|
|
Questions
for Anselm & Gaunilo 1.
What does Anselm mean by defining God as "that than which nothing
greater can be conceived?" 2.
How does such a definition work in his argument? 3.
Outline, as best you can, the argument that Anselm is making here. Be
sure to keep in mind that he is trying to "prove" that God exists? 4.
What do you think Anselm means when he claims that only a
"fool" would say that "God does not exist?" 5.
What is the main point of contention between Anselm and Gaunilo? 6.
Do you think that Gaunilo's arguments are effective against Anselm? Questions
for Aquinas all from the Summa
Theologica.
The easiest way to read Aquinas is simply to figure out how Aquinas
answers the questions he asks. First
Part, Q1-2 (pp.
335-350) 7.
Just outline the basic questions and answers that Aquinas works through
in this portion of the Summa. Consider carefully both the objections to
which he is responding, and the positions he considers to be authoritative.
Finally, make sure that you spend sometime considering the manner in which
Aquinas thinks through his answers here. How much emphasis does he place on
authority (and what does he consider an authority)? What sort of logical work
does he undertake here? How convincing, and so forth, are his arguments? 8.
What is the status of “sacred science”? How does it relate to
philosophy (and human reason), what is its status, and what is its purpose? 9.
What kind of relation is implied here between reason and revelation? What
do you think of this relationship? 10.
Consider carefully the comments that Aquinas makes with respect to the
proper interpretation of the sacred word (gospels). What is important about the
question of metaphor and meaning here? What do you think about the questions he
raises and his answers? 11.
Is God's existence "self-evident?" What does
"self-evidence" mean? 12.
Can it be demonstrated that God exists? That is, is it possible to prove
God's existence? 13.
What are the proofs of God's existence? There are five. 14.
Compare Aquinas’ proofs of God’s existence with those of Anselm. What
are the chief differences/similarities? Do you find one set more convincing than
another? 15.
Consider as well the type of god that is proven here –is it
easily recognizable as the Christian God? 16.
Can we “prove” God’s existence? Consider carefully what you mean by
the word “proof”? What level of proof is required or possible? (Consider the
fact that in criminal courts we only prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” and
in civil trials all we need is a “preponderance of evidence” is something
more needed to prove that God exists?) First
Part of the Second Part, Q2-3, 5, 10 & 13. (pp. 384-393) 1.
What is the basic structure of a happy life according to Aquinas? 2.
Is it possible to live a happy life without God? Can someone without
faith, or without grace, live a complete, human, and happy life? Why or why not? 3.
Is a happy life a life of practice or contemplation? Consider how
Aquinas’ discussion here mirrors or differs from the discussion of Aristotle. 4.
How does Aquinas conceive of the will? What is the importance of this
conception? Consider this in relation to the work of Augustine. Treatise
on Law Q94-96 & Second Part of the Second Part Q40. (399-410) 1.
What appears to be at issue in this discussion of Aquinas –what is he
after? What is the “natural law” and how is it related to “human law”? 2.
What is the effect of constructing a conception of “natural law” and
its appropriate relation to “human law”? What does it (or would it –since
we don’t see him doing it here) allow Aquinas or other people to do? 3.
What is the realm or extent of natural and human law? 4.
How does Aquinas justify the waging of war and the use of violence? What
do you think of this? |