THE HIDDEN KEY: CREATION
In the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas, there is a fundamental idea by which almost all the basic concepts of his vision of the world are determined: the idea of creation, or more precisely, the notion that nothing exists which is not except the Creator Himself; and in addition, that this createdness determines entirely and all-pervasively the inner structure of the creature.
As regards the “Aristotelianism” of St. Thomas Aquinas (“Aristotelianism” is a highly dubious term, to be applied with caution), we shall completely miss the significance of his turning to Aristotle, unless we consider it from the point of view of this fundamental idea, worked out to its logical consequences: namely, that all things are not merely soul and spirit, but also the visible world.
It may appear natural enough, scarcely worth discussion, and in any case not at all surprising, that the conceptual thinking of a theologian of the Middle Ages should be dominated by the notion of creation, even in his philosophical explanation of reality. What might cause wonder is the extent to which it is here a question of an unexpressed assumption, an opinion not explicitly formulated, that has, as it were, to be read between the lines. Did not Thomas develop fully and explicitly a doctrine of creation? That naturally is true and quite well known. None the less, it is equally true, though not so well known, that the notion of creation determines and characterizes the interior structure of nearly all the basic concepts in St. Thomas’s philosophy of Being. And this fact is not evident; it is scarcely ever put forward explicitly; it belongs to the unexpressed in St. Thomas’s doctrine of Being. This element has remained so unnoticed that the textbook interpretations of St. Thomas hardly once mention it. Indeed, this customary interpretation of St. Thomas has been considerably determined by Rationalist which is shown not least by the silence on this particular point that has inevitably led to misunderstandings with grave consequences. For instance, the meaning of propositions such as “all that exists is good,” or “all that exists is true,” is misunderstood, as is, in my opinion, the general significance of the so-called “transcendental” concepts (in the traditional sense)—unless it be realized that the concepts and theses in question do not refer to a neutral Being that simply exists, not to an ens ut not to an indeterminate world of “objects,” but formally to Being as That things are good precisely because they exist, and that this goodness is identical with the Being of things and is no mere property attached to them; that further, the term “true” is a synonym for and therefore that what exists is true by virtue of its existence, and does not first of all exist and then, in a secondary sense, become also true—these ideas, which belong no doubt to the basis of the classical ontological doctrine of the West and have been formulated with rare genius by St. Thomas, we fail to consider reality and objects formally as created—simply lose their full savor. They become shallow, sterile and tautologous—as has actually been for this very reason the destiny of all these propositions, so that Kant, in a celebrated passage in the Critique of Pure was to some extent justified in eliminating them from the philosophical
We come now to our basic theme: St. Thomas’s doctrine of truth can be grasped in its proper and profoundest meaning only if we bring into play this notion of creation. And when we examine, as we shall do here, the interrelation of the concept of truth with the “negative element” of unknowability and mystery, we discover that this interrelation does not become manifest except through the fundamental thought that everything which can be made the object of human knowledge is either creatura or Creator.
This may perhaps suggest that St. Thomas’s theory of truth is not strictly “pure philosophy” but something philosophico-theological. The question can here remain open; its answer will depend upon one’s interpretation of the idea “creation.” Is it philosophical or theological?