International Reformed Baptist Seminary

An Engagement Paper on The Limitation of Act by Potency in St. Thomas: Aristotelianism or Neoplatonism? by W. Norris Clarke, S.J.

Submitted to Dr. James E. Dolezal

in partial fulfillment of AP501: Foundations of Philosophical Theology

By

John Carter

November 9, 2024

Introduction

            This is novice’s attempt to evaluate of The Limitation of Act by Potency in St. Thomas: Aristotelianism or Neoplatonism? by W. Norris Clarke, S.J. Found within the larger work entitled Exploration in Metaphysics, Clarke is attempting to demonstrate the historical formation of the topics of principle of the limitation of act by potency and alongside the theory of infinity and limitation. The goal taken here is to understand what Clarke’s argument is and express it in simpler terms. The structure of the evaluation will follow the linear form of Clarke’s essay.

Evaluation

An Introduction

Clarke begins his essay by pointing to an article written by Dr. Charles. A Hart. Within the quote Hart makes the argument that Thomistic Metaphysics is better understood as being based on a “Neoplatonic influence” rather than the traditional view that Thomistic Metaphysics is based on “Aristotelian influence.” The fuller quote of Hart is considered by Clarke to be “an admirably clear and succinct resume of a recent trend among Thomistic scholars” in this area of study. Clarke goes on to express the international scope of this modern research. Laying a foundation for the essay, Clarke articulates his “aim” being an “investigation” into the “principal of the limitation of act by potency” within a “Thomistic metaphysical system.” He will do this primarily through a historical survey of act and potency starting with explaining the problem and then moving through five epochs of philosophical history, and finally providing some concluding thoughts. Clarke sees this debate over the Aristotelian or Neoplatonic influence in Thomas Aquinas’ as a test case to examine the doctrine of participation in the larger understanding of Aquinas’ metaphysics. He further sees this topic to be generally unaddressed within scholarly research.

“The Problem”

The “keystone” of Thomas Aquinas’ “principle” of the limitation of act by potency has been historically understood as being rooted in Aristotle and only further developed by Thomas. He has been seen predominantly as an extension of Aristotle and only adding on top of the foundation already laid. To prove this view Clarke quotes Father Garrigou-Larange, O.P. Here Garrigou-Larange explains that where Aristotle explains this principle in the “sense world” (five senses) Aquinas goes on to expand this principle to the “spiritual as well as the corporeal.” Clarke challenges this view by explaining that his own extensive research has not proven the same position as Garrigou-Larange, which is the expansion of the principle from the material to the immaterial. His research leads him to conclude that there is no text by Aquinas that could hold the position of Garrigou-Larange’s conclusion. Upon further research he concludes that “there is not a single mention of potency as limiting act.” This brings Clarke to his final position that Thomas’ development of his principle of limitation as being much more unique than is often presented by those researching Thomas Aquinas. This is the root of the problem. Where did Thomas derive his limitation principle from? Clarke will first provide a history the “principles called act and potency” as well the “theory of infinity and limitation” to discover the solution to this problem.

“Finite and Infinite in the Pre-Socratics”

In this next section Clarke connects the origin of the word “infinite (aperion)” in the philosophical world to the Pre-Socratic Anaximander. At his stage there is a great deal of uncertainty with what to do with this “first principle.” There is a vagueness to its particular use and an uncertainty as to whether “infinite should be identified with the supremely perfect or with the supremely imperfect.” But because the early Greeks were materialists, the infinite was connected with both form and matter instead of an incorporeal realty. This is not much different than modern materialist who are also looking for the original and base building block of all life and existence in the universe. The Pythagoreans came along with a type of mathematical solution by creating a dualism which extends from the “primal Monad, or One.” Their principle of limit is ever extending into the infinite. This idea that something keeps limiting other things and marking a distinction between limitation and the infinite continued in one way or another with Parmenides, Heraclitean, and even the Atomists. In identifying the “conception of the infinite” and the “conception of the finite or limited” the “principal of perfection” is demonstrated to be unlimited and the “principal of imperfection” is limited.

