Aquinas considered the best form of government. About the rule of sovereigns

“ON THE RULE OF GOVERNMENTS”*

Thomas Aquinas (1226 – 1274) is the main representative of medieval Catholic theology and scholasticism. In 1323 he was canonized, and in 1879 his teaching was declared the “only true” philosophy of Catholicism. The state, according to the teachings of Thomas Aquinas, is part of the universal order, the ruler of which is God.

· “...The goal is to achieve heavenly bliss through a virtuous life... To lead to this goal is the purpose of not earthly, but divine power.”

...If an unjust rule is carried out by only one, who seeks to extract from the rule his own interest, and not at all the benefit for the multitude subject to him, such a ruler is called a tyrant (which name is derived from “force”), because, as is known, he oppresses with power, and does not rule with justice, which is why the ancients called powerful people tyrants. If unjust rule is carried out not by one person, but... by a few, it is called an oligarchy, that is, it is the supremacy of a few, when, as is known, the few suppress the plebs for the sake of enrichment, differing from the tyrant only in quantity. If unjust rule is carried out by many, it is called democracy, which means the dominance of the people, when people from the common people suppress the rich. Thus, the entire people acts as one tyrant. Just government should be distinguished in the same way. So, if control is carried out by any set, this is called “polity”, for example, when a set consisting of warriors dominates a city-state or province. If management is carried out by a few people who have excellent qualities, government of this kind is called “aristocracy,” that is, the best power, or the power of the best, those who are therefore called optimates. If a just rule is carried out by one, he is correctly called a king. ...

Some of those who are heading towards a goal manage to achieve it in a direct way, and others in an indirect way. Therefore, in a direction there is a multitude of just and unjust. Any government is direct when it leads to an appropriate goal, but indirect when it leads to an inappropriate goal. The many free men and the many slaves have different purposes. For he is free who is his own cause, and a slave is he who is what he is because of another. So, if a multitude of free people is directed by a ruler for the common good of this multitude, this rule is direct and fair, as befits free people. If government is directed not towards the common good of the multitude, but towards the personal good of the ruler, this government is unjust and perverse. ...

So one rules better than many, because they are just approaching becoming one. Moreover, what exists by nature is arranged in the best way, because nature acts in the best way in each individual case, and the general government of nature is carried out by one. Indeed, among the many parts of the body, there is one that moves everything, namely the heart, and among the parts of the soul, one power predominates, namely the mind. After all, bees have one king, and in the entire universe there is one God, the creator of everything and the ruler. And that's reasonable. Truly, every multitude comes from one. Therefore, if what comes from art imitates what comes from nature, and the creation of art is better the more it approaches what exists in nature, then it inevitably follows that the human multitude that is best governed controls one. ...

In addition, a unified force is more effective in carrying out its intended purpose than a scattered or divided one. After all, many, united together, pull what they cannot pull individually if the load is divided among everyone. Therefore, just as it is more beneficial when the force for good is more united, since it is directed towards the accomplishment of good, so much more harmful is it when the force for evil is united and not divided. The power of the wicked ruler is directed towards the evil of the multitude, since he will turn the common good of the multitude only into his own good. So, the more unified the government under a just government, the more benefits it brings; thus, a monarchy is better than an aristocracy, and an aristocracy is better than a polity. For unjust government the opposite is true - so, obviously, the more united the government is, the more destructive it is. So, tyranny is more destructive than oligarchy, and oligarchy than democracy. ...

So, people unite in order to live well together, which no one can achieve by living alone; but a good life follows virtue, for a virtuous life is the goal of human unity. ... But to live following virtue is not the ultimate goal of the united multitude, the goal is to achieve heavenly bliss through a virtuous life. ... To lead to this goal is the purpose not of earthly, but of divine power. This kind of power belongs to one who is not only a man, but also God, namely, our Lord Jesus Christ...

So, the service of his kingdom, since the spiritual is separated from the earthly, is entrusted not to earthly rulers, but to priests, and especially to the highest priest, the heir of Peter, the Vicar of Christ, the Pope, to whom all kings of the Christian world must obey, as to the Lord Jesus Christ himself. For those who are concerned with the preceding ends must submit to the one who is concerned with the ultimate end, and acknowledge his authority.

“... one must be free from sins, since by divine permission the wicked receive bad rule as retribution for sins.”

About the rule of sovereigns. Thomas Aquinas. XIII century

Thomas Aquinas's teaching on state power provided the basis for theocratic theories.

Trying to argue for the intervention of the church in secular affairs and to prove the superiority of spiritual power over secular power, Aquinas introduced the following elements of state power:

1) the essence of power;

2) the origin of power;

3) use of power.

The essence of power- these are relations of domination and subordination, in which the will of the dominant persons at the top of the hierarchy moves the subordinate, lower strata of the population. The order of domination and subordination is established by God; This is exactly how the words of the Apostle Paul should be understood: “The existing authorities have been established by God.” Thus, in its original essence, power is a Divine institution. By virtue of its Divine nature, power is good, good.

Origin of power can have both Divine and sinful nature. The ruler may turn out to be a usurper, a tyrant, or a madman. He, like every person, has free will, i.e. the ability to do evil. In addition, power can be seized, so the specific methods of its origin may be bad and unfair.

Use of State Power does not exclude its abuse. Although power is a Divine institution, it does not follow from this, of course, that each individual ruler is appointed directly by God, and every action of the ruler is performed by God. Using power for one's own rather than common interests is a sin that will be punished.

“...If government is directed not towards the common good of the multitude, but towards the personal benefit of the ruler, this government is unjust and perverse. Therefore, the Lord threatened such rulers through Ezekiel (XXXIV, 2), saying: “Woe to the shepherds of Israel, who fed themselves! (As if seeking their own benefits). Shouldn’t shepherds feed the flock?” Since shepherds must care about the welfare of the flock, then any rulers must care about the welfare of the multitude under their control.”

The second and third elements of state power are devoid of the seal of Divinity. This happens when a ruler either comes to power through unjust means or rules unjustly. Both are the result of violating God’s covenants. In these cases, the judgment about the legality of the origin and use of the power of the ruler belongs to the church.

In Aquinas's view, if a ruler's actions deviate from God's will, his subjects have the right to resist him. A ruler who rules contrary to the laws of God and morality, who, for example, imposes excessively heavy taxes on people, seeks benefits and privileges for himself personally, turns into a tyrant. A tyrant rules only for his own benefit, does not act for the common benefit, strives for his own interest, tramples God's laws and justice, his power is illegal - the people can rebel and overthrow him.

Thomas Aquinas believed that monarchy is the best form of government. In his work “On the Government of Sovereigns” he states:

“...one rules better than many, because they are just approaching becoming one...”

