Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

The relationship between Saint Thomas Aquinas and his sources Aristotle and Saint Augustine of Hippo illustrates a salient trait of medieval philosophy, namely, its voluntary dependence upon authorities, whose (often divergent) answers to a given problem had to be taken seriously, according to the standards of that time. Because of this, medieval thinkers attempted to solve philosophical (and theological) problems in a way that took into account all relevant sources. If an important source seemed to contradict the personal opinion of a philosopher, the philosopher then usually looked for an interpretation of that authority that could be integrated into his own solution; only in rare cases was the position of an acknowledged authority rejected. Consequently, for Aquinas, as for his contemporaries, a good theory on a certain topic had to do justice to both Aristotle's and Augustine's ideas on that subject, because of their authority in philosophy and theology, respectively. An examination of Aquinas's texts on time, however, reveals a completely different picture: Whereas Aquinas expounds Aristode's theory at great length, he pays very little attention to Augustine's theory. This entry provides reasons for this remarkable exception to medieval standard practices and serves as an introduction into the most important theories of time that appeared between classical antiquity and the Latin Middle Ages.

Aristotle and Augustine on Time

Aristotle's and Augustine's texts on time—the fourth book of Aristotle's Physics and the eleventh book of Augustine's Confessions—describe two theories that seem difficult to reconcile with each other: Whereas Aristotle defines time as the “number of changes in respect of before and after” (Phys. IV 11, 219b 1; R. Waterfield, Trans.) and makes its existence and definition dependent upon change or, as the medieval translations had it, motion, Augustine defines time exclusively as a “distension of the mind” (distentio animi). Furthermore, Augustine explicitly denies that motion can be an adequate definition of time and that there can be time at all without the human mind, which counts the uninterrupted stream of the sensible world. In spite of not addressing directly Aristotle's definition (which he probably did not know), Augustine cannot have seen in it a serious option. Aristotle, on the other hand, is somewhat ambiguous regarding the relation between time and soul. He writes that there could not be time, if there is not be a soul, because without a soul there would not be any number to determine change and therefore time. However, he grants “that there might still be whatever it is that time is” (IV 14, 223a 21–29). Previously (219b 5–9) he had defined time as that number “which is numbered,” not “that by which we number,” that is, not as the mental activity of numbering, but as the flow of things that is apt for being counted, such that time should not depend entirely upon an activity of soul. Furthermore, it may well be that he is not talking here about the individual human soul but about soul as a cosmological phenomenon. Thus he would surely have rejected Augustine's solution.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading