Name: Mark Lawrence S.

Gianan, OP
Date: October 28, 2018
Subject: Cosmology

Topic: Consciousness and Its Objects

Error: For Locke, all ideas are that which we apprehend when we are conscious of anything.1
The ideas in my mind are my ideas. The ideas in yours are yours. These possessive
pronouns call attention to the fact that the ideas in anyone’s mind are subjective: they belong to
that one person and to no one else. Just as there are as many human minds in the world as there
are individual persons, so there are as many distinct sets of ideas as there are individually distinct
minds.
Each person has his own. Only one’s own ideas are, according to Locke, the objects of
that person’s awareness when he or she is conscious. No one can be conscious of another
person’s ideas. They are never objects of which anyone else is immediately aware. To concede
that another individual also has ideas, of which we can have no direct awareness, must always
result from an act of inference, based on what others say and do.2
If the word “object” applied to ideas as that of which we are aware when we are
conscious leads us to think that ideas are objective or have objectivity, then an apparent
contradiction confronts us. We appear to be saying opposite things about ideas: on the one hand,
that my ideas, being exclusively mine and not yours or anyone else’s, are subjective; on the other
hand, that my ideas also have objectivity.
Consider the meaning of the words “objective” and “subjective.” It is something
objective when it is the same for me, for you, and for anyone else. It is called something
subjective when it differs from one individual to another and when it is exclusively the
possession of one individual and of no one else.3

Revelation: For Thomas Aquinas, some ideas (cognitive ideas) are that by which we apprehend
the objects of which we are conscious.4
In the Treatise of Man, included in Part I of his Summa Theologica, Aquinas takes up the
question whether our ideas are that which we apprehend when we are conscious, or that by
which we apprehend objects that are not ideas. With one qualification, to be reserved for later
consideration when it becomes more appropriate, the answer he gives is emphatically: that by
which.5
It means that we experience perceived things, but never the percepts whereby we
perceive them. We remember past events or happenings, but we are never aware of the memories
by which we remember them. We can be aware of imagined or imaginary objects, but never the

1
Adler, Mortimer J., Ten Philosophical Mistakes (1985, Macmillan Publishing Company, Collier Macmillan
Publishers) p. 13
2
Adler, Mortimer J., Ten Philosophical Mistakes p. 9
3
Adler, Mortimer J., Ten Philosophical Mistakes p. 10
4
Adler, Mortimer J., Ten Philosophical Mistakes p. 11
5
Adler, Mortimer J., Ten Philosophical Mistakes p. 13
images by which we imagine them. We apprehend objects of thought, but never the concepts by
which we think of them.6

From the Bible: …for my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,
declares the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your
ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. (Isaiah 55:8-9)

Topic: Human Society

Error: It is possible for men to live together peacefully and harmoniously in society without
government and without just laws made effective by the exercise of coercive force.7
One is the myth that goes by the name of “the state of nature.” This phrase, when used by
Hobbes, Locke, or Rousseau in their slightly varying accounts of the origin of civil society,
signifies a condition of human life on earth in which individuals live in isolation from one
another and live anarchically with complete autonomy.
What is called a “state of nature” is utterly mythical and never existed on earth. This
should be manifest to everyone in the light of the incontrovertible fact that the human species
could not have survived without the existence of families for the preservation of infants unable to
take care of themselves.
The second myth, inseparable from the first, is the fiction that human beings, dissatisfied
with the precarious-ness and brutality of living in a state of nature, decided to put up with it no
longer and to agree upon certain conventions and rules for living together under some form of
government that replaced anarchy and eliminated their isolation and autonomy.
Of the three modern exponents of this social contract theory, Rousseau at least concedes
that the social contract and the state of nature have no historical reality, but only constitute a
hypothesis to explain how civil society came into existence. That might take the curse off the
theory if the hypothesis were necessary for explanatory purposes. But it is not. The origin of the
state can be satisfactorily explained without any recourse to such fictions as the social contract
and the state of nature. Therein lies the philosophical mistake that needs correction.8
Revelation: There is one that can appeal to the facts of recorded history. The earliest political
communities emerged out of large tribal organizations which, for one reason or another,
associated with one another to form a still larger society— that of associated tribes or villages.
The kind of rule or government that prevailed in the tribes, an absolute rule by the elders, carried
over into the larger societies they formed by coming together. Instead of tribal chieftains, they
now had kings, ruling absolutely or despotically, as did the great kings of Persia or the pharaohs
of Egypt.

6
Adler, Mortimer J., Ten Philosophical Mistakes p. 14
7
Adler, Mortimer J., Ten Philosophical Mistakes p. 122
8
Adler, Mortimer J., Ten Philosophical Mistakes p. 118
 A little later, the absolute or despotic rule of kings was replaced by the adoption of
constitutions in the city-states of Greece. Solon gave the Athenians a constitution which, adopted
by them voluntarily, established the Athenian re-public. So, too, Lycurgus gave the Spartans a
constitution out of which, again by voluntary adoption, the Spartan republic came into existence.
Aware of this history, Aristotle, after stressing the naturalness of the state because of the
natural need it satisfied, wrote that “he who first founded the state was the greatest of
benefactors.” He had Solon and Lycurgus in mind as founders of the state because, in his view,
absolute or despotic rule, carried over from the rule of tribal chieftains, was incompatible with a
state—a civil society or political community.
If human beings are by nature not just social but also political, then they have a natural
inclination and need to participate in government. That is possible only when they become
citizens of a republic and live under constitutional government. They then have political liberty,
which means being governed with one’s own consent and having a voice in one’s own
government.
The voluntary adoption of a constitution that creates a republic, with the citizens as the
ruling class and the administrators of government always citizens holding public office with
constitutionally limited authority and power, is a much better, historically more accurate, account
of the origin of the state than Rousseau’s theory of the social contract.
Rousseau, no less than Aristotle, regarded a republic, or a civil society under
constitutional government, as the only legitimate form of civil government. Without it, there
cannot be a truly political community. The other forms under absolute or despotic rule are
anomalous, neither strictly tribal organizations nor truly political communities.9

From the Bible: I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that
all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but
that you be perfectly united in mind and thought. (1 Corinthians 1:10)

For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly
than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the faith
God has distributed to each of you. For just as each of us has one body with many members, and
these members do not all have the same function, so in Christ we, though many, form one body,
and each member belongs to all the others. We have different gifts, according to the grace given
to each of us. If your gift is prophesying, then prophesy in accordance with your faith; if it is
serving, then serve; if it is teaching, then teach; if it is to encourage, then give encouragement; if
it is giving, then give generously; if it is to lead, do it diligently; if it is to show mercy, do it
cheerfully. Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. Be devoted to one
another in love. Honor one another above yourselves. Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your
spiritual fervor, serving the Lord. Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer. Share
with the Lord’s people who are in need. Practice hospitality. (Romans 12:3-13)

9
Adler, Mortimer J., Ten Philosophical Mistakes p. 121
Topic: Sin
Error: According to Peter Abelard, sin is simply a consent to evil. To sin is to despise God and
his laws intentionally. The morality of an act depends solely on the intention with which it’s
done. An act done with a good intention is always good; an act done with a bad intention is
always bad. The act itself, on the result of the act, adds nothing to its own goodness or badness.
Intention alone determines its moral character. God does not weigh what we do, but the spirit in
which we do it. Two men put a criminal to death, one out of zeal for justice, the other out of
hatred. Their action is the same, but their intentions differ: in one the act is good, in the other it is
evil. 10
This shows that acts themselves are morally neutral. “An action is good,” writes, “not
because it contains within it some good, but because it issues from a good intention.” Similarly,
an action is not bad in itself; it is bad because it issues from a bad intention.
If sin consists in bad intention, we have still to discover what makes an intention good or
bad. Abelard explains that for an intention to be good it is not enough for it to seem good; it must
be really good by corresponding to God’s will and intention. God has revealed his laws to
Christians, who must conform their wills to them.11
Revelation: The idea Peter Abelard would seem to exclude pagans from the ranks of the morally
good and to deny them a chance of salvation. But according to Abelard, in his Christian
Theology, he teaches that God granted a revelation to the great pagan philosophers who lived
holy lives and came very close to Christian truth. Through them, pagans were enlightened
concerning God’s will and hence moral goodness and salvation were within their reach. In any
case, if a person is ignorant of God’s will and acts contrary to it in good faith, he does not sin. 12
But for St. Thomas Aquinas, there must be a balance as “an ordinance of reason for the
common good, promulgated by him who has the care of the community.” The eternal law is the
first of all laws and the source of all others. This law is the divine rule for the government of the
whole universe. As expressed in human nature, this law is called natural law. The prescriptions
of the natural law correspond to the basic inclinations of our nature. Since the natural tendency
of our will is toward the good, the most general prescription of the natural law is: Do good and
avoid evil. There are three fundamental particular precepts of the natural law. Like every being, a
man is inclined by nature to preserve his existence. This tendency to self-preservation is
expressed by the natural law that every man should conserve his life and protect his health.
Secondly, man has in common with the animals the inclination to reproduce himself and raise his
children. This leads to the natural laws governing man’s relations with his wife and family.
Thirdly, because man is rational, he is inclined to live in a civic community, where he can
develop his rational life more fully by seeking the truth in common with others and developing
the social virtues.13

10
Maurer, Armand A., Medieval Philosophy, (1962, Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies) p. 88
11
Maurer, Armand A., Medieval Philosophy p. 89
12
Maurer, Armand A., Medieval Philosophy p. 89
13
Maurer, Armand A., Medieval Philosophy p. 188
 Thus, man can reach his longed-for goal with the help of God’s grace. Here as elsewhere
in the thought of St. Thomas, grace perfects nature and revelation is an indispensable guide to
reason. 14
From the Bible: The second resembles it: You must love your neighbour as yourself. (Matthew 22: 39)

Topic: Divine Ideas and Creation

Error: Pre-Socratic philosophers told men that the world was created out of something that is
material or immaterial. For Thales, the world is created out of water, fire for Heraclitus, apeiron
or the boundless for Anaximander and germs or seeds according to Anaximenes.
Revelation: Since God is a cause with infinite power, He can create an unlimited number of
things including the world. And being infinitely intelligent, He must possess an infinity of Ideas,
each of which is an eternal model according to which can be created outside His mind. Through
His knowledge of this infinite object He conceives an infinite number of other essences, thereby
giving them intelligible being within His mind. In this way God’s infinite will accounts for the
contingency of creatures and the determinate knowledge He has of them. 15Since only few during
the time of the Pre-Socratics could philosophize the origin of the world, these men are the only
ones could philosophize. Due to their different interpretations, the idea about the origin of the
world came out over a long period of time.

References:
Adler, Mortimer J., Ten Philosophical Mistakes (1985, Macmillan Publishing Company, Collier
Macmillan Publishers)
Maurer, Armand A., Medieval Philosophy, (1962, Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies)
Holy Bible

14
Maurer, Armand A., Medieval Philosophy p. 189
15
Maurer, Armand A., Medieval Philosophy p. 233