He preferred the monarchy for two reasons:

1. Firstly, because of its resemblance to the universe in general, ordered and directed by one God, and also because of its resemblance to the human organism, the various parts of which are united and directed by one mind.

2. Secondly, due to the evidence of historical experience demonstrating that “a single force is more effective in carrying out its intended purpose than a scattered or divided force.” This undoubtedly increased the risk of tyranny, because “...since both the best and the worst principles lie in the monarchy, that is, in the power of one, the virtues of royal power seem hateful to many because of the treachery of tyrants, but if, on the contrary, they want the rule of a king, they fall under the ferocious reign of tyrants, because a considerable number of rulers have become tyrants, hiding behind the title of king..."

Nevertheless " If the government which is best seems most undesirable from the danger of tyranny, and tyranny, on the contrary, no less, but more often arises from the government of many than of one, it remains only to admit that it is more useful to live under one king than under the rule of many."

Thomas Aquinas believed that government should be organized in such a way that the king would no longer have the opportunity to establish tyranny. The power of a temporal ruler must be so moderate that he cannot easily resort to tyranny.

Limiting the power of the monarch and organizing government in the interests of the majority is possible, according to Aquinas, by transferring the supreme power to the church:

“..to live following virtue is not the ultimate goal of the united multitude, the goal is to achieve heavenly bliss through a virtuous life. (...) To lead to this goal is the purpose of divine rather than earthly power. This kind of power belongs to the One who is not only a man, but also God, namely, our Lord Jesus Christ. (...) So, the service of His kingdom, since the spiritual is separated from the earthly, is entrusted not to earthly rulers, but to priests and especially to the highest priest, the heir of Peter, the Vicar of Christ, the Pope, to whom all kings of the Christian world must obey, as to the Lord Jesus Christ himself. After all, those who care about the previous goals must obey the one who cares about the final goal and recognize his authority.”

Thomas Aquinas' ideas about the state are an attempt to develop the Christian doctrine of the state on the basis of Aristotle's Politics.

Reproducing the Aristotelian classification of state forms (monarchy, aristocracy, polity; tyranny, oligarchy, democracy), Thomas attaches importance to only some of these forms. The main feature of state power is the right to issue laws. In the right forms, there is legality (the rule of justice) and the common good is recognized; in the wrong ones it’s the other way around.

Aquinas adopted from Aristotle the idea that man by nature is a “social and political animal.” People initially have the desire to unite and live in a state, because an individual cannot satisfy his needs alone. For this natural reason the state arises.

The goal of the state is the “common good”, providing conditions for a decent, reasonable life. According to Aquinas, the implementation of this goal presupposes that “... a king, versed in the law of God, should first of all be concerned with ensuring that the multitude subordinate to him lives a good life, and this concern consists of three parts: firstly, that he establish a good life in the subordinate multitude; secondly, to preserve what has been established; thirdly, to improve it.”

Thomas Aquinas. On the reign of sovereigns I, 14

METHODOLOGICAL INSTRUCTIONS

for performing laboratory classes in the discipline

« Technological processing methods for clothing"

Signed for printing “___”____2013. Printing paper.

Offset printing. Volume_____ p.l. Circulation _____ copies. Order No. ______

Paper size 60-84 1/16

______________________________________________________________

(Publishing Center of SKSU named after M. Auezov, Shymkent, Tauke Khan Ave. 5)

Having reached the highest principle, the source and goal of power, Thomas backprojects, establishing the consequences of this goal. duties of earthly authority : The duty of the king is both submission to that which relates to the duties of the clergy, and supremacy over everything that relates to worldly affairs, directing them with the authority of his rule(I, 15). The king must take care that so that the multitude under him may live a good life. This, in turn, presupposes the desire for the following triune goal: the king must establish a good life in the multitude subordinate to him, then preserve what has been established, and, finally, improve it.

Quote. From this triad arises the following threefold task: "First, to provide for the succession of men and the appointment of those who preside over the various offices. In like manner the divine management of those things which are perishable (for these things cannot remain the same forever) provides that, being born, one came to take the place of the other, for this is how the integrity of the universe is preserved. So, through the care of the king, the goods of the subject multitude are preserved, while he carefully sees to it that others enter the abandoned places. Secondly, so that by his laws and regulations, punishments and rewards, he kept the people under his command from sin and encouraged them to do valiant deeds, following the example of God, who gave people the law, rewarding those who keep it, and punishment to those who transgress.The third task facing the king, so that the entire society subordinate to him could repel enemies. After all, nothing will help avoid internal dangers if it is impossible to defend against external dangers."

PART 2. FROM THEOCRATIC IDEA TO PRE-REFORMATION AND RENAISSANCE THEORIES

If the 13th century was the century of the triumph of the theocratic idea, then the 14th century was marked by the gradual loss of the Catholic Church's charismatic role. The Church failed to assimilate mass heresies; intra-Church disagreements and divisions multiplied, which it fought against using authoritarian methods. Popular movements (among which three stand out - the Jacquerie in France, the uprising of artisans in Tuscany and the Lollards in England) acquired an anti-clerical orientation. All of them had the goal of eliminating the secular possessions of the church and eliminating the spiritual dictate of the clergy in relation to the laity - through a return to the idea that salvation is an internal act, the fruit of the personal efforts of the believer. A break between the emerging national states and the church was inevitably brewing. This trend was clearly expressed by the “Avignon captivity” (the popes forced to stay in France under pressure from the French crown in 1309 - 1366 and 1371 - 1377). In 1326, Ludwig of Bavaria, not wanting to accept the crown from the hands of the pope, was crowned at Campodillo; since John XXII did not recognize him as emperor, the Frankfurt Diet in 1338 decided that the sanction of the pontificate was optional; Charles IV would follow the same path in 1356 (ultimately, Luther in the 16th century only doctrinally consolidated Germany’s political steps toward a split with the church, which began back in the 14th century). In the popular consciousness, the once living ideals of power, embodied in two figures - the Roman high priest and the emperor - have faded. Economic development gradually turned the bourgeoisie of independent state formations and the financial and military power it created into the main driving forces of European history. The focus of new forces, cities, ultimately turn the church and the remnants of the former monarchy into a means of their own power.

Aquinas, in his treatise On the Government of Princes, as we have seen, does not have a concept of direct theocracy; and yet, the result of Thomistic political teaching - the conclusion about the need to subordinate secular power to the dominion of the church - brings its doctrine closer to the medieval one theory of papal power , which was the ultimate expression of the power claims of the Catholic Church. The Summa Theologica states a position that directly corresponds to the theocratic attitude. According to Aquinas' interpretation, the kingdom of nature also relates to the kingdom of grace, man of nature - to Christianity, philosophy - to theology, matter - to the sacrament, the state - to the church, the emperor - to the pope, as a means relates to the end, the embryo - to a completed being, potency to the act .

