WHAT HAVE MEDIEVAL PHILOSOPHERS CONTRIBUTED TO THE UNDERSTANDING OF PHILOSOPHY?

Philosophy Division

School of Arts and Sciences

In Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirement for the Course

Medieval Philosophy (Philo 506)

Presented by:

Samson A. Bernales, Jr.

Presented to:

Prof. Rex T. Rola

October 2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Cover Page.............0

Table of Contents.............1

Introduction.............5

Part I:The Origins of Medieval Philosophy........8

A. St. Augustine of Hippo..........8

Fides quaerens Intelectum.........10

Illumination...........11

City of God............13

Ex nihilo nihil fit...........14

The Emergence of the Problem of Universals......15

Porphyrys Problem of Universals.........16

B. Boethius............18

Consolation of Philosophy........19

Boethius Response/ Solution.......20

C. Peter Abelard............25

Abelards Response/ Solution.......27

D. St. Anselm of Canterbury........30

Faith Seeking Understanding.......32

Monologion (The Rational Basis of Truth)....34

Argument from Goodness......34

Argument from Being......35

Argument from Perfection......36

Proslogion (Address)........37

Part II: The Maturity of Medieval Philosophy........39

E. Saint Bonaventure...........39

Faith and Reason...........40

Accounts on Creation.........41

F. Thomas Aquinas...........43

Deepening of Aristotelian Philosophy.......44

Summa Theologica...........46

Hierarchy of Law...........49

Part III: Critical Reflection and Reconstruction........51

G. John Duns Scotus...........51

Individuation...........51The Argument for Gods Existence......53

Argument I..........54

Argument II..........54

Argument III..........55

H. William of Ockham..........56

Mental Language.........56

Definitions (Real definitions and Nominal definitions)...57

Ockham's Razor.........58

Conclusion...............60

References...............61

Introduction

Philosophy as coined by Philosopher Pythagoras is derived from the Greek words Philos which means Love and Sophia which means Wisdom. Therefore, Philosophy is defined as the Love for Wisdom. This is basic in Philosophy lessons however as the lesson goes deeper, one learns that the greatest Love is God and the greatest Wisdom is also is God. In contemporary era, Philosophy is the ultimate search for truth and the telos is the Truth with the big T who is no other but God. This conquest for knowing God maybe started by the Greeks namely, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle but its golden age shines forth in the dark ages called the Medieval Era. Various Philosophers such as St. Augustine of Hippo who were regarded as the greatest Churchman Fathers, Boethius who translated the works of Plato into Latin, Peter Abelard, John Scotus Erigena, St. Anselm of Catenbury, Bonaventure, The Price of Scholastics Thomas Aquinas, John Duns Scotus and William of Ockham marked their name in history of the Middle Ages in discovering the truth about God.

Is there really God? Is it possible to know God? How can one be certain of the will of God? Can reason and faith reconcile? These are just some of the vast queries people can bump into in studying and more importantly learning how the Philosophers in the Middle Ages struggle with their own sets of questions concerning God.

To deepen ones understanding with regards to the notion of God, one has to ground himself in reflection of how the medieval thinkers contribute to the understanding of philosophy. Medieval philosophy is one of the most important historical divisions of philosophy. It refers to the philosophy of Western Europe during the Middle Ages, that is between the fourth and the fourteenth century. This period was characterized by the decline of the classical pagan culture and the revival of Christian civilization and a high period for scholasticism.

Understanding how medieval philosophers contributed to the understanding philosophy will help one to appreciate the beauty of knowing ones faith, ones relationship to God and ultimately the attempt of knowing God. The collapse of the Roman Empire makes Western Europe lapsed into its Dark Ages. The monasteries remained to be the focal points of formal academic learning. The Catholic Church served as an avenue for philosophical activity until the twelfth century, in the renaissance and in the period of enlightenment. Therefore, much of the philosophical writings in that period are closely related to religion, faith and the relationship of man to God. The rise of Christianity was conversely threatened by pagan attacks. In order to defend the Christian faith from criticisms, theologians found it necessary to turn to philosophy. To justify divine revelation, these theologians sought to rationalize. Reason became an essential faculty to support faith. Philosophers who defended the Church in this period are called apologetics. Philosophy was then purported to be the handmaid of theology in explaining, defending and complementing its dogma.

Part I: The Origins of Medieval Philosophy

A. St. Augustine of Hippo

St. Augustine of Hippo also known as Aurelius Augustinus, a Christian Neoplatonist and a defender of the Roman Catholic Church, was a towering figure in medieval philosophy. He was regarded as the greatest of the churchman Fathers. He is also regarded as the greatest thinker of all times. His influence extended up to the modern period until the present. Augustines work was a combination of the Greek philosophical tradition and the Judeo-Christian religious and scriptural traditions.

During the cultural crisis of the Roman Empire, Augustine encountered two major problems. That which concerns metaphysics is the question on the relation between faith and reason (Epistemology). Is faith sufficient enough to pursue wisdom or does it need the help of reason? The epistemological problem, on the other hand, addresses the question pertaining to the one and the many (Metaphysics). What accounts for the existence of the one and the many? Fides querens Intelectum or Faith follows understanding is the stand point of Augustine in the Dark Ages. In his time, Augustine encountered the dilemma whether he would pursue with the knowledge about God or just be contented with the wisdoms offered by philosophy. In his quest for more wisdom, Augustine realized that the greatest wisdom can only be God. By that point, he becomes an apologetic, the defender of the Church. Then, Augustine becomes the Bishop of Hippo. He was regarded as the greatest Christian thinkers before St. Thomas Aquinas. The epistemological problem encountered by Augustine is the dilemma between faith and reason. The questions are, is reason sufficient enough? Is faith can stand alone? And even more crucial, how can finite mind attain certainty? For Augustine, he must believe what he understands and understand what he believes. In his time, Truth is only attainable true faith which is the belief in Jesus Christ as God and the human reason. Augustine realized that reason alone in insufficient because it must be supported with belief or a strong sense of faith. The same true with faith which cannot stand alone without reason. Augustine came up with the notion of Illumination in which he view God to be the ultimate source of all knowledge enlightening us and what we know is just a facet from the wisdom of God. What we know is just a drop of water from the vast ocean of wisdom of God. Illumination put beings into degrees in its theory of participation. The topmost Being is God who is the intelligible light beyond all light and then followed by creations namely, Angels, Humans, Animals and Plants. Our mind needs the light of God to know the world. Truths and ideas are coming from the same divine illumination who is God. In the problem of the one and the many which poses question on how can the One who is God, created the many which are the creatures or also properly termed as Ex Ni Hilo Nihil Fit or Out of nothing, nothing comes. Augustine answered that creation is the free act of God.

