The first part will be the historical background of angels; the second part will be the philosophical interpretation of angels; the third part will be using angels as an analytical tool.
Of all the Great Ideas, Angel is the most medieval one.
The Summa Theologica by Thomas Aquinas contains a whole treatise on angels.
He discusses "angels in relation to space."
"an angel is said to be in a corporeal place by application of angelic power in any manner whatever to the place . . . An incorporeal substance virtually contains the thing with which it comes into contact, and is not contained by it."
"it is impossible for two complete causes to be immediately the cause of one and the same thing."
"there cannot be but one angel at one place"
Conclusion: Only one angel can dance on the head of a pin.
In his Paradiso, Dante describes the heirarchy of angels. There are nine levels in the heirarchy. It consists of three sets of concentric rings.
There are three rings in the inner set. The inner ring is actually a point of light. It is God himself. The middle ring is the Seraphim. The outer ring is the Cherubim.
There are three rings in the middle set. The inner ring is the Dominations. The middle ring is the Virtues. The outer ring is the Powers.
There are three rings in the outer set. The inner ring is the Principalities. The middle ring is the Archangels. The outer ring is the Angelic sports.
Although Angels are primarily medieval, analogies to angels exist from ancient times.
Lucifer¹s discussion with God about man in Paradise Lost parallels a speech to a silent Zeus in Promethius Bound.
In Plato's Symposium, Diotima tells Socrates that Love "is intermediate between the divine and the mortal."
Gibbon relates how early Christians made the connection between the gods of polytheism and their doctrine of angels.
We will now begin the second part of the presentation: Philosophical Interpretations of Angels.
There were three philosophers who took a particular interest in angels: Hobbes, Locke, and Bacon.
Hobbes attacked the notion that angels are immaterial..
He claimed that "incorporeal substance" was an oxymoron.
He wrote "to mention all the places of the Old Testament where the name Angel is found, would be too long. Therefore, to comprehend them all at once, I say, there is no text in that part of the Old Testament, which the Church of England holdeth for Canonical, from which we can conclude, there is or hath been created any permanent thing (understood by the name of Spirit or Angel) that hath not quantity . . . and, in sum, which is not (taking Body for that which is somewhat or somewhere) Corporeal."
"in the resurrection, men shall be permanent," Hobbes writes, "so therefore also are the angels."
To say that an angel is incorporeal is to say that there is no angel at all.
Locke took the opposite position on this issue.
He claimed that we have no clear idea of substance in general.
He said, "The idea of corporeal substance is as remote from our conceptions and apprehensions as that of spiritural substance or spirit; and therefore, from our not having any notion of the substance of spirit, we can no more conclude its non-existence, than we can, for the same reason, deny the existence of the body."
In addition, Locke did not find Dante¹ heirarchy of angels repugnant to reason.
"When we consider the infinite power and wisdom of the Maker, " he writes, "we have reason to think that it is suitable to the magnificent harmony of the Universe, and the great design and infinite goodness of the Architect, that the species of creatures should also, by gentle degrees, ascend upward from us toward his innate perfection, as we see they gradually descend from us downwards."
Bacon believed that angelology was not the province only of the theologian. He believed it was the province of the philosopher as well.
Bacon believed that it was improper for a rational man to promote anything related to the mysteries of faith.
But, "it is otherwise," he claims, "as to the nature of spirits and angels; this being neither unsearchable nor forbid, but in a great part level to the human mind on account of their affinity."
In his Novum Organum, Bacon identifies one difference between the human mind and the angelic mind.
Discussing the theory of induction, he holds, "it is only for God (the bestower and creator of forms), and perhaps for angels or intelligences at once to recognize affirmatively at the first glance of contemplation."
I wonder if Robert Heinlein ever studied the angelic mind before he formulated the verb "to grok!"
We will now begin the third part of the presentation: The Use of Angels as an Analytical Tool.
Maybe angels exist.
Then again, maybe they don¹t.
Whether or not they exist, however, I think we all can concede that they are conceivable.
This has significance for theory and analysis.
Many people who do not believe that a utopia is possible will still regard a utopia as a useful fiction. It can be used as a measuring stick for appraising reality.
Angels do not exist. But, supposing they did! What would their nature be?
Pascal remarked, "Man is neither angel nor brute, and the unfortunate thing is that he would act the angel acts the brute."
This points to different conceptions of man.
Suppose that man were either angel or brute rather than neither.
Plato, Aristotle, and Plotinus considered the difference between perceptible things and intelligible things.
If being perceptible implies being material, does being solely intelligible imply being immaterial?
This leads to all kinds of difficult questions.
Is a knowable also a knower?
Does such a knower have other modes of action besides knowing?
Plotinus claimed that the knowables were knowers, but knowing was all they could do.
Aristotle made a distinction between ordinary movements and planetary movements.
Planetary movements are eternal, since anything which moves in a circle moves eternally.
Plato claimed that celestial bodies were alive and had souls.
In the Middle Ages, Plato¹s and Aristotle¹s hypotheses got restated in terms of angels.
Kepler claimed that the planets did not have intelligence.
One reason for this was that they moved in ellipses, not in circles.
He argued that their movements were the result either of natural powers acting on the bodies, or of the soul acting uniformly in accordance with those bodily powers.
That concludes the presentation.
Good night.
Source: Philosophy-irc.org
