試析多瑪斯•阿奎那“理智本性”學說

An Interpretation on Thomas Aquinas's Theories on the Nature of the Intellect

10.7065/MRPC.200808.0169

鄢松波(Song-Bo Yan)

理智本性 ； 能力 ； 被動理智 ； 主動理智 ； 記憶 ； 理性 ； Intellect Nature ； Power ； Passive Intellect ； Active Intellect ； Memory ； Reason

哲學與文化

35卷8期（2008 / 08 / 01）

169 - 181

繁體中文

在中世紀，對「理智本性」的認識因涉及基督宗教信仰的問題而成為一個非常具有爭議性的問題。天使博士多瑪斯通過對傳統哲學「存在與本質」關係的革新，為其「理智本性」學說確立形上學基礎，從而建立其關於「理智本性」的認識：理智是作為身體形式的靈魂的一種能力；兼有主動和被動性質；記憶在一定意義上與理智的能力等同，理性與理智則是同一種能力的不同方面。

In Middle Ages, what the nature of intellect is was a disputed problem, so far as it was concerned with the faith on Christianity. Thomas Aquinas constructed his theories on the nature of the intellect by way of renovating the traditional philosophy on the relation between being and essence to get a metaphysical basis for his theories on the nature of the intellect. They are as follows: intellect is a power of the soul, which is the form of the body; intellect has both active power and passive power; The power of memory is the same as intellective power in part, however, reason and intellect belong to a single power with different meaning.

1. Anton C. Pegis(translated)(1975).Summa Contra Gentiles.London:University of Notre Dame Press.
2. Fernand Van Steenberghen(1980).Thomas Aquinas and Radical Aristotelianism.The Catholic University of America Press.
3. Gilson Étienne(1955).History of Christian Philosophy in the Middle Ages.New York:Random House.
4. Ralph McInerny(1993).Aquinas against the Averrois: On There BeingOnly One Intellect.West Lafayette, Indiana:Purde University Press.
5. Thomas Aquinas,Fathers of the English Dominican Province(translated)(1941).Summa Theologica.New York:Benziger Brothers.
6. Thomas,Armand Maurer(trans.)(1949).On Being and Essence.Toronto:Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies.
7. 段德智(2006)。阿奎那的本質學說對亞里斯多德的超越及其意義。哲學研究，8，60。
8. 段德智譯(2007)。論存在者與本質。世界哲學，1，74。
9. 段德智、趙敦華(2006)。試論阿奎那特指質料學說的變革性質及其神哲學意義。世界宗教研究，4，97。
10. 黑格爾、賀麟、王太慶譯(1981)。哲學史講演錄。商務印書館。
11. 趙敦華(1997)。基督教哲學1500年。北京:商務印書館。
12. 羅素、何兆武、李約瑟譯(1981)。西方哲學史。商務印書館。