Fides quaerens Intelectum (Faith follows understanding)

Augustines Philosophy is defined as love of wisdom but that love of wisdom is for the attainment of happiness. His philosophy was centered on human existence concerning God and the soul. He asserted that the souls search for knowledge and love is directed towards God. He was disposed by his notion of philosophy in which the goal is in lined with Happiness. Man being limited, has doubts and fears came up with the idea of knowing oneself and that to achieve happiness is to have the truth. However, how can a finite mind can attain certainty? With regards to this pursuit, Augustine examined whether it is possible to attain certitude. In so doing, he studied all the truths man needs to pursue to wisdom. He was so disposed that he has an unbounded desire to apprehend the truth not only in believing but also understanding .St. Augustine of Hippo uses two guides to apprehend the truth. These are firstly by the authority of Christ and secondly by human reason. St. Augustine of Hippo is aware that human reason alone is insufficient. Fides querens Intelectum or known as Faith follows understanding. For St. Augustine of Hippo, faith in Jesus Christ must come first as preparation to understanding. Once one has accepted the truths of faith, reason intervenes to help one to help him understand better what he believes. According to St. Augustine of Hippo, reason let man knows where to go. Reason serves as a direction of man but it is faith which teaches man how to get there. By that, St. Augustine constructed the theory of Illumination.

Illumination

St. Augustine of Hippo addresses the mystery of God and his relation to the world. He made an effort to look into the nature, origin and destiny of the soul. However, in his process of his investigation, he was further puzzled by the idea of the relation between the contingent beings and the necessary being. How can these creatures be related to God? Augustine addressed this question and finally came up with that notion. Since no creature, however rational and intellectual, is lighted of itself, but is lighted by participation of eternal Truth, the soul finds itself illumined by God in its quest for truths. Following Plotinus, Augustine formulated his own version of the theory of illumination. The human mind does not have the capability to comprehend immutable Truth. There must therefore be a universal source of light which illumines all beings, allowing them to see the Light God. The human reason has limitations. Reason must therefore cooperate with faith as the soul embarks its journey to God. In line with this claim, Augustine argued that in order to understand Gods word, one has to believe it. Thus, reason needs the companionship of faith to pursue wisdom. The theory of Illumination of St. Augustine of Hippo consists of different degrees of reality of being. St. Augustine of Hippo views the world as being hierarchically arranged. He maintained that nothing is completely real except God. God Himself is the intelligible light and the source of all light. He Himself is the primitive ultimate source of brightness that extends to all intelligence. As our eyes have the need of the light of the sun in order to see sensible objects, our minds then need the light of God to know the world and everything in it. Man ideas, notions, laws, principles and truth are all imparted to our mind by His Divine Illumination. St. Augustine of Hippo conclusively stated that man cannot know things with being enlightened by Gods Divine Illumination.

City of God

One of the greatest contributions of St. Augustine of Hippo is his writings about City of God which tackles about the God of the Neoplatonist. St. Augustine of Hippo pointed out that the God of the Neoplatonist is similar to the God of the Christians. Both Christians and Neoplatonist viewed God as incorporeal, immutable, infinite, and source of all things. St. Augustine of Hippo further explained that Plato could have had some knowledge of the Hebrew Scriptures. However, since Platonists relied on the power of reason, they were not able to reach God.For Augustine, history is a dialectical struggle between two loves with consequences reaching into eternity. He presented history as a story of two cities. The City of God is constituted by the Love of the Uncreated Good. On the other hand the City of Creatures is established by the Love of Created Goods. The city of God is characterized by liberty and holiness whereas the city of creatures is ruled by Slavery and Sin. These two cities do exist not only in the created world but they also subsist beyond this world. The City of God or the Heavenly City is headed by Christ whose followers include those Angels and People who chose to be recipients of Gods grace. On contrary, the city of creatures or the Earthly City is ruled by Satan whose worshippers consist of souls who have chosen to be away of Gods grace. These two cities can be seen as Light and Darkness. In the absence of light, there is darkness. Like these two phenomena, the cities are opposed to each other.

Ex nihilo nihil fit

St. Augustine of Hippo came up with the doctrine Ex nihilo nihil fit also known as Out of nothing, nothing comes. With this work St. Augustine rejected the doctrine of emanation of Plotinus which explains that everything is created out of necessary and eternal emanation from God. In contrast, St. Augustine of Hippo explains that God created everything out of free act. Since God is independent of any force, He therefore willingly created the universe from nothing. God chooses to create the world. God is the ultimate source of everything for out of nothing, He created everything. According to St. Augustine of Hippo, the world was created with time for time began only on the outset of creation. Creation, however, is not eternal since eternity refers to the duration of immutable being. God created time and that man have no notion of before creation. This concurrently implies that creatures, except those which are spiritual, are subject to temporality. God ordered all things according to measure, number, and weight. St. Augustine emphasized that God, as naturally good, created only what is good. How then can we explain the existence of evil? When a creature lacks measure, form, and order, its nature is vitiated such that the natural limitation of creatures results to physical evil and the privation of right order in a created will produce moral evil. The created will is deprived of the right order when it voluntarily deviates from goodness. Man can therefore choose to be good or do evil because of the endowed freedom as bestowed by God Himself.

The Emergence of the Problem of Universals

Universals are a class of mind-independent entities, usually contrasted with individuals, postulated to ground and explain relations of qualitative identity and resemblance among individuals. They can be Individuals or Particulars. On the other hand, they are identified to be similar in virtue of sharing universals. Universals play an important role in philosophy. Many philosophers believe that unobservable entities do exist and that they function as keys to explain observable things. The problem of universals originated from the ancient thinkers and was later passed on to the medieval philosophers. The problem was first responded by Plato. Plato believed that there exists a universal which accounts for the resemblance among individuals. Plato termed it as Form. This form is immaterial and abstract. Individuals, for him, are mere participants in the universals. However, Platos claim was later on criticized by his student Aristotle. Unlike Plato, Aristotle contended that universals are not Forms but are Substantial Forms. Universals exist not outside things but are inherent in them. Universals are immanent in the concrete beings themselves.

There are three aspects of Philosophy that attempted to solve the problem namely Realism, Nominalism, and Conceptualism. Realism has also its own division namely Extreme Realism which was founded by Plato and Strong Realism whose proponent was Aristotle. Realistsacknowledge the existence of universals. In objection to the position of the Realists, ConceptualistsandNominalists deny that universals exist and that they are needed. With all of these positions, it is very evident that the problem called for rigorous philosophical speculations.

Porphyrys Problem of Universals

Porphyry is responsible for posting the medieval problem of universals. In his Isagoge, Porphyry expressed his questions concerning his problem of universals. Firstly, do genera and species subsist or are they simply something in the mind? That is, do genera and species extra mental realities which are ontological realities (real existence apart from the mind) or are they purely mental constructs (product of the mind). Secondly, if subsisting, are they corporeal of incorporeal? Given that genera and species are found in reality and not just in the mind, one can still ask whether they are corporeal or not. Lastly, are they separated from or located in sensible things? If they are corporeal, then they do subsist in sensible things apart from them? Philosophers of the middle age came up with their own solutions regarding this problem of Universals but only two Philosophers left a mark. They are Boethius and Peter Abelard.

