5. How Baha'u'llah's "trichotomous" psychology solves the pitfalls of the Greek Church Fathers.
OK ... Clearly, I can't respond to this without referencing doctrine.
"The modality of the union of the soul and the body is a question that is found at the heart of all Christian Scholasticism, whereas Muslim Scholasticism seems to have been little concerned with this problem."[/B]
Just a note here – the doctrines regarding the union of body and soul are founded on Scripture. At the close of the Apostolic Age came the Age of the Fathers, and following them, in the Latin West, the Age of the Scholars. So if the text is going to 'solve the pitfalls' of the Greek Church Fathers, that's quite distinct from discussing the same issues in light of the later exegesis of the Scholars.
"During almost one thousand years, from Pseudo-Denis the Areopagite until Bonaventure, Neoplatonism was the philosophical language of the expression of Christianity, until Thomas Aquinas replaced it with Aristotelianism which in his eyes had the advantage of being able to explain trans-substantiation."
Three errors here:
1: Neoplatonism continued as an informative current in Christian theology;
2: Thomas did not
replace Plato with Aristotle, he drew the best from both, correcting them in the light of Christian Revelation – as well as Aristotle, Thomas referenced Augustine and PseudoDionysius, both of whom were to a degree Neoplatonist, as was Thomas himself.
3: Thomas did not adopt Aristotle as a means of explaining trans-substantiation – that meaning had been in the Church from the very beginning. The Greeks use the term
metousiosis (μετουσίωσις) which means change of
ousia, change of 'essence' or 'substance', as long as both those terms are understood in their theological context.
"We have seen that the Fathers of the Church considered this union to be of two substances, the one material and the other spiritual."
Yes. See Genesis 2:7.
"This superposition of substances posed many problems ... "
Did it? The author seems to assume it a given – it's not, therefore we are with Burden of Proof again.
"which Thomas thought himself able to resolve by saying that the soul is the form of the body, with all the consequences which that imposes."
See above. Which consequences, precisely? Thomas took the phrase 'the soul is the form of the body' from Aristotle, but presented it in a way distinct from Aristotle and thus not subject to Aristotelian consequence.
That he doesn't actually address where or how Thomas thought himself able, and to what degree that was successful or otherwise, is a major flaw – one which runs throughout the book – inclines me to think he is unaware of Thomas in any detail. The least he should do is refer to Aquinas in
Summa Theologiae, First Part, Treatise on Man (Q75-102), specifically Q75: The nature of the soul in itself and Q76: The union with the body – because I would suggest there he would find his 'problems' addressed.
"Christian Scholasticism always wanted the union of the soul and the body to be of substance, on the one hand because ... "
No. The union is principally because "... the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth (material substance): and breathed into his face the breath of life (spiritual substance), and man became a living soul (the fruit of that union)" – Genesis 2:7.
"... of the dogma of the bodily resurrection ... "
No, that's putting the cart before the horse.
"... and on the other hand because to set aside a union of substance "
would be to set aside the Bible.
"... led directly to the soul being considered an accident of the body; which became easy as soon as the soul was deprived of its autonomy and when it was made the seat of consciousness, of thought and of sensations."
No-one though that, not even Aristotle ... I don't know where this guy's getting his ideas from.
+++
"To now understand the fashion in which Baha’u’llah resolves the problem "
I think I've sufficiently demonstrated, as far as Christian and Neoplatonic doctrine goes, that the 'problems' are entirely the author'\s own lack of insight and understanding.
"Scholasticism speaks of “substance” where we are used to speaking of “essence” ... "
Who are 'we'? If he knew the metaphysics, he should know that both the Latin
substantia and
essentia were used to translate the Greek
ousia.
"The word “substance” (ousia) comes from Aristotle"
What about Plato?
"The soul must be an essence, that is, a reality which transcends the body, not an immanent reality like the substantial form. So how are we to avoid having the human whole become a confusion of essences?"
By paying careful attention to what the Fathers and specifically Thomas is saying – he makes this exact point in his critique of Aristotle in the
Summa ...
"which doubtless would have struck with terror, at an epoch in which men were burned at the stake for less than that, our Scholastic theologians shut up in their scriptorium. He reduces the body to a simple accident of the soul."
had the author actually read Aquinas, he would not have made such a monumentally silly and erroneous statement.
"We can speak in the Thomist sense ... "
Actually, I don't think he can.
"A spiritual reality cannot be linked in substance to a material reality, even through its essence."
Then how does a body have a soul? This denies Genesis 2:7 and John 1 ... it's nonsense.
"For Baha’u’llah, it is transparent."
That makes no sense whatsoever. Transparency is a quality of a material thing.
"The body is a mirror which must be illumined by the light of the soul. The soul is reflected in it but does not descend into it."
A mirror is reflective not transparent – there's an inherent contradiction here.
The soul is reflected by what in the body?
Where is the soul if not in the body?
This is
so far removed from Biblical metaphysics ... in fact I'm not sure what it relates to ...
"But we must not forget that in this transparent theology it is the image which, in projecting itself, causes the mirror to appear."
Transparency or reflectivity ... make your mind up.
"... Thus the metaphysic of Baha’u’llah escapes the terrible antinomy of Platonism and Peripatetism which has weighted down Western philosophy like death."
Breathtaking![/QUOTE]