WILLIAM OF AUVERGNE
(c. 1180 1249)
(MODIFIED) AUGUSTINIANISM
Born in Aurillac and
educated in Paris, William taught theology there and was made Bishop in 1228,
thereby becoming responsible for the university. He was criticized by Pope Gregory IX the
following year for alleged administrative shortcomings. He was one of the earliest medieval
philosophers to attempt a synthesis of Christianity and Aristotelianism (as
received in the West from the Arabs), but within an Augustinian framework.
METAPHYSICS/ RELIGIOUS PHILOSOPHY
[1] [See especially On the
Universe and On the Trinity.] While William accepted the supremacy of faith,
he regarded philosophy as
an autonomous discipline in its own sphere, philosophical disputes being
subject to examination by the reason alone [a], although he stressed it should remain
sensitive to the requirements of Christian doctrine. He held a view of Being (esse) in a broad inclusive sense as that
which is possessed by all things. But while he distinguished between being (esse) as essence, as connoted by a thing's definition, and the existence (ratio) of that thing [Universe,
I, 3; Trinity I and II] this is not to be thought of as
the distinction between possible being and being as necessary existence [b]. William therefore
rejected the theory of necessary emanation and intermediate beings [ibid] (though he accepted the existence
of immaterial angelic intelligences) [Universe, II, 2] [c]. Prior to creation, beings exist
in God as exemplary forms, God being their exemplary cause [Universe, I, l] [d]. Created
corporeal beings (which alone are composed of prime matter as well as
form) exist in the world only
'accidentally' as a consequence of God's free will. They thus exist by 'participation' in the
Divine Being [e]. In so far as they, together with the whole of Nature, are
dependent on God's will and providence it would seem that there is little room
in William's philosophy for individual free-will [f]. He argued
that the world was created with or in time [Universe,
I, 2]. It cannot have existed from
eternity, because it would then have had to pass through an infinite time. This is impossible, for there cannot be an infinite
regress [g]. So there must have been a first moment of
time when the creation occurred. William
believed that God's
existence as Being can be proved [Trinity,
VI]. In God alone are existence and essence identical;
existence belongs to His definition. From the attributes of accidental being, such as 'dependent',
'caused', and 'secondary' we
can therefore argue to the concepts of 'essential' being
'independent', 'uncaused', and 'primary' and thus to God's existence [h]. Further, given that objects have their being through
participation, they cannot be self-dependent or self-caused. There must therefore be a necessary Being,
God, to cause them and the universe as a whole [i]. William said we can talk about God as being or existing in Himself but
only by using language analogically; the descriptive terms cannot be
used univocally [Trinity, VII] [j].
PSYCHOLOGY
[2] [See On the Soul.] Each human being has a soul and a material body. The soul is the immaterial form of the body: it perfects and 'realizes' it [I, 1] [a]. William said it
plays on the body as a harpist plays on his instrument. He stressed the simplicity and unity of the soul [for example,
I, 2; IV, 1-3]. The vegetative, sensitive, and rational 'souls'
are all functions of the one soul; and understanding, perceiving, willing are
not regarded as separate faculties but as integrated aspects of the soul itself. He therefore thought of the soul as itself a spiritual
substance [b]. There can be no active intellect
in man, separable or otherwise [VII, 3]. Rather, activity is said to be a function of the soul when exercising
its capacity to know the
soul as 'active understanding'. The
'active intellect' as such is more properly understood as being identical with
God who has created all souls directly and actualizes their ('possible')
substance (quod est) by 'informing'
them (the quo est) [V, 1] [c]. The soul in its totality is
immortal [V, 1 passim] [d]. This is clear,
because it possesses the power to animate the body, and this cannot be
destroyed by the body's death. (He also
utilizes Plato's other proofs.) The soul is said by William to be at the limits
of the two worlds the world of sensible objects and the world of the Divine.
KNOWLEDGE
[3] According to William the soul has direct knowledge of itself [for example, On the Soul, III, 13] [a]. As for the acquisition of knowledge of the sensible world, this
involves initially the reception by the senses of particular experiences. Such data are then worked on by the active
understanding of the soul itself [V, 6], images being
abstracted and given to the imagination. Images, however, can provide only incomplete and vague knowledge. If full, true knowledge is to be
obtained, divine illumination is required [V, 7; VII, 6] [b]. God as the 'exemplar' or 'mirror'
impresses universal and abstract ideas, the intelligible forms, as well as
first principles and the laws of morality on the human intellect now
passive in relation to God. True forms are thus known
intuitively not via ideas or images [c]. God, however, can be known only through Being [d].
CRITICAL SUMMARY
William in Paris, like
Grosseteste in Oxford, sought to stem the advancing tide of
Aristotelianism. But rather than
uncompromisingly opposing to it a thoroughgoing Platonism he tried to
assimilate into an Augustinian framework what he supposed to be the most valid
features of the thought of Avicenna and Averroes though he treated their
writings and those of Aristotle himself
critically. Thus we find discussions of, for example, the relationship
of existence to essence, God's freedom to create directly in time, and the
unity and immortality of the soul, all of which continued to engender
controversy throughout the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Understandably there are difficulties in
William's philosophy. One might mention
the apparent tension between human and divine freedom; the concept of a unitary
soul which is separate from the material body and yet 'perfects' it; and an understanding which is active in
relation to sensory experience yet passive in relation to God's illuminating
power. William's concept of God as
Being, and thus as simple and indefinite, was also criticized by some as
failing to comprehend or signify the
full richness and power of the Creator. Nevertheless William was an original and systematic thinker who was to
influence both Bonaventura's Augustinianism and the Aristotelianism of Aquinas.
CONNECTIONS
William of Auvergne