B. Boethius

Boethius also known as Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius was a student of Greek Philosophy and a master of the Greek language. Boethius is a prolific literary writer whose work entitled Consolation of Philosophy which became widely spread throughout the Western Europe during the Middle Ages. He was known to be one of the most important mediator by which Greek philosophical ideas were continued in the Medieval Era. He was also a remarkable figure in the field of mathematics. He translated the Logic of Aristotle into Latin, added comments on them and brought it in into the heart of education in Europe. Boethius did not see contradictions between the practice of Christianity and the pursuit of philosophy. In fact, his philosophical works have long been recognized as an important medium through which ancient philosophy found its way to the Middle Ages. Boethius put his concern on the matters pertaining to Soul and Knowledge. As a student of Greek philosophy, he mastered the Greek language and was known to pass the Greek philosophical ideas unto the middle ages. Boethius was imprisoned for treason and was executed. However, before his execution and in prison, the prison cell gave him the opportunity produce the Consolation in which he put his thoughts of happiness, chance, freedom and Gods knowledge on our free acts, fortune and death.

Consolation of Philosophy

Boethius wrote his Consolation of Philosophy as a philosophical framework and a treatise on fortune and death. The Consolation become the most popular and influential book of the Middle Ages. Boethius was also confronted with the problem of Universals as presented by Porphyry about the relation between genera or species and specific objects. Porphyry raised the three questions. Firstly, do genera and species subsist or are they purely in the mind? Secondly, if they subsist, are they corporeal or incorporeal? Lastly, if they are incorporeal, then do they subsist in sensible things apart from them? Boethius points out that there are two types of incorporeal. Firstly, which do or can exist in reality apart from bodies like God and the intellectual soul? Secondly, those which cannot exist in reality but exist separated from bodies like mathematical entities such as line and numbers. In Greek, only universal and unchanging is intelligible. Boethius translations of Greeks were significant for the thoughts of the middle ages especially the fundamentals of Aristotelian logic.

Boethius Response/ Solution

Boethius explains that there are two kinds of incorporeals. Firstly, those which do or can exist in reality apart from bodies like God and the intellectual soul. Secondly, those which cannot in reality exist separated from the bodies like mathematical entities such as line and numbers. The Greek tradition as reechoed by Boethius had recognized that only what is Universal and unchanging is truly intelligible. The real world as immediately given to the senses is made up of individuals that constantly change. Boethius made two commentaries on Porphyrys Isagoge. He answered Porphyrys questions by using the perspectives of Plato and Aristotle. Boethius attempt to figure out whether universals are just meaningful concepts or existing entities did not succeed. That is the reason he turned to Plato and Aristotle to come up with an understanding of the universals and using their lenses to address the problem.

As Boethius uses the lens of Plato, Boethius came up with the solution that to account for the many given the one is through theory of Participation. Plato denied the full reality of the sensible world. Plato posited that the ideas or forms are completely separate from the world of individual sensible things. The realm of separately existing Universal form was the real world and sensible things were only partially real in the sense that they were only images of the ideal and separated forms. For Plato, Universals exist as fully real outside the mind. According to Plato as quoted by Boethius, Universals have extra mental realities, incorporeal and separated from things.

Boethius uses logic to investigate the universal. He formulated a solution chiefly in terms of Aristotles approach to the problem because he is commenting on an introduction to Aristotles Categories. (Aspell, 1999)

As Boethius uses the lens of Aristotle, Boethius came up with the solution that to account the one given the many is through theory of Abstraction. Aristotle rejected Platos separation of Universal forms from individual sensible things. Aristotle located forms in sensible things because forms are found in reality outside the mind only as individuals and not as universals. Aristotle guaranteed the full reality of sensible individuals and avoided the difficulty encountered by Plato in trying to relate the dualistic world of forms and sensible things. In the abstraction of Aristotle as Boethius used it is an activity of the intellect that renders the form found as individual outside the mind that is universal and intelligible mind. The process in the abstraction is knowing not a simple case perception that is sensory faculties but by intellection. For Aristotle, universals have extramental realities that I corporeal in the sense that reality of forms does not exist in an incorporeal way but is immanent in concrete beings in themselves in immanent forms. Beings are real only in the level of the senses but not really real because only the substantial form is what we can know as in the level of intellect.

The Aristotelian solution is that Universals subsist in one manner and are understood in another. They subsist as individual in sensible things but are understood as universals and having being in themselves apart from sensible things . . . Boethius unties the knot of this dilemma by recognizing that falsity arises in the intellect only as a result of its conjoining things and never as a result of separation. (Spade, 1994)

We can separate the universal from the bodily conditions which render it individuality in reality without error. By means of this, the intellect can know the universal in its purity as separate from the sensible things even though it is never found in such a condition in reality without falsity. Boethius states that Universal occurs as the result of collecting similarities among individuals of the same species or of the same genus. For Boethius, genera and species do exist both in things and in the mind. He further goes that they exist concretely in things and abstractly or immaterially in the mind. Moreover, he explains that they exist both in things and apart from them in the mind.

First Commentary

Boethius regarded the understanding of universals as a process which directs the mind towards a higher understanding. That is taken from the Aristotelian perspective but unlike Plato, the Universals for Boethius is understood as not apart from sensible things but is attached to them. As Boethius explained this, he claimed that the genus of something corporeal, although itself incorporeal, could never be separated from a body. However, there are two types of incorporeality according to Boethius. The first one includes those which exist apart from bodies such as God and the intellectual soul. The other one comprises those which cannot exist separate from bodies like mathematics.

Second Commentary

Boethius this time took into account Aristotles theories in solving the problem of Universals. Universal is defined as common to all members of a given class. However, Boethius assumed that while universal is common to many things, it still remained its singularity that is it is not shared in parts amongst its individual members. The universal must therefore be whole in each member. However, it is impossible for a universal to be at the same time to be one and many. Universals therefore cannot exist as substances. In result, Boethius concluded that universals must be mere thoughts. These thoughts, however, must be based on objects which exist in reality, or else, they would be empty.

Boethius responses to the questions of Porphyry regarding the problem of Universals are summed up in the following. According to Boethius, Universals are thoughts subsisting in sensible objects. Since universals are thoughts, it follows that they are incorporeal. Given that they subsist in things, Universals therefore do not subsist outside things except as ideas in human and Divine minds.

