Abstract


A Study of Comparison Aristotle’s with St. Thomas’ Moral Philosophy
- focused on St. Thomas’ will and happiness -


Lee, Sang-Ill
Department of Philosophy
The Graduate School
Chonbuk National University


On the discussion that how St. Thomas transforms teachings in Aristotle’s moral philosophy, There are two different allegations between the recent scholars. One is a philosophical elucidation. It is the averment that St. Thomas transforms Aristotle’s teachings on the purely philosophical basis by trying to reveal clearly Aristotle’s primary intention. The other is a theological elucidation. It is the averment that St. Thomas’ exposition transforms theologically Aristotle’s teaching by elucidating Aristotle’s teaching in the light of Christian beliefs.
There are two questions to examine certainly when we debate on St. Thomas’s doctrine as the secondary source of the natural law. First, There is a question about the deficiency of voluntas in the process of the discussion about the voluntas to get concerned Socrates, Aristotle, and St. Thomas. Second, There is a question about the emphasis on the voluntas in St. Thomas’ doctrine of the human action.
Here, First, I will examin ‘the efficiency of voluntas’ in Aristotle’s teaching of the human action. For the sake of this, in the first place, I will inquire into A. Kenny’s opinion that there is certainly that without lacking as the element of the voluntas in Aristotle’s teaching on the human action by centering about his presentation of Aristotle’s intention, namely of Aristotle’s prohairesis. And then I will bring forth a counterargument on A. Kenny’s opinion by centering about R. A. Gauthier’s and Cho-gue, Park’s contentions which assert that Aristotle’s teaching of the human action lacks the element of the voluntas. Then, I will affirm that Aristotle’s teaching of the human action lacks certainly the element of the voluntas.
Second, I will examine ‘the emphasis of the voluntas’ in St. Thomas’ doctrine of the human action on the basis of the first conclusion. For the sake of this, first of all, I will inquire into A. Kenny’s opinion that St. Thomas emphasizes not only the voluntas but also the agent’s power as a whole which contains the reason, the voluntas, and, the emotion. in his doctrine of the human action. And then, I will refute about A. Kenny’s opinion by centering about F. C. Copleston’s contentions which present the emphasis of the voluntas as for St. Thomas’s individual good, Yul, Kim’s assertions which mention the emphasis of the voluntas as for St. Thomas’ the final acceptance, and D. Westberg’s allegations which indicate not St. Thomas’ emphasis of the voluntas in the electio.
Conclusively, I will affirm that St. Thomas’ voluntas as the secondary source of the natural law is not based on Aristotle’s teaching of the voluntas because Aristotle’s teaching of human action lacks the element of the voluntas, and that St. Thomas’ doctrine of the voluntas declines excessively into the Christianity by centering about the voluntas as the secondary source of the natural law which is related to the sin and error, the compliment and the blame, and compensation to be emphasized in the Christian theology in the process of evolving his doctrine of the voluntas as the secondary source of the natural law, therefore that St. Thomas’s between Aristotle and the Christianity is actually failed.
I will try to find what St. Thomas’ discussion is, by centering about James C. Doig’s assertion among scholars who interpret philosophically on St. Thomas’ teaching about Aristotle’s eudaimonia. And then, I will refute against James C. Doig’s assertion by centering about allegations of Harry V. Jaffa, Antonio Donato, and Denis J. M. Bradley.
First, I will try find concretely on St. Thomas’ superiority of the contemplative happiness as "happiness on human nature, inferiority of moral happiness, and “the complete happiness as a natural end”. And as a refutation against James C. Doig’s and St. Thomas’ teachings about this, by centering about the assertions of Denis J. M. Bradley, Antonio Donato, and Harry Jaffa, I will offer St. Thomas’ theological transformation, and philosophical transformation as a theological intention.
Second, I will examine ‘the blessed as men’ and ‘the divine’ which James C. Doig estimates affirmatively and explains detailedly. And as for this, I will offer several counterargument revolving around the opinions of Denis J. M. Bradley, Antonio Donato, and Harry V. Jaffa. And then I will set forth argument that James C. Doig’s assertion, that is, the assertion which St. Thomas tries only a philosophical transformation about the teaching of Aristotle’s happiness is never persuasive. Consequently, I will form a conclusion that St. Thomas must have expound on Aristotle’s happiness, not as a philosopher but as a theologian although st. Thomas evlves his teachings by being based on Aristotle’s teachings.
When we study the teaching on the immortality of the soul. It is essential that we examine the relations Aristotle’s teaching on the happiness and his teaching on the immortality of the soul with St. Thomas’ teaching s on the perfect happiness in the coming life and the immortality of the soul. because St. Thomas’ teachings is based on Aristotle’s teachings when he establishes tis teachings on the immortality of the soul. Then, On the relations of between two teachings, There are two elucidations. One is a philosophical elucidation. The scholars who assert a philosophical elucidation maintain that he completes teachings on the perfect happiness in the coming life and the immortality of the soul with his own philosophical proof by being based on Aristotle’s teaching on the happiness and the immortality of the soul. Another is a theological elucidation. The scholars who assert a theological elucidation maintain that st. Thomas teaching of the immortality of the soul is never philosophical not only in the original intention but also in evolving those teachings.
I will argue detailedly about these things by dividing into st. Thomas’ two text, that is, ‘Sententia libri Ethicorum’ and ‘Summa contra Gentiles.’ First, I will try to examine into st. Thomas’ the immortality of the soul in the ‘Sententia libri Ethicorum’ by centering about James C. Doig’s assertion. And then, I will refute against this by centering about allegations of Harry v. Jaffa and of several scholars. Second, I will examine into James C. Doig’s assertion on st. Thomas’s the immortality of the soul as a natural desire and then by centering about ralations the immortality intellect as the part of the soul with the immortality of the soul. And then, I will refute against James C. Doig’s allegations by centering about F. C. Copleston’s assertions and several scholar’s assertions. After this, I will conclude that St. Thomas doesn’t evolve a philosophical work but in fact evolves a theological work in the process og evolving his teachings on the immortality of the soul. After all, I will conclude that St. Thomas must have evolved his teachings on the immortality of the soul, not as a philosopher but as a theologian although St. Thomas evolves his teachings by being based on Aristotle’s teachings.

Keywords: voluntas, prohairesis, electio, eudaimonia, complete happiness as a natural end, contemplative happiness, moral happiness, the blessed as men, the divine, the immortality of the soul, the criterion of the sufficiency, the complete happiness in the coming life, the natural desire, the part of the soul, the immortal intellect.