Aquinas structures his articles very orderly and logically. He first poses a question and then gives possibly objections and their reasonings. He then gives his answer and replies to the objections.
On whether the tree of life conferred immortality: The first objection is more subtle than nourishment. It's precisely because as food it was nourishing that it was transformed and hence "corruptible" (i.e. subject to change). Then if corruptible it couldn't be a cause of immortality (which meant not subject to corruption). I couldn't tell if you understood the second objection as you simply quote it. It doesn't seem that you ever figured out the difference between "On the Contrary" and "I answer that". The former provides an authority for his argument (here Augustine), the latter is his argument. In this case his argument takes cares of the objections so he doesn't bother replying to them specifically. "2) The tree of life was the cause of immortality but not absolutely. 3) Against this defect man was provided with a remedy in the tree of life; for its effect was to strengthen the force of the species against the weakness resulting from the admixture of extraneous nutriment. " Here again you quote the article directly (w/o noting that you're doing so, a no-no), so it's difficult to know whether you understood the argument or not. "Man had to eat it once then eat it again unless he was transferred to a spiritual life": not "unless" but "until", meaning at his eventual death (assuming some type of afterlife). Done way too quickly, not really thought through.
Sorry, I had thought that I would be talking about the topic in class this past week, otherwise I would have laid it out more clearly and more reader friendly
There's a bit more to it than that. Look at the two central sections and try to distinguish between them.
ReplyDeletewhat do you mean by the two central sections? the 'on the contrary' and 'I answer that' part?
DeleteOn whether the tree of life conferred immortality:
ReplyDeleteThe first objection is more subtle than nourishment. It's precisely because as food it was nourishing that it was transformed and hence "corruptible" (i.e. subject to change). Then if corruptible it couldn't be a cause of immortality (which meant not subject to corruption).
I couldn't tell if you understood the second objection as you simply quote it.
It doesn't seem that you ever figured out the difference between "On the Contrary" and "I answer that". The former provides an authority for his argument (here Augustine), the latter is his argument. In this case his argument takes cares of the objections so he doesn't bother replying to them specifically.
"2) The tree of life was the cause of immortality but not absolutely. 3) Against this defect man was provided with a remedy in the tree of life; for its effect was to strengthen the force of the species against the weakness resulting from the admixture of extraneous nutriment. "
Here again you quote the article directly (w/o noting that you're doing so, a no-no), so it's difficult to know whether you understood the argument or not.
"Man had to eat it once then eat it again unless he was transferred to a spiritual life": not "unless" but "until", meaning at his eventual death (assuming some type of afterlife).
Done way too quickly, not really thought through.
Sorry, I had thought that I would be talking about the topic in class this past week, otherwise I would have laid it out more clearly and more reader friendly
Delete