C. Peter Abelard

Peter Abelard has a reputation in the history of Medieval Philosophy. Peter Abelard immersed himself not only in the fields of philosophy and theology but also in music and poetry. Furthermore, his works in Philosophy made him known throughout entire Europe. Peter Abelards philosophical writings are all concerned in logic. Consequently, he was the first great Nominalist and the greatest logician of the Middle Ages. Peter Abelard continued the speculation of Aristotle and Boethius. Peter Abelard deepened and extended the ideas handed down in Meddle ages from the early Greeks. Peter Abelards charisma on Philosophy is thanks to his approach to logic which is conceptualism. His systematic treatment of religious doctrines became a viable avenue for philosophic dialogue. The method of Abelard is Dialectic. He relates philosophy and theology in his Credo ut Intellegiam and Intelligo ut Credum. Abelard has ways of formulating the problem brought by Universals such as; what is anything is extra mental reality corresponds to the universals concepts in the mind? How our universal concepts are formed? And how is scientific knowledge which for all practical purpose is possible? Abelards philosophical writings are concerned with logic. In his works, he did not just continue the speculation started by Aristotle, Porphyry and Boethius but he also deepened and sharpened their ideas. Conceptualism is the approach of Abelard to Logic. Abelard is also confronted with the problem of Universals as presented by Porphyry as the same as confronted by Boethius. It is because it porphyrys questions did not end up with Boethius. Since, this problem of Universals has become the subjects of debates for several years, Abelard developed three major approaches namely, exaggerated realism, conceptualism or moderate realism and Nominalism. Exaggerated realism and moderate realism pointed out universals as real things. Genera or species exist in reality and that individual things share in these universals. Universals are not mental constructs and that they are corporeal present in individual things. Nominalism points out that individual exist in nature. According to this approach, genera and species are mental constructs and not real things. They are only terms that have no meaning. Universal are just words and are not real. As to answer the question posted by Porphyry, Abelard replies with the following. The question, do genera and species subsist or are they purely in the mind? The answer of Abelard, they exist only in the intellect but they signify real things. They signify the same individuals represented by particular concepts although they signify them confusedly and indistinctly. The question, are they corporeal or incorporeal? The answer of Abelard is that as long as they are words, they are corporeal and sensible but the universals capacity to signify many similar individuals is incorporeal. The question, do universals subsist in sensible things apart from them? Abelard answered, as long as universals signify the forms of sensible things they exist in them, but in as much as they signify abstract concepts like those of the divine, they are transcendent or beyond sensible world. Solution of the problem is not found in the nature but in God.

Abelards Response/ Solution

The answers to the problems of Universals did not end up with Boethius. Boethius just started the curiosity of the Medievals and the Problem of the Universals became the debate of its age. There are three major approaches to answer the problems of Universals as noted by Peter Abelard and these are exaggerated Realism, Nominalism and Conceptualism also known as moderate realism. Peter Abelard opposed the claims of Realism and Conceptualism. Exaggerated Realists speak of universals as real things. The genera and species exist in reality and that individual things share in these Universals. According to Peter Abelard, Universals are not mental constructs and that they are corporeal present in individual beings. Peter Abelard argued that ontology of universals grounded upon realism is incoherent. He as well contested Boethius criteria of universals by arguing that universals cannot be present as a whole in many. According to peter Abelard, Universals cannot be real objects in the world. Peter Abelard then suggested that Universality is not an ontological feature of the world but it is a semantic feature of language.

Nominalist claims that only individuals exist in nature. The position of the Nominalists is that genera and species are just mental constructs and they are not real things. General term does not refer to anything. Term is just a word that is voices expressed as a vocal emission. Therefore, Nominalist concluded it to be meaningless. Peter Abelard used his traditional knowledge on the meaning of statement as basis for grounding his theory of universals. In contrast to Boethius, Abelard claimed that Universals are not thoughts but are words. These words do not refer to sensible things but to their condition of being. The general characteristic of a certain genus or species our minds conceive is simply a sign posting to the condition of their being which is, accordingly, the real reference of the universal-words. Thus, universals do not point to things but to the way things are.

Moreover, universals for Abelard are not just vocal utterances as his teacher Roscelin pointed out. Universals, in his view, are words with meaning. Universals, he said, are not simply words (voces) in the sense of a physical entity which cannot be predicated of another thing, but are words (sermones) which function as signs with a logical content which is predicable of another. The meaning of these words is founded upon a commonality between individuals. These words are called common names. Common names are in turn identified as universal concepts because they are formed by abstraction; universal concepts direct our attention to the similarities in objects which makes us ignore other features in the same objects.

Abelard took into account such analysis in answering the question of universals raised by Porphyry. Universals, he replied, are words conceived by the intellect for the purpose of signification. But because they signify real things, they cannot be held as subjects of purely empty thoughts. He further described universals as both corporeal and incorporeal corporeal because of the nature of things they signify and incorporeal because of the way these things are signified. Finally, he maintained that inasmuch as universals point to the conditions of sensible things, they subsist in them but inasmuch as they denote abstract concepts in the minds of human and of God, they exist beyond the sensible world.

D. St. Anselm of Canterbury

St. Anselm of Canterbury was one of the most important and celebrated thinkers in the eleventh century. St. Anselm of Catenbury is famous for his original work with no predecessor that is known as Ontological Argument that is used not only in philosophy but more importantly to Theology. In History, his so-called ontological argument for Gods existence was his most important legacy. However, aside from his theistic proofs, his conception of the divine nature as well as his assertion on the relation between philosophy and religion also left a heavy mark in the history of philosophy and theology. Ontological argument extends to many other important philosophical and theological matters that includes understanding the aspects and the unity of the divine nature. It addresses the questions such as what differentiates God from his creatures. If he encompasses everything, how can the human mind know him? Can God really be known? To compete with these questions, St. Anselm of Catenbury was guided by the dogmas of Christianity supported by the insights of Neo-Platonism. Christian beliefs are grounded by faith. Neoplatonist doctrines are based on reason. The two are naturally opposed to each other. Thus, the relation between faith and reason needs to be reconciled. St. Anselm is one of the greatest thinkers of the Christianity in the eleventh century. He is known for his writings of Monologion in 1076 or the Model meditation on God and Proslogion or Address in 1078 or Fides Quarens Intellectum (Faith seeking understanding). These are both concerned to provide rational arguments for the existence and attributes of God. The Monologion has three fold structures. Firstly, the empirical observation of variation in degrees by which leads to the presupposition of standard. Secondly, a judgment that refers to a standard. And lastly, the reality of the standard. The three basis of argumentation were tied up to the characteristics of substance namely, the Good on Chapter I, the Being of Chapter III and the perfection on Chapter IV. The beginning of the first proof is the presuppose acceptance that there is goodness in things. There is an empirical observation of variation in degrees as to the goodness in things such as the good, better and best. These mentioned goods must have a cause and since all particular goods are equally good, they can only be good by their participation in a single and same good and that supremely good is God. The Proslogion is a sermon consists of 26 chapters which then also called the Address. It is considered as the ontological argument for the existence of God. The id quo maius argument has many versions that lead to confusions and misinterpretations like aliquid quo maius nihil cogitari potest or something than which nothing greater can be thought. The id quo maius cogitari newit or than that which nothing greater can be conceived tells us that whatever exist in reality is greater than what exist in the mind. Therefore, God exist in the mind and in reality. The aliquid quomaius cogitari non valet or something than which a greater cannot be thought tells us that god exist not only in idea that is mentally but also extramentally. This is the greatest notion among the others because it is in the level of intellection rather than comprehension therefore God should not be reduced into mere concept as seen by Chapter XV of Proslogion that tells us quid am maius quam cogitari posit or God is something greater than can be thought.

Faith Seeking Understanding

This is also known as Fides quaerens Intellectum. Saying that faith should seek understanding does not actually mean that faith should be replaced with understanding. As a deeply devoted Christian who began his thinking with the assumption that the doctrines of Christianity are true, St. Anselm of Catenbury was driven by faith in seeking understanding to find rational explanations to the Christian teachings he already believed. Faith must not be taken as belief on the basis of testimony and understanding as belief on the basis of philosophical insight. Anselms theistic proofs are not means to have a philosophical insight on the existence of God as we come to believe his existence on the basis of testimony. There is more to them that we need to know. These proofs do not serve an epistemic function. Their purpose, rather, is volitional. They are intended not only to believers but to unbelievers as well.

