真理・個・本質 : オウベルニュとアクィナス

Abstract

The philosophical aspects of Auvergne's thoughts have been brought to light in recent years by S. P. Marrone. In this paper I should like to explore a further possibility, which, to the best of my knowledge, has never been examined. To understand Auvergne's philosophy, a comparison with Aquinas' philosophy may be helpful. So I shall attempt firstly to clarify the philosophical method of Auvergne, by comparison with Aquinas' method, then to compare thoroughly the two scholars' ideas, concerning TRUTH, INDIVIDUAL and ESSENCE, with each other, and finally to examine some differences between their thoughts. Though both Auvergne and Aquinas are theologians who also studied philosophy, their methods of philosophy are very different. We shall begin with a simple observation about their ways of citing authorities. While for Aquinas authority primarily means the Bible, Auvergne is apt to reject citing it when he is discussing philosophical problems. From this we can easily guess that the concept of "Philosophy" will be very different for them. Considering the different aspects : Truth : On the one hand, according to Aquinas, simple terms or words imply the coincidence with ideas which exist in the spirit of God, on the other in Auvergne they only denote individual things, not ideas. Individual : According to an influential interpretation of Aquinas' philosophy, the problem of Individuals should be solved in the light of "ESSE" which is the most important thought of Aquinas, including some supernatural ideas. In Auvergne, however, the problem, as far as it is a problem of philosophy, is treated as a natural matter, and is researched by the logical consistency of influential opinions. Essence : To know the essence of material things, according to Aquinas, we must abstract intelligible species from phantasms through the agency of the active intellect which participates in the divine intellect, but Auvergne denies the active intellect. Instead, he presents an original idea of "Habitus" which is similar to an animal instinct. What these topics make clear at once is that when Auvergne treats philosophical problems, he usually rejects metaphysical arguments as much as possible, and he prefers using ordinary language. Aquinas constructed a complete system of theology, but we must not demand such a thing of Auvergne. Rather we shall learn much from his philosophical methods or treatments.