Ninth Article
Is God made of soap?
We proceed thus to the Ninth Article:
Objection 1: It would seem that God is made of soap. For whatever is
highest in a genus must be predicated of God. But the highest in the
genus of cleanliness, which the Philosopher says is next to godliness,
is soap.
Objection 2: Moreover, Scripture says, "Wash me, and I shall be clean indeed." But it belongs to soap to wash.
Objection 3: Furthermore, Dionysius says in On the Divine Names,
"For the being of the Most High, being beyond Being, which is what is,
can only be denied, as of foamy lather that surpasses even the most
excellent conception." But the principle of foamy lather is soap, and
where the effect is found, there must the principle be posited.
On the contrary is the opinion of Saint Augustine, who
says, "I did wander long among vain fancies, thinking that thou wert as
the soap that cleanseth all things, and that evil was a grimy blot on
thy purity."
I answer that, 'Soap' can be said in two ways. In one
way, soap is the material principle of cleanliness as such. But we have
already shown that there is no material principle in God. Therefore,
God is not made of soap. But in another way, 'soap' is said of whatever
is highest in the order of efficient causes directed towards
cleanliness secundum quid by an order that is less than formal
with respect to the finality of an end, simply as such, without respect
of quiddity in potentiality to the sensitive appetite. And in this sense
all men say that God is made of soap, and that in the highest degree,
as is plain from the definition.
Reply Obj. 1: Soap is not the highest in the genus of
cleanliness, as the Saponians heretically maintain, but only in the
genus of material ablutions, which is related to cleanliness in the way
that principles of natural reason are related to the eternal law, as the
Psalmist says, "How shall a young man cleanse his way? By keeping to
your law."
Reply Obj. 2: Scripture also says, "I will wipe away every tear
from their eyes." But soap is an efficient cause of tears, and not of
their remotion. Therefore, God is not made of soap.
Reply Obj. 3: In this place Dionysius understands 'foamy lather'
in accordance with the way of remotion, so that it implies only the lack
of such qualities as are inconsistent with foamy lather, as shortness
of duration and irritation to the skin.
This lost part of the Summa was discovered by Thomas Williams (Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Iowa)
while a graduate student at Notre Dame.
The OFloinn's random thoughts on science fiction, philosophy, statistical analysis, sundry miscellany, and the Untergang des Abendlandes
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In the Belly of the Whale Reviews
Hi All The National Space Society reviewed Dad's last work, In the Belly of the Whale. Take a read here , and don't forget you can ...
-
TOF once wrote an article entitled "The Great Ptolemaic Smackdown and Down 'n Dirty Mud-Wrassle" which described the century-l...
-
Hello family, friends and fans of Michael F. Flynn. It is with sorrow and regret that I inform you that my father passed away yesterday,...
-
1. The Great Ptolemaic Smackdown 2. The Great Ptolemaic Smackdown: Down for the Count 3. The Great Ptolemaic Smackdown: The Great Gali...
Excellent. I especially like the ‘soap can be said in two ways’ Very Thomas like.
ReplyDeleteAmazing. The Angelic Doctor thought of everything.
ReplyDeleteThis line of argumentation can get slippery.
ReplyDeleteThey warned me the Church would try to brainwash me.
ReplyDeleteThe Spirit, however, did descend as a Dove.
ReplyDeleteThe quotation from pseudo-Dionysius was a little over the top. :)
ReplyDeleteThis may be the earliest documented use of the Slippery Soap Fallacy.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteLovely spam, wonderful spam!
Delete