Faith, for Anselm, is love for God and a drive to act as God wills. Hence, faith seeking understanding can closely be associated as an active love of God seeking a deeper knowledge of God. Anselm acknowledged both faith and reason as sources of knowledge. But he was not in favor of the position held by extreme dialecticians as to the primacy of reason over faith. According to him, reason finds itself united with faith. So, understanding proceeds from faith. St. Anselm of Catenbury made it clear that his enterprise of proving Gods existence could not even begin unless he had already believed in His existence. This is what Anselm implied when he said,

. . . I do not endeavor, O Lord, to penetrate thy sublimity, for in no wise do I compare my understanding with that; but I long understand in some degree thy truth, which my heart believes and loves. For I do not seek in order that I may believe, but I believe in order that I may understand. For I also believe this, that unless I believe, I shall not understand. (Proslogion, Chapter 1)

Monologion (The Rational Basis of Truth)

Anselm wrote Monologion for those who would want to meditate on God solely on the basis of reason. The Monologion was written at the request of the monk of Bec where St. Anselm of Catenbury then is the prior. St. Anselm of Catenbury was asked to write a model meditation on God, in which everything would be proved by reason alone, not even depending on the scripture. To prove Gods existence, he provided the arguments namely Argument from Goodness, Argument from Being and Argument from Perfection which were all tied up to the Neo-platonic characteristics of substance.

Argument from Goodness

This is the Chapter 1 of the Monologion which argues that our senses reveal a great number of good things. However, good things vary in degrees. Anselm argued that their goodness must be through some one thing. Being the source of the goodness of all other things, this one thing must be a great good in itself. In as much as all good things are good through that one thing, that thing must be good through itself. The good things that are good through another cannot be greater than that thing which is good through itself. There must therefore be a source of goodness which is supremely good among all existing things.

Argument from Being

This is the contention of the Chapter 2 of the Monologion which argues the existence of things. Anselm argued that since nothing exists through nothing, every existing thing must be caused by something. We can doubt whether there is one or more than one thing through which all things exist. Granting for instance that there is more than one thing that caused the existence of all other beings, it would make no sense for we still have to figure out the cause of their existence. A thing cannot exist either through itself or through each other. There is therefore some one thing through which all things exist. Being the cause of all existence, that one thing must be self-existing. Because that thing is self-caused, it is therefore greater than all other beings.

Argument from Perfection

This content is in the Chapter 4 of the Monologion which argues that there a hierarchy of beings. We say, for example, a mouse is worse than a cat, and a dog is better than a cat. Human beings are best among all the animals, so on and so forth. Our empirical observation tells us that things are of unequal levels. What then occupies the highest level? Is it only one or are they more? Anselm argued that if there is more than one, then they must all be equal. But they must be equal through the same thing. That thing could not be distinct from them because if it is, then they do not occupy the same level. That thing must be identical to them since they both reside in the highest level. Since they are identical, they are therefore not many but one.

St. Anselm of Catenbury concluded that there exists a Supreme Being who is the source of goodness and perfection. Through him, all things exist. Thus, he is the greatest among all beings.

Proslogion (Address)

Anselm found his arguments in Monologion complex and extended. Wanting to make them simpler, he developed the Proslogion. This address for believers which is also a rational basis of faith in which it articulates what we believe by way of rational argumentation but not opposing to tradition, authority and revelation. The Address on known as Proslogion is a sermon consisting of 26 chapters that is considered to be and ontological argument for the existence of God. Anselm derived a single argument to prove that God really exists. This single argument, presented in the contention of the Proslogion, is what is referred to as the ontological argument. The ontological argument is the title given by Immanuel Kant to describe this work of St, Anselm of Catenbury. St. Anselm of Catenbury presented his argument by stating that God is that than which no greater can be thought. But that than which no greater can be thought must exist not only in the mind but in reality. Therefore God actually exists. Philosophers expressed the Proslogion in different versions. Firstly, the Id quo maius cogitari nequit or known as God is than than which nothing greater can be conceived which is present in the Chapter 2 of the Proslogion leads to confusion, misinterpretation and most commonly misrepresentations. Secondly, the Aliquid maius nihil cogitari potest that is found in Chapter 15 of the Proslogion known as God is something than which nothing greater can be thought and lastly the Aliquid quo maius cogitari nonvalet known as God is something than which a greater cannot be thought. These three versions all point to the one and only one thing the Proslogion. However, to be precise, we should focus of the original version of Proslogion of St. Anselm of Catenbury to avoid the unnecessary misinterpretations. In discussing his arguments, Anselm talked about the fool mentioned in the book of Psalms. The fool, the Psalmist says, has said in his heart, There is no God (Psalm 14:1; 53:1). Anselm meditated whether it is possible to convince the fool that God exists. His response is positive. He argued that the fool understands, at least, what is meant by the definition of God as stated by Anselm. That than which nothing greater can be thought exists in the understanding. But if it exists only in the understanding, we can still think of something greater than it. Therefore, it also exists in reality. Since it is greater to exist in reality than to exist in the understanding, it follows that that than which nothing greater can be thought exists not only in the understanding but in reality as well. Anselms argument faced a number of criticisms. The most popular was Gaunilons Reply on Behalf of the Fool. Gaunilon asserted that Anselms argument gave the fool no good reason to believe that God exists.

Part II: The Maturity of Medieval Philosophy

E. Saint Bonaventure

Giovanni di Fidanza or most known as St. Bonaventure of Bagnoregio was a Franciscan friar. St. Bonaventure is a Master of Theology at the most respected University of Paris. In his undoubted intellect in Philosophy and Theology, St. Bonaventure became the Minister General of the Franciscan Order and moreover became the Cardinal of the Catholic Church. During his lifetime St. Bonaventure rose to become one of the most prominent Philosophers in Latin Christianity. St. Bonaventure steered the Franciscans on a moderate and intellectual course that made them the most prominent order in the Catholic Church but only until the coming of the Jesuits. St. Bonaventures theology was marked by an attempt completely to integrate faith and reason. In making faith intelligible, St. Bonaventure must clarify its material cause. By determining the material cause of theology is the same as settling on its subject. On the other hand, Theology cuts across all genera and includes God, who is not confined within any genus.

Faith and Reason

St. Bonaventure held that philosophy opens the mind to at least three different routes humans can take on their journey to God. Firstly, non-intellectual material beings understood as the ultimate cause of a world philosophical reason can prove was created at a first moment in time. Secondly, intellectual creatures conceived the images and likenesses of God. St. Bonaventure argued that the workings of the human mind and will lead us to God understood as illuminator of knowledge and donor of grace and virtue. The final route to God is the route of being in which St. Bonaventure brought Anselm's argument together with Aristotelian and Neoplatonic metaphysics to view God as the absolutely perfect Being whose essence entails its existence, an absolutely simple being that causes all other composite beings to exist.