The embryo of this concept arose back in the 5th - 6th centuries, representing the doctrine of the concentration of all spiritual and temporal power in the hands of the pope; historically, the church doctrine of power underwent modification depending on changes in the actual conditions of existence of the institution of the papacy and the nature of its interaction with other levels of the church hierarchy and with secular authorities.

Excursion . The title "dad" (in children's Greek vocabulary - "father") until the end of the 5th century. was used for the honorary designation of bishops, and from the end of that time it was applied mainly to the Roman archbishop (exclusively to him - only from 1075). The institution of the papacy arose gradually. Back in the 2nd - 3rd centuries. individual Roman bishops, whose authority was then recognized (which did not yet give them any official advantages), demanded, for one reason or another, subordination to themselves in matters of faith and cult from other bishops. Their authority was based on the political, cultic and cultural significance of Rome. From the Roman emperors the title of high priest (pontifex maximus) passed to the pope, whose primacy was also based on the fact that, according to legend, the Roman Church was founded by the apostles Peter and Paul; at the beginning of the 5th century Pope Innocent I formally established the primacy of the Roman Church based on the apostolic primacy of Peter. Leo I the Great in the middle of the 5th century. acted as a unifier of the power of the church and its moral influence; his successors develop the doctrine of the superiority of spiritual power. With the fall of the Western Empire, the pope becomes the first person in Rome, the representative of Christians not only spiritually, but also politically; all the authority of Rome was concentrated in his hands. Subsequently, the papacy experienced a long period of difficult relations with secular power, and was forced to depend on it for a long time: until 685, the new pope was confirmed by the Byzantine emperor, then he transferred this right to his viceroy, the exarch (most popes of the 7th century were Greeks and Syrians) ; popes were elected by the clergy and the people, and since 1059 the pope has been elected by the cardinals who make up the diocesan chapter of the Roman episcopal church; from 1274 - the conclave of cardinals. However, a pope cannot be confirmed in office without the consent of the sovereign: even Theodoric (king of the Ostrogoths, who founded his kingdom in Italy in 493) at the end of his life simply appoints popes. In the early Middle Ages in the history of the papacy, such milestones stand out as the acquisition by the papal throne of secular power over possessions in Italy (mid-8th century), after which it became the subject of the claims of dukes and barons. Protection against these claims was found in the patronage of the medieval emperor: in 800 the coronation of Charlemagne took place, who in relation to the pope took the place of the Byzantine emperor. Charles, the “secular head of the Catholic world,” and the pope, the spiritual ruler, are “two swords” that God sent to earth to defend Christianity. From the 9th century, however, the idea of ​​the superiority of spiritual power over secular power gradually became established. Yet the German emperors retained the right to approve popes until the 12th century. However, in the second half of the 12th century. The papacy, relying on monastic and knightly orders (Johannites, Templars, Teutonic Order), defeated the imperial power. The symbol of this victory was the excommunication of Emperor Frederick I by Pope Alexander III (1159 - 1181), who insisted that imperial power was a beneficiary of the papacy; the pope repeated the scene with him in Canossa (the story of the humiliated begging of the excommunicated and deposed Henry IV for forgiveness from Pope Gregory VII in January 1077). From the beginning of the 13th century. and throughout its entire length the triumph of the theocratic principle is affirmed. The papacy to a certain extent realizes the ideal of a universal monarchy. Innocent III (1198 - 1216) governs subject states through his legates and treats kings as a feudal lord. Emperor Otto IV refused patronage over Rome (1201). After Emperor Frederick II was cursed at the Council of Lyons (1245), the empire was defeated. The German Habsburgs recognized themselves as vassals of the popes.

In the XIV century. a new force, the emerging nation-state, rose up against the papacy. Philip IV of France declared royal power independent of the Roman throne. This was followed by a period called the "captivity of Avignon" from 1308 to 1377. The papacy was made dependent on the French crown. German government officials decided in 1338 to consider the empire independent of the papacy. In England, resistance to the papacy is associated with the latter's condemnation of the Magna Carta; Edward III, with the consent of parliament, refused to pay tribute to the Roman throne. Opposition to the papacy also arises in Italy: in 1327, a congress of Ghilinov declared the pope a heretic. In 1377 the papal throne returned to Rome; Following this, a schism arose in the Catholic Church, which lasted for forty years: the Roman and Avignon curias each elected their own pope. A number of ecumenical councils held in the 15th - 16th centuries. and called upon to carry out a reform of the church, turned out to be ineffective, since they did not affect the power of the popes and did not dare to restore religious freedom. All this - against the background of the decomposition of the clergy and the alienation of the conscience of believers from the ritual practice of the church - led to the emergence of powerful religious protest movements (Lollards in England, Hussites in the Czech Republic, followers of Savonarola in Italy), which anticipated the Reformation of the 16th century. .

The theory of papal power was built on the general model of the medieval worldview (it motivates the need for unity of church and state by pointing to a single hierarchical world order, which is based on the plan of the creator), but at the same time it was based on the idea of ​​​​the depravity of the world, the superiority of the spiritual principle over worldly and about the otherworldly purpose of earthly life. In the light of this idea, the pope was declared the bearer of the spirit and a fighter against the earthly principle, represented by the state; this also served as the basis for protests against the usurpation of sacramental rights by the emperors. The imperial argument borrowed from pagan codes - “whatever the emperor pleases has the force of law” - was contrasted with the gospel formula “What is Caesar’s is to Caesar, and what is God’s is to God.” The world - and with it the empire - is the “kingdom of the devil”, which must collapse and give way to the “state of God”; people and their communities can only be saved through the mediation of the church. This means that you need to renounce earthly goods, power and possession and transfer them into the hands of the church - in order to receive them back from her hands, like a vassal from the hands of his overlord. But since the kingdom of God on earth is still built from worldly elements, the world must first be conquered and then rebuilt. Therefore, the church comes to the denial of all institutions, rights and customs that stood in the way of the realization of its goal - the implementation of a program for reorganizing the world on theocratic principles.

