The purpose of this dissertation is to look after the continuity and discontinuity between Aristotelian and Thomistic metaphysics. It is especially aimed to show how the core of Aristotelean metaphysics, ousia, is related to Thomas Aquinas's ipsum esse and how he overcame it. I divided this thesis i...
The purpose of this dissertation is to look after the continuity and discontinuity between Aristotelian and Thomistic metaphysics. It is especially aimed to show how the core of Aristotelean metaphysics, ousia, is related to Thomas Aquinas's ipsum esse and how he overcame it. I divided this thesis into three groups in large to explore. First, what is Aristoteles's ousia and how the concept had changed until the Middle Age. Aristoteles suggested his various opinions about ousia in his 『Metaphysics』volumes 7 and 8. These are "What is being?", "What is the universal?", "What is the genus?", and "What is the substrate?" Aristoteles prescribed that ousia is a concrete and individual thing, but it is an "eternal and unchangeable thing, separated from the substrate. This idea opened the way toward the primary philosophy, namely theology. In this respect, there have been various attempts to explain gods through Aristotelean philosophy. There are two concepts of god shown in Aristotele. One is the god of the primary causes through aitia which means arche, and the other that of the primary philosophy through ousia. Though it can be explained that god is aitia, the primary causes, however, we can ask a question of whether we can explain god as ousia or not. Ousia meant at first by essentia, but it would be translated differently in some points. It was often used as substantia, as used by the medieval Scholastic philosophers. However this kind of mistranslation of ousia called for limitations when explaining god. To overcome these limitations, I will explain the notion of god with the original meaning, esse. The second point of this dissertation is that though ousia includes the meaning of esse, it is still translated as a substantia, because ousia has two aspects. so to speak, becoming one as esse and essentia. Aristoteles's ousia and Thomas Aquinas's esse can be understood as the reason of being or entitas and principal of entitas. Aristoteles's ousia is the subject of esse as well as the principle of being which implies the characteristic between ens, but Thomas Aquinas's esse is not like that. Aristoteles realized that ousia is entitas and ens(being), but everything except ousia is accidens, namely, it is not essential for something to exist. Thomas Aquinas saw that each things' principle of entitas being is esse and the principle of determine is essentia. Therefore, he overcomes the limitation which explains god by Aristoteles's ousia through Thomas Aquinas's esse. The third point of the dissertation is to talk about Thomas Aquinas's understanding god as being itself and Aristoteles's ousia and the difference of gods as aitia. Thomas Aquinas and Aristoteles are the same in that they see all gods as the reason of being. At the same time, that the gods are purus actus and prima causa and prime unmoved mover is all accepted by Thomas Aquinas, yet Aristoteles's view that the gods are forma pura isn't accepted by Thomas Aquinas. Because Aristoteles's forma pura is just purus actus and prima causa, but for Thomas Aquinas, to be actus or purus actus and prime unmoved mover, ipsum esse is needed. Namely, if there is no esse, every determine is nothing itself. Through this structure, it is possible that Thomas Aquinas can explain that the ousia is esse as God's notion. Therefore, in the second chapter, I searched the notion of ousia which was indicated by Aristoteles's metaphysics. In addition, I explored the procedures that the notion of gods as explained with prima causa. In the third chapter, I examined that how the ousia was mistranslated and used from the early stage of Christianity to the Middle Ages. In the fourth chapter, I investigated how the ousia was stated in the consideration for the being shown in Thomas Aquinas and how it established as ipsum esse. Thus, I came from the hitherto discussion to the conclusion that I analyzed the continuity and discontinuity about the concept of God between Aristotelian and Thomistic metaphysics.
The purpose of this dissertation is to look after the continuity and discontinuity between Aristotelian and Thomistic metaphysics. It is especially aimed to show how the core of Aristotelean metaphysics, ousia, is related to Thomas Aquinas's ipsum esse and how he overcame it. I divided this thesis into three groups in large to explore. First, what is Aristoteles's ousia and how the concept had changed until the Middle Age. Aristoteles suggested his various opinions about ousia in his 『Metaphysics』volumes 7 and 8. These are "What is being?", "What is the universal?", "What is the genus?", and "What is the substrate?" Aristoteles prescribed that ousia is a concrete and individual thing, but it is an "eternal and unchangeable thing, separated from the substrate. This idea opened the way toward the primary philosophy, namely theology. In this respect, there have been various attempts to explain gods through Aristotelean philosophy. There are two concepts of god shown in Aristotele. One is the god of the primary causes through aitia which means arche, and the other that of the primary philosophy through ousia. Though it can be explained that god is aitia, the primary causes, however, we can ask a question of whether we can explain god as ousia or not. Ousia meant at first by essentia, but it would be translated differently in some points. It was often used as substantia, as used by the medieval Scholastic philosophers. However this kind of mistranslation of ousia called for limitations when explaining god. To overcome these limitations, I will explain the notion of god with the original meaning, esse. The second point of this dissertation is that though ousia includes the meaning of esse, it is still translated as a substantia, because ousia has two aspects. so to speak, becoming one as esse and essentia. Aristoteles's ousia and Thomas Aquinas's esse can be understood as the reason of being or entitas and principal of entitas. Aristoteles's ousia is the subject of esse as well as the principle of being which implies the characteristic between ens, but Thomas Aquinas's esse is not like that. Aristoteles realized that ousia is entitas and ens(being), but everything except ousia is accidens, namely, it is not essential for something to exist. Thomas Aquinas saw that each things' principle of entitas being is esse and the principle of determine is essentia. Therefore, he overcomes the limitation which explains god by Aristoteles's ousia through Thomas Aquinas's esse. The third point of the dissertation is to talk about Thomas Aquinas's understanding god as being itself and Aristoteles's ousia and the difference of gods as aitia. Thomas Aquinas and Aristoteles are the same in that they see all gods as the reason of being. At the same time, that the gods are purus actus and prima causa and prime unmoved mover is all accepted by Thomas Aquinas, yet Aristoteles's view that the gods are forma pura isn't accepted by Thomas Aquinas. Because Aristoteles's forma pura is just purus actus and prima causa, but for Thomas Aquinas, to be actus or purus actus and prime unmoved mover, ipsum esse is needed. Namely, if there is no esse, every determine is nothing itself. Through this structure, it is possible that Thomas Aquinas can explain that the ousia is esse as God's notion. Therefore, in the second chapter, I searched the notion of ousia which was indicated by Aristoteles's metaphysics. In addition, I explored the procedures that the notion of gods as explained with prima causa. In the third chapter, I examined that how the ousia was mistranslated and used from the early stage of Christianity to the Middle Ages. In the fourth chapter, I investigated how the ousia was stated in the consideration for the being shown in Thomas Aquinas and how it established as ipsum esse. Thus, I came from the hitherto discussion to the conclusion that I analyzed the continuity and discontinuity about the concept of God between Aristotelian and Thomistic metaphysics.
주제어
#Aristoteles Thomas Aquinas ousia substance esse 형이상학 토마스 아퀴나스
※ AI-Helper는 부적절한 답변을 할 수 있습니다.