This is the seventh in a series of posts on my own philosophical journey; the first post is here.

So Aristotle, I discovered, maintained a sane connection with the real world; and St. Thomas followed him in this. But how did it happen that there was such a strong bond between the pagan philosopher and a Dominican friar who lived over a thousand years later?

It might surprise those who expect conflict between faith and reason, but the Catholic Church has always insisted that not only are the two things not in conflict, they cannot be in conflict. God is Truth; He is the creator of the world we see around us, and the revealer of the truths we hold by faith. If the two seem to be in conflict, then there’s a failure in understanding some place.

As a result, Catholic theologians in every age have looked to the best thinkers of the age and learned from them. Neo-Platonism was popular in the early centuries of the Church, and theologians from Justin Martyr to St. Augustine to Boethius and onwards from there drew on Plato to aid their understanding of the world and God’s revelation. Scholastic philosophy began in the 8th century or thereabouts, and was based on Plato’s work. Aristotle was pretty well neglected, so far as I can tell, through this whole sweep of time.

And then Avicenna, in 11th century Persia, and Averroes and Maimonides in 12th century Andalusia, began to pay attention to Aristotle, and to try to reconcile his thoughts with Islam on the one hand and Judaism on the other. Their work came to Europe and caused quite a sensation; and because Averroes’ interpretation of Aristotle was manifestly incompatible with Christian revelation, the old Greek was nearly cast out on his ear by the theologians of Christendom.

But not quite, because he made too much sense. St. Thomas studied Aristotle extensively, and had a friend in the Dominican order translate him into Latin from the original Greek. It is often said that Islam preserved Aristotle, and that Christendom received Aristotle from the Muslims, and this is true; but once introduced they went back to the sources. It wasn’t so much that Aristotle had been lost, as that he had been ignored.

St. Thomas’ work was controversial; there were several attempts to condemn it, all ultimately overturned, and much disagreement; but in the end, after his death, he was vindicated, and his philosophy and theology were taught widely throughout Christendom. If popularity were the sign of philosophical truth, then Thomas and Aristotle would win the contest in a heartbeat. There came to be a time when every Catholic priest, and many others who went to Catholic schools, were taught Thomist philosophy; and not just as a hoary old chestnut, something people used to believe, but as the best tool available for understanding God and His world.

And yet Descartes and his successors threw this all away. How come? What happened? What persuaded them that Aristotle was not worth learning from?

Part VIII