St. Bonaventure does not explicitly address the principles of theology. St. Bonaventure claims that Scripture adds the notion of Authority and to the faith and authority of Scriptural revelation, theology adds proof. Theology presupposes faith but adds to it rational demonstrations about matters of faith. St. Bonaventure adds that Theology's subject is the object of belief in so far as the believable is transformed into the notion of the intelligible and this happens by the addition of reasoning. With this juncture, St. Bonaventure includes within theology both religious belief transformed by arguments from natural reason and natural reason transformed by arguments based on religious revelation. According to St. Bonaventure, Theological arguments may draw from revelation by using revealed truths as premises and they may draw from reason by using rational truths as premises. Philosophical reasoning has an integral place within the domain of Bonaventurean theology. St. Bonaventure showed how philosophical reasoning works in theology in the very structure of his disputed question On the Mystery of the Trinity. The same mode of reasoning is found in On Reducing the Arts to Theology. St. Bonaventure argues for each point by combining one claim based on reason with another based on revelation, as though they were wall and buttress of the cathedral of theology. Philosophical reasoning is an indispensible part of St. Bonaventure's faith - based theology.

Accounts on Creation

In his work on the Journey, St. Bonaventure focuses upon the sensible objects of the physical world around us. Like all beings, sensible things are understood to be signs that ultimately can direct humans to the divine wisdom through which all things have been made. St. Bonaventure's semiotics distinguishes four sorts of signs. For St. Bonaventure, all creatures from rocks to angels are signs in the sense of shadows and traces of God because they all bear a relation of causal dependency upon God as their Source. However, only rational beings can have the divine as an object of their activities. For that reason rational beings can conform themselves to the divine will and become likenesses of God. St. Bonaventure's understanding of the physical world is heavily indebted with Biblical account of creation. However, the most striking feature of St. Bonaventure's account of the philosophers is the manner in which he juxtaposes the doctrine of creation, as he understands it, with the philosophical theory of origins. According to St. Bonaventure, only two theories regarding the origin of the cosmos are really tenable. Firstly, the theory of the pagan philosophers according to which the world is eternal and the matter of the universe are without ultimate causal origin. Second, St. Bonaventure refers to the Christian doctrine of creation according to which the universe depends entirely for its being on God, is produced from nothing and is temporally finite in the past.

F. Thomas Aquinas

St. Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274) was a Dominican priest, theologian, and Philosopher. Called the Doctor Angelicus or the Angelic Doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas is considered one the greatest Christian philosophers to have ever lived. The Summa Theologiae and the Summa Contra Gentiles are two of his most famous works and are the finest examples of his work on Christian philosophy.

St. Thomas Aquinas first writings, primarily summaries and amplifications of his lectures, appeared two years later. His first major work was Scripta Super Libros Sententiarum which is consisted of commentaries on an influential work concerning the sacraments of the church, known as the Sententiarum Libri Quatuor or the Four Books of Sentences by the Italian theologian Peter Lombard. In 1256 Aquinas was awarded a doctorate in theology and appointed professor of philosophy at the University of Paris. Pope Alexander IV (reigned 1254-61) summoned him to Rome in 1259, where he acted as adviser and lecturer to the papal court. Returning to Paris in 1268, Aquinas immediately became involved in a controversy with the French philosopher Siger de Brabant and other followers of the Islamic philosopher Averroes.Aquinas was influenced by the writings of Aristotle, the Muslim Aristotelians Averroes and Avicenna, and the Jewish philosopher Maimonides. Unlike many theologians, St. Thomas Aquinas welcomed the Latin translation of Aristotle's complete writings. Aquinas meant to take Aristotle's philosophical arguments to their deepest level, not just to fit them into the existing theological framework. He pressed the distinction between potentiality and actuality and defended immortality without diminishing the doctrine that the soul is embodied.

Deepening of Aristotelian Philosophy

St. Thomas Aquinas definition of philosophical disciplines starts with logic which is the mental constructions we place on our experience. St. Thomas Aquinass Theoretical philosophy isolates what is constant in changing facts and is divided into natural philosophy which is the study of objects of material processes and mathematical philosophy. Furthermore, Mathematical philosophy is the study of quantity without need to appeal to the sensible world and metaphysical philosophy. Metaphysics then is the study of the non-material. Moral philosophy studies personal ethics, economics and politics.

St. Thomas Aquinas insisted that the truths of faith and those of sense experience as presented by Aristotle are fully compatible and complementary. Some truths such as that of the mystery of the incarnation can be known only through revelation and others such as that of the composition of material things only through experience such as that of the existence of God, are known through both equally. St. Thomas Aquinas held that knowledge originates in sensation but sense data can be made intelligible only by the action of the intellect which elevates thought toward the apprehension of such immaterial realities as the human soul, the angels, and God. St. Thomas Aquinas argues that to reach understanding of the highest truths, those with which religion is concerned, there is a vital need of the Revelation as found in the Bible. St. Thomas Aquinas's moderate realism placed the universals firmly in the mind. St. Thomas Aquinas is in opposition to extreme realism, which posited their independence of human thought. St. Thomas Aquinas admitted a foundation for universals in existing things, however, in opposition to Nominalism and conceptualism.

St. Thomas Aquinas pointed out that substance and accidents are the first categories of the material world and material processes are shaped by the four causes. These four causes are material cause which is the composition, formal cause which is the blue print as actuality of the material cause, efficient cause which is the laborers and final cause which is the final product or the outcome. For St. Thomas Aquinas as Aristotelian Philosopher all material substances are composed of matter and form. St. Thomas Aquinas rejection of Neoplatonism scandalized some of his contemporaries. St. Thomas Aquinas was critical of the conception of humans as rational souls inhabiting powerless and material bodies. St. Thomas Aquinas as Aristotelian Philosopher, he saw the human being as a complete union of soul and body and of matter and form. Thus, in addition to the survival of the soul after death, the resurrection of the body seemed philosophically appropriate as well as religiously true.

Summa Theologica

St. Thomas Aquinas wrote a numerous volume of the Summa Theologica. In the Part I of his great work in Summa Theologica, St. Thomas Aquinas provides his proof of the existence of God as the uncaused cause, existent in pure actuality without potentiality, an absolutely necessary being, an absolutely perfect being, and a rational designer. As a point of departure of these the thoughts of the unity, infinity, unchangeableness and goodness of the highest being are deduced. St. Thomas Aquinas reflected that God's knowledge is absolutely perfect since He knows Himself and all things as appointed by Him. According to St. Thomas Aquinas God wills good to every being which exists; that is, He loves it, and love is the fundamental relation of God to the world. St. Thomas Aquinas goes beyond traditional negative theology and states that to say God is good means more than He is not evil or that He is the cause of the goodness we see about us.

