at the connection between the bonum commune and the principle of the common good in the contemporary social doctrine of the Church.
B
Lukáš Novák (TF JČU, Czech Republic): Corruptionism, survivalism – and Thomas Aquinas
In contemporary analytical Thomism, the debate continues over the question of whether, despite the immortality of the human soul, death is to be understood as a substantive change and extinction of the human person (as corruptionists claim), or whether the human person survives as a separated soul (as survivalists claim). In this debate, the following three questions are not always adequately distinguished: (1) For which of the options are there stronger systematic reasons? (2) Which of the options is more consistent with the principles of Thomas’s philosophy? (3) Which of the options did Thomas subscribe to? In my talk, I will present arguments that while the answer to (3) is clearly “corruptionism,” the answer to (1) and (2) must be “survivalism,” despite certain complications inherent in the doctrine.
14:45-15:30 h.
A
Metoděj Němec OP (CR).
The underlining of the primacy of God’s grace and the rejection of the understanding of God as a cause only partial in the justification of man characterize the position of both St. Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin in their commentaries on the Apostle. For Calvin, however, this means in some ways an evacuation of human causality. For St. Thomas, on the other hand, his metaphysical conception of the subordination of complete causes allows for the involvement of a full human causality, which, however, acts in a different order from the transcendent and divine cause. Thomas’s doctrine thus allows other aspects of revelation, as well as the requirements of a coherent theological synthesis, to be taken into account with elegance. In an age not lacking in anthropocentric tendencies, it thus does not cease to provide valuable light for the Christian grounding of the whole of spiritual life.
B
Prokop Sousedík, David Svoboda (CTF UK, Czech Republic). Thomas and the relational conception of the person
As is well known, the early Christian reflection on the Trinitarian and later Christological issues comes with a new conception of the person. Within it, the person is grasped by means of two ontological categories, both as relation (the divine person) and as substance (the human and angelic persons). Thomas is a faithful heir to this tradition, and his in many ways innovative relational model of the Trinity is one of the high points of medieval trinitarian concepts. In our paper we will start from Thomas’s conception of the person and show his relational concept of the divine person on the one hand and
the substantive concept of the created person on the other. We will explain why the “as in heaven, so on earth” does not apply here and outline how Thomas’s approach can be unified and thus updated.
15:30-16:15 h.
A
Anna Tropia (FF UK, Czech Republic): Adventures and Misadventures of Aquinas’ Definition of the Human Soul: A Jesuit Reappraisal
Since the beginning of the 14th century, Thomas Aquinas’ definition and overall doctrine of the human soul became the orthodox face of the scientia de anima. Its success was due to Aquinas’ strenuous defence of the individuality and unicity of the human soul against Averroes and those who separated the capacity of thinking from individual human beings. The case in point we want to examine will be the critical reappraisal of Aquinas by a 16th century Jesuit, Juan Maldonado (1534-1583). Despite the first regulations that their founder, St. Ignatius, gave to the Jesuits (to follow Aquinas in matter of theology, and Aristotle, in matter of philosophy), it is no longer a surprise to scholars that they often betrayed the sense of Aquinas’ text, when they were not explicitly dismissing it at all. It is what happens in Maldonado’s De origine, natura et immortalitate animae (1564). We will focus in particular on the definition of the soul – is it a unique form, or are there more structuring the body, according to Maldonado? The Jesuit actually claims that each vital activity of the human being springs from a distinct form. The main questions we aim to ask (and provide with a reply) are: Is Maldonado’s account in line with Aquinas’ view? How many forms constitute the human soul, according to the Jesuit? Is Maldonado’s account, offered at the very dawn of modernity, more medieval sounding than that provided by medieval thinkers? Does it consist in a form of reappropriation of some old debates between Franciscans and Dominicans? Or does it ultimately result in a simplification of the account of the soul?
Saturday – 26. 10. 2024
9:30-11:30
Serge-Thomas Bonino OP (PUST, Angelicum, IT).
In the light of current trends in Thomistic studies, we will identify some of the challenges that the disciples of St. Thomas must face in the contemporary intellectual context. The secularization of medieval studies and the end of placing Thomas at the center require us to clarify the relationship between history and truth. We then consider the doctrinal resources that a pre-modern tradition such as Thomism can offer to overcome certain aporias of modernity. In this respect, Thomism, through its metaphysics of creation as participation, seems to make it possible to overcome the modern dualism between the rule of nature and the rule of subjectivity. It also promotes a way of thinking that recognizes, beyond rationalism, that tradition is the privileged path to truth.