“Plato”

Beginning with Plato, Clarke quotes him extolling this basic doctrine of the limited and the unlimited. He then summarizes the Platonic distinction between the “principle of limitation” and the “principle of illumination.” In this worldview “all realities below the supreme idea of the Good (or the One) are a “mixture” of two opposing principles, the limited and the unlimited.” At this point Clarke expresses the forming difference between Thomas and Plato. Specifically, “Plato clearly situates the limit on the side of being and infinity on the side of non-being.” This is identified in the difference of each philosophers’ definitions of the “doctrine of being.” This seems to be connected with Plato never calling the supreme idea of the Good or the One neither infinite or finite. For Clarke, it seems Plato “was groping for a new category to express the absolute and the transcendent.” This is reasonable considering new concepts were being developed with old tools. Even though infinity and perfection have to this point been discussed in the essay, Clarke acknowledges that the two have not yet been clearly “linked.”

“Aristotle”

Moving into the next segment of thought Aristotle is considered and his “theory of infinity.” For Aristotle, according to Clarke, “the essential nature of the infinite is to be that which is of itself the incomplete.” Perfect is now seen as “that which has an end” or “limit.” Nature, or the imperfect, is therefore always seeking its end or limit in the infinite. In this Aristotelian and Platonic view, that which is limited is perfect while that which is without limit (infinite) is imperfect. Here Aristotle takes the frame work but appears to reverse it and include the concept of the “ontological participation or transcendence of material forms.” The debate comes to the distinction between how to understand the multiplication as a limitation of an expansion of forms. Clarke makes clear that “the two perspectives are quite different.” Clarke goes on to explain the “function of the problem of change.” Potency contains the ability for an “endless cosmic cycle of change,” act is “always identified with the fully complete,” and pure act with the “immutable.” In light of this, for Aristotle, “there is no ultimate common perfection deeper than form.” This is where Aristotle and Thomas have significant differences on the understanding of change and potency for change, especially as it relates to immaterial beings.

“Plotinus and Neoplatonism”

Clarke now moves forward some 500 years to discuss Plotinus and Neoplatonism and the doctrine of participation. Here he connects the development of Greek philosophy with the converging views of the East and West, especially in Alexandira. Philo is identified to be the “first recorded thinker in the west to apply to God a synonym for infinite: uncircumscribed (aperigraphos).” He even argues that Christianity “followed rather than led” the topic of God being called infinite.” Plotinus is identified as intentionally synthesizing this new philosophical (perhaps secular?) understanding of infinite within a Christian framework. He is the first in the west use infinite in connection with God and his relationship with those below him. Using a quote by Plotinus, Clarke show the “astonishingly familiar ring” between Plotinus and Aquinas. Even with the similarity, Pltonius follows Plato by “identif[ing] being with limited essence.” The idea of “an infinite source” and “a limiting participating subject” had lasting effects due to the later work of Proclus, specifically in the work entitled The Elements of Theology. These are works that Thomas explicitly appeals to in his own work and theological developments. He even borrows from Boethius’s efforts in this discussion. To the point, Thomas Aquinas is going to build upon clear teachings already establish on the limitation principle.

“St. Thomas”

Clarke summarize the ground work laid in the “Aristotelian metaphysics” and “the doctrine of act and potency” as well as  the “Neoplatonic metaphysical tradition” and “the participation-limitation framework.” This summary included the perceived strengths and weaknesses of both. He goes on to explain that Thomas’ “achievement” was to blend these two views together in such a way as to remedy each other’s weaknesses with each other’s strengths. Clarke argues that a chronological study of Aquinas’ work will demonstrate how Thomas himself came to these philosophical conclusions. Summa contra Gentes is presented as the mile marker  where Thomas’ position is clearly laid out.

“Conclusion”

It is at this point the Clarke concludes that Thomas’ position is neither “Aristotelianism” nor “Neoplatonism” but instead “Thomism.” The confusion comes in that “for some fifteen centuries the two doctrines flowed side by side in separate streams.” This led him to assert that it is best to see Thomas in this area as “an Aristotelianism specified by Neoplatonism.”

Conclusion

            Aiming only to briefly evaluate Clarke’s work, there is much left on the table to discuss and dissect. Because of the unfamiliarity of Thomas by this present evaluator much was left unaddressed to avoid unnecessary confusion. Nevertheless, the complexity of argumentation in this essay has certainly given ample room for the evaluator’s ignorance to be brightly displayed. It is hoped that this evaluation helps provide others with the tools needed to better understand the essay and perhaps even Thomas Aquinas.

Bibliography

Clarke, W. Norris. Explorations in Metaphysics: Being-God-Person. Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 1995.