St. Thomas Aquinas discusses in the part II of the Summa Theologica his system of ethics. According to St. Thomas Aquinas, in acts of will man strives for the highest end, which are free acts insofar as man has in himself the knowledge of their end and therein the principle of action. Whether the act is good or evil depends on the end. St. Thomas Aquinas claimed that human acts are good if they promote the purpose of God and His honor. St. Thomas Aquinas goes further by repeating a good action man acquires a moral habit which enables him to do the good gladly and easily. However, St. Thomas Aquinas cautioned that this is true only of the intellectual and moral virtues. St. Thomas Aquinas proceeds that the theological virtues are imparted by God to man as dispositions toward good and evil. St. Thomas Aquinas is certain in stating that an act becomes evil through deviation from the reason and the divine moral law. According to St. Thomas Aquinas, sin has its origin in the will, which decides, against reason, for a changeable good. St. Thomas Aquinas state that as God rules in the world, the "plan of the order of things" preexists in Him. Hence follows predestination from eternity some are destined to eternal life and others fall short. Furthermore St. Thomas Aquinas continued that determinism is deeply grounded in his system and on moral grounds. St. Thomas Aquinas advocates freedom energetically but with his premises, St. Thomas Aquinas can have in mind only the psychological form of self-motivation. St. Thomas Aquinas concluded the part II of Summa Theologica by stating that Nothing in the world is accidental or free.

The theme of Part III of the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas is Christ. St. Thomas Aquinas states that it cannot be asserted that the incarnation was absolutely necessary. St. Thomas Aquinas further stated that since God in His omnipotent power could have repaired human nature in many other ways but it was the most suitable way both for the purpose of instruction and of satisfaction. For St. Thomas Aquinas, all human potentialities are made perfect in Jesus by the vision of God. St. Thomas Aquinas further goes that Jesus Christ's human nature was imperfect partly to make His humanity evident. St. Thomas Aquinas stated partly because Christ would bear the general consequences of sin for humanity. St. Thomas Aquinas explained that Christ experienced suffering but blessedness reigned in His soul, which however, did not extend to His body. St. Thomas Aquinas further points out that Jesus Christ, as head of humanity imparts perfection and virtue to His members. Jesus Christ is the teacher and example of humanity. Jesus Christs whole life and suffering as well as His work after He is exalted serve this end. Jesus Christ's suffering bore personal character in that it proceeded out of love and obedience. It was an offering brought to God, which as personal act had the character of merit. Thereby Jesus Christ merited salvation for men. St. Thomas Aquinas further explains that as Christ was exalted, can still influence men. So does Jesus Christ still works in their behalf continually in heaven through the intercession. In this way, Jesus Christ as head of humanity affects the forgiveness of their sins, their reconciliation with God, their immunity from punishment, deliverance from the devil, and the opening of Heaven's gate.

Hierarchy of Law

St. Thomas Aquinas' synthesis of the divisions of Law dominates his Political philosophy. St. Thomas Aquinas maintained that Law is rational. Law is for the common good of a communion of people. The Eternal Law in the mind of God is the exemplar of all law and is impressed on human minds as Natural Law. In contrast stands Positive Law which may sometimes reinforce Natural Law as pragmatic supplements to make the good life easier or to safeguard public order. St. Thomas Aquinas departed from the traditional Augustinian view that civil power was a remedy against our antisocial appetites. St. Thomas Aquinas revived Aristotle's idea of the State meeting the essential demands of human nature. For St. Thomas Aquinas, human legislation should know its limits and not seek to cover the whole field of morality.

St. Thomas Aquinas's accomplishment was immense; his work marks one of the few great culminations in the history of philosophy. After St. Thomas Aquinas, Western philosophers could choose only between humbly following him and striking off in some altogether different direction. In the centuries immediately following his death, the dominant tendency even among Roman Catholic thinkers was to adopt the second alternative. Interest in Thomist philosophy began to revive, however, toward the end of the 19th century. In the encyclical Aeterni Patris or the Of the Eternal Father authored in 1879 by Pope Leo XIII, the Pope recommended that St. Thomas's philosophy be made the basis of instruction in all Roman Catholic schools. Pope Pius XII, in the encyclical Humani Generis or the Of the Human Race authored in 1950, affirmed that the Thomist philosophy is the surest guide to Roman Catholic doctrine and discouraged all departures from it. Thomism remains a leading school of contemporary thought.

Part III: Critical Reflection and Reconstruction

G. John Duns Scotus

John Duns Scotus is one of the four great Philosophers of High Scholasticism. In opposition to the prevailing thought in metaphysics that the term being is analogical, John Duns Scotus argues that it must be a univocal term. John Duns Scotus distinction between intuitive and abstractive cognition structured much of the discussion of cognition for the rest of the scholastic period. John Duns Scotus defends a moderate voluntarism in his account of free will, a view that would be influential into the modern period of Philosophy.

Individuation

Humanity is a common nature that in instantiated both in the Philosophy of Socrates and Plato. John Duns Scotus calls them individuals and singulars because they cannot be divided the way humanity is instantiated. Many other Philosophers tried to explain individuation such as St. Thomas Aquinas. St. Thomas Aquinas explains the individuation of material and immaterial substances differently. Accordingly, John Duns Scotus begins with a critical refutation of their views on the individuation of material substances and follows this with an account of individuation that is both applicable to material and immaterial beings. John Duns Scotus first move is to argue that material substance is not individual on the basis of its nature. John Duns Scotus further explains that because substance is naturally prior to accident, what explains a things being in any hierarchical substantial ordering must itself be in the category of substance. For instance, Plato is an individual in the species human, in the genus animal. No accident can explain any of these features. The addition of accidents to the species human, for instance, would not produce any individual human, but just an accidental union of the substance human being and those accidents. John Duns Scotus clarified that actual existence is extrinsic to any creatures nature and therefore accidental to it. The critical discussion of his predecessors leads John Duns Scotus to conclude that what explains a substances individuation must be something positive and intrinsic to what it individuates. Furthermore, it cannot be something common, since what is common can exist in something other than what it in fact exists in while what explains individuation cannot. John Duns Scotus finally added that, it must fall into the category of substance, since when the individuator is added, the substance is complete. It becomes then the final element in a substances metaphysical make-up.

The Argument for Gods Existence

John Duns Scotus offers several versions of his proof of Gods existence. Scotus argument unfolds in four stages. Firstly, that there is a first efficient cause, a preeminent being, and a first final cause. Secondly, only one nature is first in these three ways. Thirdly, a nature that is first in any of these ways is infinite. Lastly, there is only one infinite being. John Duns Scotus argument begins in a distinctive way. At the first stage, John Duns Scotus incorporates various strategies his predecessors used for proving Gods existence into a stage of his single proof. Firstly, there is a first efficient cause that produced all else but is itself unproduced. Secondly, there is a preeminent being, one whose nature surpasses all others and thirdly, there is a first final cause or ultimate end. At the Second Stage, John Duns Scotus argues that a being that has any one of these three primacies will have the other two as well. At the Third Stage, John Duns Scotus proves that a being with any of these primacies is intensively infinite. Finally at the Last Stage, John Duns Scotus concludes that there cannot be more than one being with this triple primacy. Since Christianity identifies God as the creator of all but himself, as the being whose causal powers sustain the universe, as the preeminent nature who is infinitely good, wise, and powerful, and as the ultimate end of all things, John Duns Scotus identifies the unique being whose existence he takes himself to have proved as the Christian God.