The religious and political doctrines that theoretically substantiated papal rule were based on the doctrine of the Apostle Peter as the invisible head of the Christian world; The pope was presented in this regard as his successor and earthly representative. This teaching was based on the legend of the creation of the Roman see by the “prince of the apostles,” who, having suffered martyrdom in Rome, “reigns forever” in this center of his greatness, where “his institutions are unchangeably preserved.” The idea of ​​succession of the bishop of the Roman Church in relation to Peter was the basis of the papal claims to the role of the supreme authority in resolving disputes about the dogmatic fundamentals of the doctrine and the highest jurisdiction in the hierarchy - “care of the whole church and supreme power.” Leo I, on this basis, actually establishes the infallibility of the pope in dogmatic matters, declaring everyone who does not accept the teachings of St. Peter (i.e., the pope) “separated from the foundation of the church.” Other patriarchs and council decrees sanctify the established custom of addressing the pope as the highest authority and guardian of the purity of doctrine; the state puts this into legal form, declaring papal decrees legal (Edict of Valentian III of 445)

The historical and legal basis for the power claims of the papal throne (and corresponding theories) lay in the so-called “Donation of Constantine” - a medieval document attributed to Emperor Constantine I the Great, who, moving the capital of the empire to the East, allegedly transferred Rome, as well as all the provinces, to Pope Sylvester. localities and cities of Italy and western regions. With this document the papacy substantiated its claims to secular power.

The doctrine of the Apostle Peter made all the claims of the Catholic Church the claims of its head. According to this teaching, the power of the keys with which Peter unlocks and locks heaven makes him the source of grace and the ruler of the world, the king of kings. Through the apostle his successor, the bishop of Rome, becomes the mediator of the action of grace on earth; the pope, by the grace of providence, loses human freedom and the opportunity to sin (as such, the dogma of papal infallibility, however, was established only at the Vatican Council of 1869 - 70). The Vicar of Peter is the bearer of the fullness of his apostolic authority (plenitudo potestatis); through God, the Pope is the vicar of Christ (“Vicar of God, sovereign of the universe, king of kings”), the whole earth is his inheritance.

Popes of the 12th and 13th centuries. understood their power as the unlimited “right to dispose in secular and temporal matters” (dispositio in saecularibus et in temporalibus). In this case, the state loses all independent significance. Being the work of the devil, it can only be saved by merging with the church; otherwise it will remain a “gang of robbers.” There is no legitimate existence outside the church and the church hierarchy; therefore, kings, these “descendants of bandits,” must submit to the apostolic throne and become its instrument. If the pope rules in the church, in the highest sphere of the "kingdom of God", then especially(a foreteriori) he has power in the lower sphere - the state.

From the principle of “fullness of power” the pope derived his following rights: “1) the right to invade the direct jurisdiction of metropolitans and bishops...; 2) the right to withdraw institutions from the closest authority over them; for example, monasteries under the jurisdiction of the bishop...; 3) the right to exactions in favor of the apostolic see; 4) the right to conclude feudal agreements and the right of patronage over some lands that were given under the special protection of the Holy See and over some sovereigns who gave their lands to the apostle. Petru...; 5) the right of interdict and excommunication of every Christian, not excluding sovereigns...; 6) the right to depose sovereigns...; 7) the right to release subjects from the oath to the legitimate sovereign...; 8) the right of reprisals against disobedient...; 9) finally, the right to dispose of positions and territories at one’s own discretion, for “the benefit of Apostle Peter.” Based on these rights, the papacy sought to transform the ideal kingdom of God into a gigantic feudal monarchy built on theocratic principles, the limits of which were determined by the boundaries of the spread of Catholicism. Having led the crusades, the papacy laid claim to power over the entire earth. To save the world, it is necessary to conquer its churches, transfer to the pope “dominion over the world” (dominium mundi) - that is, to realize the ideal of the “Holy Roman Empire” - and turn all secular sovereigns into Peter’s captives and warriors.

Such claims of papal power destroyed the principle of legitimacy of the monarch's power, based on the recognition of its origin “directly from God” (immediate a Deo); defenders of the monarchy saw in the sovereign a representative of God, an independent and independent ruler serving the providential goals of the church. The popes proclaimed another principle - “through the church” (mediante ecclesia); they declared secular power to be an invention of human pride, the first sovereigns to be robbers who seized power over their equals at the instigation of the devil. All this meant a transition to a purely theocratic position, destroying the concept of equality and consent of secular and spiritual authorities complementing each other.

The corruption of the church in its head and in its members, its extreme secularization provide grounds for searching for arguments against papal omnipotence in Roman legislation (legists), in Scripture (theologians), in ancient literature (humanists). At the cathedrals of the 15th century. Reformation tendencies to limit the “full power” of popes appear.

The history of the theoretical justification of the state and its restoration in its rights is connected with the concepts French lawyers, which substantiated the correctness of Philip IV and other monarchs who occupied the French throne after him in the matter of secularization of the state and the struggle of royal power with the papal throne. French legalists developed the doctrine of community autonomy, based on the natural right of self-defense and on the theory of the social contract (pactum) and “conditional submission”. This theory, in particular, assumed the decentralization of the administrative power of the Roman bishop through a system of local and general councils with the right of resistance to the pope; the latter retains only the right to “bind and loose” in relation to believers and to lead the church hierarchy, performing executive functions. We also find an apology for the state in Occam, Dante and Marsilius of Padua. The tendency to deny the legitimacy of papal omnipotence and reform the church intensified throughout the 14th - 15th centuries. In particular, the need for reform was confirmed by John Wycliffe and Jan Hus. Their position coincides with the aspirations of the rising bourgeois strata: freedom of personal initiative against the papal monopoly on power, orientation towards secular power, open to new trends (although the immediate motives for this kind of anti-authoritarian tendencies were not only and not so much social as religious). One of the supporting political ideas of non-traditional concepts that went beyond the medieval worldview was theory popular sovereignty (which was previously used by the papacy as an argument against imperial omnipotence); it also becomes the core of the social ideology of the early Renaissance.

§ 1. WILLIAM OFCKAM

The figure who marked the end of the Middle Ages and the beginning of the Quattrocento was the Franciscan William of Ockham(1280 - 1342). Occam's work, in particular, expressed a new proto-Renaissance desire to demythologize medieval universalism in the form of the power of the emperor and the pope. After studying and studying at Oxford, Ockham moved to the Franciscan monastery in Avignon. Here he is accused of heresy (as a result, the papal commission recognized seven points of his writings as heretical, thirty-seven as false, and four as dangerous); His position became even more complicated when he joined the opposition to the pope in a dispute over poverty. Occam was forced to flee from Avignon and join Ludwig of Bavaria in Pisa, whom he, according to legend, asks to protect him with a sword, promising to protect the emperor with a word. At the end of life, Ockham creates " A short conversation about the power of the pope" And "On the Power of Emperors and Bishops"- works that document the crisis and destruction of the theocratic ideal and replace spiritual-political universalism with a pluralistic (in the socio-political sphere) and individualistic (in the spiritual sphere) principle. Occam introduces the idea of ​​separating secular power from spiritual and as a consequence of it, the need to transform the foundations of church life is accepted. Ockham in particular contrasts the power claims of the pope with the law of Christ, understood as freedom law . He questions whether the fullness of papal power (the right to control the spiritual aspect of life and to manage temporal affairs) has its source in Christ, since, according to him, the theory of papal sovereignty does not fit well with the spirit of the gospel law. If the papal power is received from the hands of Christ, then all other Christians must become servants of the pope - and then we will have a form of slavery even more terrible than the ancient one, because it will extend to everyone. Christ and the apostles never sought to establish their kingdom on earth; their mission was spiritual salvation.