Argument I

Firstly, some being x is produced. Secondly, therefore x is produced by some other being y. thirdly, either y is an unproduced, first producer or is a posterior producer. Fourthly, a series of produced producers cannot proceed interminably. Lastly, therefore, the series stops at an unproduced producer, a first efficient cause that produces independently.

Argument II

Firstly, if there were an infinite series of essentially ordered causes, the totality of things affected would depend on some prior cause. Secondly, nothing can be an essentially ordered cause of itself. Thirdly, if this prior cause were part of the totality of things affected, it would be an essentially ordered cause of itself. Therefore, lastly even if there were an infinite series of essentially ordered causes, the totality of things affected would be affected by a cause outside the totality.

Argument III

Firstly, Being possessed of efficient causal power does not necessarily imply imperfection. Therefore, secondly, it is possible that something possesses efficient causal power without imperfection. However, thirdly if nothing possesses efficient causal power without dependence on something prior, then nothing has efficient causal power without imperfection. Therefore, fourthly it is possible that some nature possesses independent efficient causal power. Fifthly, a nature that possesses independent efficient causal power is absolutely first. Therefore, lastly it is possible that there be an absolutely first efficient causal power.

H. William of Ockham

William of Ockham is along with most prominent figures in the history of philosophy during the High Middle Ages. William of Ockham is best known today for his espousal of metaphysical Nominalism or the methodological principle known as Ockham's Razor. Moreover, William of Ockham held important views not only in Philosophy but also in Theology. William of Ockham is regarded as one of the most significant logicians of the Middle Ages. As a Scholastic, William of Ockham was strongly committed to the ideas of Aristotle, and advocated reform both in method and in content the main aim of which was simplification. William of Ockham was a pioneer of Nominalism, and he argued strongly that only individuals exist it may be rather than supra-individual universals, essences or forms and that Universals are the products of abstraction from individuals by the human mind and have no extra-mental existence.

Mental Language

William of Ockham was the first Philosopher to develop in some detail the notion of mental language and to put it to work for him. Philosophers such as Aristotle and Boethius had mentioned it before but William of Ockham's innovation was to systematically transpose to the fine-grained analysis of human thought both the grammatical categories of his time such as those of noun, verb, adverb, singular and plural. For William of Ockham, written words are subordinated to spoken words and spoken words in turn are subordinated to mental units called concepts, which can be combined into syntactically structured mental propositions, just as spoken and written words can be combined into audible or visible sentences.

Definitions (Real definitions and Nominal Definitions)

William of Ockham identified two kinds of definitions namely Real definitions and Nominal definitions. Example of a Real Definition is Man is a rational animal or Man is a substance composed of a body and an intellective soul. Each of these traditional definitions is correct. Each in its own way expresses the essential metaphysical structure of a human being. However, the two definitions do not signify exactly the same things. The first one makes us think of all rational beings and all animals. The second definition makes us think of, among other things, all substances, whereas the first one does not. It follows therefore that an absolute term can have several distinct real definitions that do not always signify exactly the same things. They will primarily signify exactly the same things since they will primarily signify just what the term they define primarily signifies.

Nominal definitions in accordance to William of Ockham are different. William of Ockham claims that there is one and only one nominal definition for any given connotative term. The nominal definition of the connotative term brave as example is a living being endowed with bravery. This reveals that brave primarily signifies certain living beings and that it secondarily signifies or connotes singular qualities of bravery. According to William of Ockham, any non-equivalent nominal definition is bound to indicate a different signification and would and consequently be unsuitable if the original one was correct.

Ockham's Razor

William of Ockham one most important contribution made to Philosophy was his principle of Ontological Parsimony in explanation and theory building which has become best known as "Occam's Razor". The essence of this in accordance with William of Ockham is "Entia non sunt multiplicanda sine necessitate or " the principle states that one should not multiply entities beyond the necessary. Alternatively, one should always opt for an explanation in terms of the fewest possible number of causes, factors or variables. William of Ockham visions that one should always take a bias towards simplicity when constructing a theory and not construct unnecessary and over-elaborate explanations. This principle of Occam's Razor is a methodological principle which concerns ontology. Occams Razor reflects the idea that given two theories that equally explain an idea should choose the theory which posits the minimum number of entities. For William of Ockham, the principle of simplicity limits the multiplication of hypotheses of not necessarily entities. Favoring the formulation It is useless to do with more what can be done with less, Ockham implies that theories are meant to do things, namely, explain and predict, and these things can be accomplished more effectively with fewer assumptions. At one level, this is just common sense. At bottom, William of Ockham advocates simplicity in order to reduce the risk of error. Every hypothesis carries the possibility that it may be wrong. The more hypotheses you accept, the more you increase your risk. William of Ockham strove to avoid error at all times. Occams Razor helped William of Ockham earn his reputation as destroyer of the medieval synthesis of faith and reason.

Conclusion

Philosophers such as St. Augustine of Hippo who were regarded as the greatest Churchman Fathers, Boethius who translated the works of Plato into Latin, Peter Abelard, John Scotus Erigena, St. Anselm of Catenbury, Bonaventure, The Price of Scholastics Thomas Aquinas, John Duns Scotus and William of Ockham marked their name in history of the Middle Ages in discovering the truth about God. These philosophers contributed by paving the way we understand philosophy today. Even though they are not the first to conceptualize their respective contribution since it had been started by their Greek predecessors, they are the ones who struggled to shape the Greek philosophies to where it is now and shining brightly in the heart of Catholism. Because of these medieval philosophers, Christianity developed vastly into communities. The education reborn as the Catholic Church began to build great Universities and the Clergies and Churchmen forefront education and control over not just intellectual but also political powers.

References

Maurer, Armand (1962).Medieval Philosophy. Random House, Incorporated. New York

Knowles, David (1962). The Evolution of Medieval Thought. A Knoff, Incorporated and random House Incorporated. New York.

Aspell, Patrick J. (1999). Medieval Western Philosophy: The European Emergence.

Gilson, Etienne (1955). History of Christian Philosophy in the Middle Ages. Random House Incorporated. New York.

Aspell, Patrick (1999) Medieval Western Philosophy: The European Emergence. The Council for Research in Values and philosophy. Washington D.C. United States of America.

Spade, Paul V. (1994) Five Text on Medieval Problem of Universals

Stumpf, Samuel Enoch (1999) Socrates to Sartre: A History of Philosophy. McGraw-Hill Companies, Incorporated. Singapore.

Marenbon, John. (1988). Early Medieval Philosophy. London and New York: Routledge.

Baird, Forrest and Kaufman Walter (1997) Medieval Philosophy: Philosophic Classics. 2nd Edition. Volume II. Pretice Hall, Incorporated. New Jersey, United States of America.

Borombon, John (1998). History of philosophy: Medieval philosophy. Volume III. Routlegdge London.

Cultural Heritage and Contemporary Change Series I, Culture and Values, Volume 9.

George F. McLean, General Editor. Washington, D.C.: The Council for Research in Values and Philosophy.

Jones, W.T. (1952). The Middle Mind: A history of Western Philosophy, 2nd Edition. Harcourt, Brace and Word, Inc. New York.

MacDonald, Scott and Norman Kretzmann (1998). Medieval philosophy. In E. Craig

62