Papal power must be limited, since the pope is not Lord(dominator), and minister(minister). His power is established as something that is designed to serve the good of his subjects, and not to deprive freedom as the main institution of Christ. Power belongs neither to the pontificate nor to the council, for both can commit sins. It can only belong to the church as a free community of believers ( of all generations of Catholics from the time of the prophets and apostles to the present day), for only the community of believers, living in evangelical poverty and renouncing earthly claims, is infallible and only it has the right to sanction the truths that form the spiritual foundation of life in connection with historical tradition.

Likewise, there is no reason to consider imperial power sovereign and universal. The Emperor is not a shepherd, he prescribes laws to the people. His power has no relation to God, its sacredness is even less indisputable than the sanctity of papal power. The empire comes from the Romans, it began to exist before Christ, without waiting for the pope with his permission; and only then was it sanctioned by the church. It then fell into the hands of Charlemagne, after which it was handed over by the Franks to the German nation. On this basis, any jurisdiction of the papacy over imperial power must be excluded. It is even more absurd to say that the emperor should be a vassal of the pope.

§ 2. DANTE ALIGHIERI

Dante Alighieri(1265 - 1321) in his political masterpiece, treatise "Monarchy", no less famous than The Divine Comedy, also insists on the separation of two powers, church and empire, in order to preserve the spiritual gift of freedom.

Social and political unity for Dante, in contrast to the “classical” medieval ideas, is problematic. It is this problematic common to his work that is key to understanding the content of “Monarchy”. The problem of unity arises in Dante within the framework of his philosophy of language (“On Popular Eloquence”). Dante believes that ethnic, social, political fragmentation and discord are the consequences of the catastrophe that ended the construction of the Tower of Babel. God's punishment for human pride was the confusion of languages ​​and the destruction of the unified human community. Italy, as the heir of imperial Rome, that force that unites peoples, must carry out the mission of restoring the common purpose of humanity, gathering the scattered peoples and reviving the lost original language. This mission is both political and cultural. The unity of society and culture, language and state must, according to Dante, correspond to the divine model contained in the mysterious inextricable connection of soul and body.

The doctrine of the world "secular Monarchy" - the guarantor of justice, freedom and peace. Italy has no royal court, no political center, and therefore the language does not find a natural refuge, it wanders, unable to rely on the socio-political unity of the people. Italy, exhausted by civil strife, was in dire need of social peace, which was impossible in conditions of political fragmentation. Therefore, in “Monarchy” Dante proves three main points: 1) secular monarchy ( usually called an empire) is necessary for the welfare of the world; 2) the Roman people by right acquired for himself the office of monarchy; 3) the authority of the monarchy is given to it directly from God and does not depend on his governor (see: Monarchy I, 2, 2 - 3).

Proving the first point, Dante relies on teleology , close to the Thomistic-Aristotelian tradition. According to him, every truth that requires proof goes back to some initial principle. The subject of his research is not theoretical (mathematical, physical or divine), but practical (in Dante’s “practical” orientation one also finds closeness to the ancient Roman tradition, to Cicero), that is, one that can be not only the subject of our contemplation, but also action; Moreover, here contemplation is performed for the sake of action (and not vice versa), for it is precisely in this that the target . We are talking about political practice as such actions that are the source and beginning of correct government systems. The beginning and the first cause of everything in action items is last goal : just as the various features of forest cutting arise from the fact that it is carried out for different purposes - to build a house or to build a ship, so the specificity of political actions reflects something that is universal goal of citizenship of the human race . This is exactly the goal basic principle. Moreover, this goal will be common to all states: To believe that there is a goal of this or that state, but there is no single goal for all of them, is stupid(see: I, 2, 4 - 8).

Next, Dante substantiates the position of the existence of a universal (in relation to private political entities) goal. God, by his art (which is nature), sets various goals for the sake of which he brings into existence individual person , arranges village , city , separate kingdom and finally, the whole thing human race . He claims to exist a certain action characteristic of humanity as a whole, according to which a great many people are ordered in the entirety, and this action cannot be performed by an individual, nor a family, nor a village, nor a city, nor this or that kingdom(I, 3, 4). This action, in turn, is determined based on the understanding of what is the main property (ability, potency) of human nature. This is an intellectual ability, and it cannot be immediately put into action in one person or in one of the private communities listed above; It is necessary that in human society there exist many... forces through which all this potentiality would be translated into action in its entirety...(I, 3, 8). At this point, Dante’s universalism acquires pluralistic features familiar to the Aristotelian tradition (this will become obvious below).

The next logical step taken by Dante is to justify the fact that universal peace is the goal of humanity. He reasons as follows: since the same thing happens in the whole as in the part, and since the best state for the perfection of wisdom in an individual is a state of peace, to that extent and the human race, being in a state of calm and undisturbed peace, has the greatest freedom and ease to carry out its characteristic work. From this it is clear that universal peace is the best thing that has been created for our bliss. That is why what sounded to the shepherds from above was not wealth, not pleasure, not honor, not longevity, not health, not strength, not beauty, but peace... That is why from the lips of the Savior of the human race a saving greeting sounded: “Peace be with you.” "(I, 4, 2 - 4).

Interp. As can be understood, based on the content of this text, Dante’s “universal peace” is not just a state opposite to war, but a state of truth and supreme justice, correlated with the divine source of grace through redemption, i.e., the “peace of Christ,” the fruit Jesus' sacrifices, the coming "fullness of times", sample, which should be followed in the project of a secular monarchy (world state). And besides, it has its own historical prototype during the Roman Empire, under the reign of Augustus.

Finally, Dante gives the rationale necessity of the monarchy as a form of unification of humanity, giving multiple reasons for this and simultaneously defining the features of the very form of such unification): for the prosperity and ordering of the human race into something unified (“Every kingdom divided in itself will be empty”) it is necessary one thing that orders or rules, and that one thing should be called a monarch or emperor(I, 5, 9).

ON THE RULE OF GOVERNMENTS

DE REGIMINE PRINCIPUM AD REGEM CYPRI

TREATISE OF THOMAS AQUINAS

“ON THE RULE OF GOVERNMENTS” 1

The treatise “De regimine principum ad Regem Cypri” was created by Thomas Aquinas around 1266. Most authors who have consulted this work consider it the main work outlining Aquinas’s doctrine of the state. It contains discussions about the origin of the state, the various forms of government, the advantages and disadvantages of one form or another, the best form of government, the right of subjects to rebel against unjust power, tyrannicide, and, finally, the relationship between church and secular power. Much attention is paid to ethical issues. A rare study devoted to the history of philosophy, the theory of state, or the history of political doctrines does not mention this treatise, which has caused a lot of controversy almost since the time of its creation. The first controversial question is whether the treatise belongs to the pen of Thomas. The reasons for the doubts lie, firstly, in the lack of evidence about the writing of this work by him, and secondly, in the contradictions between the treatise and other works of Aquinas, 2 which reflected his political teachings. In the “Theological Summa,” for example, the best form of government is considered to be mixed (including elements of monarchy, aristocracy and democracy), while the treatise “On the Government of Sovereigns” uses many arguments to prove that the best form of government is monarchy. 3

Most scholars who consulted this work considered it to be authentic. This opinion was especially strengthened after the publication of M. Grabmann’s fundamental work “Works of St. Thomas Aquinas”, in which the author, using new sources, positively resolves this issue. 4 Modern researchers share his point of view on the question of whether the treatise, which consists of 4 books and 82 chapters, can be considered complete and entirely from the pen of Thomas. Doubts among experts were caused by the fact that a clear logical structure, characterized by transparency and clarity of presentation, is completed in the first book. The second book is devoted to more specific economic and ethical problems, and the third and fourth books repeat the content of the first and second, and they are characterized by less clear presentation, confusion, and repetition. M. Grabmann, based on source analysis, established the place - chapter 4 of the second book - from which Aquinas’s student Ptolemy from Lucca continued his unfinished work. 5

There are also differences of opinion regarding the extent to which the treatise reflects the social and political problems of the time of its creation. This issue has been discussed especially frequently in works of the last two decades. J. Catto is the most ardent opponent of the point of view, quite widespread until recently, that the historical events of the 13th century. did not have a significant influence on the political thought of Thomas Aquinas, or this influence is denied altogether. Illustrating his constructions by citing numerous historical facts from the time of creation of the treatise and facts from the biography of its creator, the researcher comes to the conclusion that both in general and in particular, the teaching of Thomas Aquinas is based on his experience and knowledge of society and is a response to contemporary political events. 6

X. Liebeschutz, considering this problem, draws more moderate conclusions. The author draws attention to the genre of the treatise - it is written as a “Mirror”, i.e. an instruction or sermon for the minor King of Cyprus Hugo II of Lusignan, one of the French kings of the Crusades - and believes that Aquinas’s appeal to contemporary reality is limited to the tasks this genre. 7 According to L. Zheniko, it cannot be categorically stated that the author of the treatise neglected the political realities of the 13th century, since the treatise is not finished, but based on what we have, it also cannot be said that he knew them well and used them for his theory. 8 L. Geniko admits, however, that Aquinas’s work “breathes the ideas and mentality of the 13th century,” although he considers his problematics to go back to Aristotle.

In our opinion, what may be decisive in this debate is that Thomas Aquinas addresses the fundamental problem of his time - the relationship between ecclesiastical and secular power - a problem caused by the growing contrast between the theocratic program of the Roman Curia and the hegemonic tendency of the new monarchical nation-states. This is exactly how C. Vasoli and M. Vereno approach this issue. 10

Perhaps, researchers are unanimous only in the fact that the appearance in 1260 of Aristotle’s “Politics” in the Latin translation by William of Moerbeck had a huge influence on the creator of the treatise “On the Government of Sovereigns.” Indeed, some provisions of this work, which are important for the political teaching of Thomas, textually almost coincide with the corresponding passages of the “Politics”. The most important point is the perception of Aristotle's reception on the issue of the origin of the state. The state, according to Aquinas, arose as a result of natural necessity, since man is by nature a social and political being, since he is a rational being - this is an almost literal reproduction of Aristotle’s formula.” Thomas, however, introduces new content into this formula: the state, like nature and everything that exists, originates from God. But the nature created by God has some autonomy and creative properties, and the state created by nature has the same properties. This distinguishes Thomas Aquinas's doctrine of the state from the tradition of the followers of Augustine, who considered every phenomenon of nature and society as the result of the direct intervention of divine providence. It was Aristotle who gave impetus to the emergence of Aquinas’s system of views on the state as a natural institution. Such a system of views did not exist in any of the theories that became widespread in the first half of the 13th century, not excluding Averroism. As already indicated, the state, according to Aquinas, is a creation of God. This distinguishes his teaching not only from Aristotle’s, but also significantly from the Augustinian tradition, according to which the origin of the state is traced back to the Fall. This determined the well-known negativism of Augustine’s followers in relation to secular power and worldly life.

Undoubtedly, Aristotle was also inspired by the discussion of forms of government, just or unjust, depending on the goal that the ruler sets for himself. 12 Fair forms include monarchy, aristocracy and polity, while unjust forms include tyranny, oligarchy and democracy. 13 Unfortunately, a considerable number of researchers, for whom the main task was apparently not the interpretation of the source, but ideological schematization, due to the fact that Aquinas was an odious figure for a long time, distorted this part of the treatise. Thus, according to V.V. Sokolov, “Thomas distinguishes five forms of government. One of them, democracy, is identified by the author of “The Rule of Lords” with tyranny.” 14 The Polish researcher J. Borgosh argues similarly: Thomas “distinguishes between oligarchy, monarchy, tyranny and its variety, democracy.” 15 Such misunderstandings, unfortunately, made it possible to further come to false conclusions regarding Aquinas’s political doctrine, for example: “Thomas was sharply opposed to democracy. He was full of contempt for the people and considered democracy one of the deviations from the ideal form of government." 16

Much more accurate is the interpretation of C. Vasoli, who noted that Aquinas considers monarchy to be the best, but not the only possible form of government. According to Vasoli, the form of government is, in principle, not important for him, as long as it leads to the establishment of the common good, that is, to ensuring the useful and peaceful coexistence of all people. 17

The greatest attention is paid in the treatise to two forms of government - monarchy and tyranny. H. Liebeschütz points to the degeneration of monarchy into tyranny as the only change in the political order that is of current significance for the author of the treatise, believing that in this regard he follows the interests of the church tradition of many centuries. 18 G. Catto argues that such attention to the above forms of government is due to historical events, and the problem was real both for the inhabitants of the small communes of central Italy and for the subjects of the Hohenstaufen. Both statements can be considered fair.

Chapter VI of the treatise, which gives practical advice on means of counteracting a tyrant, aroused in the 15th century. the dispute over whether the political doctrine of Thomas Aquinas recognizes the right to tyrannicide, which continued until the 19th century. 19

It should be noted that the text of Chapter VI allows for different interpretations, but the answer to this question is quite clear: tyrannicide on one’s own initiative does not correspond to Christian doctrine. Here we will not find the tyrant-fighting pathos of John of Salisbury; this text is rather a polemic with him. 20

V.V. Sokolov, referring to this chapter, writes that Thomas “recognizes the right of subjects to overthrow the head of state, essentially in cases where the latter encroaches on the interests of the church.” 21 Y. Borgosh shares the same point of view. 22 The text of the treatise does not provide grounds for such categorical statements. If we rely on the theses contained in Chapter VI that society has the right to overthrow the tyrant placed on the throne by this society, and that protection from a tyrant can be sought from the person standing above him and who placed him on the throne, we can follow M It is fair to wonder what kind of society in the 13th century. could enthronement the ruler and who is the person standing above him. M. Vereno, surveying the historical situation of that time, admits with great caution that we are talking here about bishops and the pope. 23 Turning to Chapter VI, one can see that, despite the clarity and transparency of the presentation, the text gives scope for interpretation and there can be no talk of any categorical judgments here.

It should be noted that Thomas’s recognition of the right of his subjects to rebel against state authority distinguished him from the previous Christian tradition, which was based on the saying of the Apostle Paul: “All authority comes from God.”

What causes the most disagreement among scholars is Thomas Aquinas’s interpretation of the most important theme of the work: the relationship between church and secular authorities. Here we finally get an answer to the question of what goal a just ruler should lead society to. The highest goal of human society is eternal bliss, but the efforts of rulers are not enough to achieve it. The care of this highest goal is entrusted to the priests and especially to the vicar of Christ on earth - the pope, to whom all earthly rulers must obey, as to Christ himself. 24 The disagreements among researchers are understandable - this particular place is in apparent contradiction with the content of the previous chapters, where it seemed that the discussion was about the autonomy of secular power, and the power of the ruler was compared with the power of God, and with the content of the last, XV chapter of the first book, which lists the duties of a secular ruler . Thus, I. E. Malashenko writes: “Thomas speaks of the existence of two goals for every Christian state. One of these goals - the achievement of otherworldly bliss - is the ultimate goal both for the individual and for the state as a whole. Thus, internal and external goals are unequal: “Life according to virtue” is only a means to achieve a higher goal. Of course, compared to Augustine, who did not recognize that life in the state could be connected with the realization of the Christian ideal, Thomas’s position was some step forward. However, for the second half of the 13th century. This was too insignificant a concession to the demands of the time, and therefore Dante in his treatise “Monarchy” was not satisfied with the Thomistic solution.” 25

L. Boyle, with whom I. E. Malashenko argues, believes that this part of the treatise cannot be interpreted as if the pope has supreme political power in a Christian society. “If the De regno says that Christian kings must submit to the pope as to Christ, it is only from the point of view of the spiritual government transmitted by Christ to the clergy and especially to the pope.” 26 P. S. Gratsiansky tries to solve this problem by drawing on other works of Aquinas. He writes: “Considering the question of the relationship between spiritual and temporal power, Thomas seeks to separate the sphere of their action. Secular power should control only the external actions of its subjects. The management of the souls of people falls entirely within the competence of the church: “Since spiritual power and secular power are both derived from the power of God,” writes Thomas in the comments to the “Sentences” of Peter of Lombardy, “then secular power is as much under the spiritual power as it is subordinated to it by God, namely, in matters that concern the salvation of the soul; as a result, in such matters one should rather obey ecclesiastical authority rather than secular authority. In regard to civil goods, one should obey the secular authorities more than the ecclesiastical ones, in accordance with the teaching “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.” Is it by chance that both powers are united in the person of the pope, who stands at the top of both powers” ​​(Comment, in sentent., in secund. sentent, distinct. 44, art. III). In general, Thomas, as we see, in the dispute between secular and ecclesiastical authorities leans towards the latter.” 2 This point of view seems to be the most convincing.

The disagreements among researchers could not but affect the most varied assessments of the meaning and place of the treatise in the history of social philosophy. We find the highest appreciation in Thomist and neo-Thomist literature, and perhaps that is why in Soviet literature, with a few exceptions, a prejudiced attitude towards this work has strengthened. 28 There are other opinions. For example, the famous Russian researcher B. N. Chicherin believed that the treatise “belongs among the most remarkable works of medieval literature.” 29 Recently, it has been increasingly mentioned in historical and philosophical works.” 30

The treatise “On the Government of Sovereigns” was created in an era when the social and philosophical views of Thomas Aquinas’s predecessors and many contemporaries ceased to correspond to the real state of society. During this period, a new awareness of the functions of secular power and its independent value arose. Therefore, it was no coincidence that the appearance of Aristotle’s “Politics” and interest in it, as well as the emergence of theories that, in the apt formulation of C. Vasoli, “expressed the new historical reality of nation states in the ancient Aristotelian language.” 31 The doctrine of Thomas Aquinas about the state, most fully reflected in the treatise under consideration, was the first such theory. The perception of Aristotle's reception determined the undoubtedly important place that the treatise occupies in the history of the development of socio-philosophical ideas of the late Middle Ages.

What was new in the teaching of Thomas Aquinas was contained in the Aristotelian-inspired view of the state as a natural institution, the origin of which is determined by natural necessity. This view made it possible to consider social phenomena not as the result of the direct intervention of divine providence, but as a natural process. On the other hand, the recognition of God as the creator of the state also meant the rejection of a negative attitude towards secular power and worldly life, which led to attention to such issues as forms of government, monarchy and tyranny, opposition to unjust power, the relationship between church and secular power, which later attracted attention of Renaissance figures.

In solving the problem of the relationship between church and secular power, Aquinas departs from the concept of direct theocracy, subordinating secular power to church power, but distinguishing their spheres of influence and presenting to secular power significant autonomy, just as the sphere of the natural and supernatural is distinguished in his philosophy, where “faith indicates to his reason mistakes and its boundaries, yet without interfering with the free practice of philosophy.”

The treatise is not published in full; parts of the chapters of the first book, which contain the ideas of Thomas Aquinas about the state, were selected for publication. Chapters VII-XIII, devoted mainly to questions of religion and ethics, are omitted. The text of the treatise is being translated into Russian for the first time. 33 The translation is annotated.

When compiling notes, in a number of cases it was necessary to resort to the preface and commentary of the English translation of fragments of the political works of Thomas Aquinas: The politicai ideas of St. Thomas Aquinas. Represent. Selections/Ed. D. Bigongia-ri. New York, 1953.

Thomas Aquinas is an Italian philosopher, a follower of Aristotle. He was a teacher, a minister of the Dominican Order, and an influential religious figure of his time. The essence of the thinker's teaching is the unification of Christianity and the philosophical views of Aristotle. The philosophy of Thomas Aquinas affirms the primacy of God and his participation in all earthly processes.

Biographical facts

Approximate years of life of Thomas Aquinas: from 1225 to 1274. He was born in the Roccasecca castle, located near Naples. Thomas's father was a feudal baron, and gave his son the title of abbot of the Benedictine monastery. But the future philosopher chose to engage in science. Thomas ran away from home and joined a monastic order. During the order's trip to Paris, the brothers kidnapped Thomas and imprisoned him in a fortress. After 2 years, the young man managed to escape and officially took a vow, becoming a member of the order and a student of Albertus Magnus. He studied at the University of Paris and Cologne, became a teacher of theology and began writing his first philosophical works.

Thomas was later called to Rome, where he taught theology and served as an adviser on theological issues to the Pope. After spending 10 years in Rome, the philosopher returned to Paris to take part in popularizing the teachings of Aristotle in accordance with Greek texts. Before this, a translation made from Arabic was considered official. Thomas believed that the Eastern interpretation distorted the essence of the teaching. The philosopher sharply criticized the translation and sought a complete ban on its distribution. Soon, he was again called to Italy, where he taught and wrote treatises until his death.

The main works of Thomas Aquinas are the Summa Theologica and the Summa Philosophia. The philosopher is also known for his reviews of treatises by Aristotle and Boethius. He wrote 12 church books and the Book of Parables.

Fundamentals of philosophical teaching

Thomas distinguished between the concepts of “philosophy” and “theology”. Philosophy studies questions accessible to reason and touches only those areas of knowledge that relate to human existence. But the possibilities of philosophy are limited; man can only know God through theology.

Thomas formed his idea of ​​the stages of truth on the basis of the teachings of Aristotle. The ancient Greek philosopher believed that there are 4 of them:

• experience;
• art;
• knowledge;
• wisdom.

Thomas placed wisdom above other levels. Wisdom is based on the revelations of God and is the only way of Divine knowledge.

According to Thomas, there are 3 types of wisdom:

• grace;
• theological - allows you to believe in God and Divine Unity;
• metaphysical - comprehends the essence of being using reasonable conclusions.

With the help of reason, a person can realize the existence of God. But the questions of the appearance of God, the resurrection, and the Trinity remain inaccessible to her.

Types of being

The life of a person or any other creature confirms the fact of his existence. The opportunity to live is more important than the true essence, since only God provides such an opportunity. Every substance depends on divine desire, and the world is the totality of all substances.

Existence can be of 2 types:

• independent;
• dependent.

True being is God. All other beings depend on him and obey the hierarchy. The more complex the nature of a being, the higher its position and the greater the freedom of action.

Combination of form and matter

Matter is a substrate that has no form. The appearance of a form creates an object and endows it with physical qualities. The unity of matter and form is the essence. Spiritual beings have complex essences. They do not have physical bodies; they exist without the participation of matter. Man is created from form and matter, but he also has an essence that God has endowed him with.

Since matter is uniform, all creatures created from it could be the same shape and become indistinguishable. But, according to God's will, form does not determine the being. The individualization of an object is formed by its personal qualities.

Ideas about the soul

The unity of soul and body creates the individuality of a person. The soul has a divine nature. It was created by God to give man the opportunity to achieve bliss by joining his Creator after the end of earthly life. The soul is an immortal independent substance. It is intangible and inaccessible to the human eye. The soul becomes complete only at the moment of unity with the body. A person cannot exist without a soul; it is his life force. All other living beings do not have a soul.

Man is an intermediate link between angels and animals. He is the only one of all corporeal beings who has the will and desire for knowledge. After bodily life, he will have to answer to the Creator for all his actions. A person cannot get close to angels - they have never had a bodily form, in their essence they are flawless and cannot commit actions that contradict divine plans.

A person is free to choose between good and sin. The higher his intellect, the more actively he strives for good. Such a person suppresses animal aspirations that denigrate his soul. With every action he moves closer to God. Inner aspirations are reflected in appearance. The more attractive an individual is, the closer he is to the divine essence.

Types of knowledge

In the concept of Thomas Aquinas there were 2 types of intelligence:

• passive - needed for the accumulation of sensory images, does not take part in the thinking process;
• active - separated from sensory perception, forms concepts.

To know the truth, you need to have high spirituality. A person must tirelessly develop his soul, endow it with new experiences.

There are 3 types of knowledge:

1. reason - gives a person the ability to form reasoning, compare them and draw conclusions;
2. intelligence - allows you to understand the world by forming images and studying them;
3. mind is the totality of all spiritual components of a person.

Cognition is the main calling of a rational person. It elevates him above other living beings, ennobles him and brings him closer to God.

Ethics

Thomas believed that God is absolute good. A person striving for good is guided by the commandments and does not allow evil into his soul. But God does not force a person to be guided only by good intentions. It gives people free will: the ability to choose between good and evil.

A person who knows his essence strives for good. Believes in God and the primacy of his plan. Such an individual is full of hope and love. His aspirations are always prudent. He is peaceful, humble, but at the same time brave.

Political Views

Thomas shared Aristotle's opinion about the political system. Society needs management. The ruler must maintain peace and be guided in his decisions by the desire for the common good.

Monarchy is the optimal form of government. A single ruler represents the divine will; he takes into account the interests of individual groups of subjects and respects their rights. The monarch must submit to church authority, since the ministers of the church are servants of God and proclaim His will.

Tyranny as a form of power is unacceptable. It contradicts the highest plan and contributes to the emergence of idolatry. The people have the right to overthrow such a government and ask the Church to choose a new monarch.

Evidence for the Existence of God

Answering the question about the existence of God, Thomas provides 5 evidence of His direct influence on the world around us.

Movement

All natural processes are the result of movement. The fruits will not ripen until the flowers appear on the tree. Each movement is subordinate to the previous one, and cannot begin until it ends. The first movement was the appearance of God.

Producing cause

Each action occurs as a result of the previous one. A person cannot know what the original cause of an action was. It is acceptable to assume that God became her.

Necessity

Some things exist temporarily, are destroyed and appear again. But some things need to exist constantly. They create the possibility for the appearance and life of other creatures.

Degrees of being

All things and all living beings can be divided into several stages, in accordance with their aspirations and level of development. This means that there must be something perfect, occupying the top level of the hierarchy.

Every action has a purpose. This is only possible if the individual is guided by someone from above. From this it follows that a higher mind exists.