Nisi temere agat Erik Åkerlund Nisi temere agat Francisco Suárez on Final Causes and Final Causation Dissertation presented at Uppsala University to be publicly examined in Universitetshuset, sal IV, Biskopsgatan 3, 753 10 Uppsala, Uppsala, Monday, December 19, 2011 at 13:15 for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. The examination will be conducted in English. Abstract Åkerlund, E. 2011. Nisi temere agat. Francisco Suárez on Final Causes and Final Causation. Filosofiska institutionen. 158 pp. Uppsala. ISBN 978-91-506-2248-5. The main thesis of this dissertation is that final causes are beings of reason (‘entia rationis’) in the philosophy of Francisco Suárez (1547-1617). The rejection of final causes is often seen as one of the hallmarks of Early Modern phi- losophy, marking the transition from an earlier Aristotelian tradition. However, in this disser- tation it is shown that final causes had a problematic position already within the Aristotelian tradition. Although other examples of this can be found, this dissertation centers around the thinking of the philosopher and theologian Francisco Suárez and his treatment of final causes in his Disputationes Metaphysicae from 1597. Suárez counts final causes as one of the four kinds of causes, in line with the Aristotelian tradition. However, what these are and how they cause is, at closer inspection, not at all clear, as Suárez shapes his notion of final causation against the background of a definition of causa- tion where efficient causation is the principal kind of causation. Due to this basic view on causes, he is faced with a host of problems when it comes to “salvaging” final causes. Though at first sight seemingly real, in a final analysis final causes are shown to belong to the class of “beings of reason,” ‘entia rationis’, which are not real beings at all. However, it is also argued that this does not in itself preclude counting final causes as causes; something can really be a cause without being real. Chapter one presents Suárez’ general view on causes and causation. Chapter two presents his view on final causation. Chapter three examines the close link between final causation and moral psychology. Chapter four relates the question of final causation to God’s concurrence with the world. Finally, chapter five argues for the thesis that final causes are beings of rea- son. Keywords: Francisco Suárez, final causes, causality, ontology, metaphysics, intentionality Erik Åkerlund, Department of Philosophy, Logic and Metaphysics, Box 627, Uppsala University, SE-75126 Uppsala, Sweden. © Erik Åkerlund 2011 ISBN 978-91-506-2248-5 urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-160816 (http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-160816) Printed in Sweden by Edita Västra Aros, Västerås 2011. Acknowledgements No man is an island. Though only one person stands as the author of the present dissertation, and takes full responsibility for its final form, it is dependent upon many persons. First and foremost, the whole project would be inconceivable without the intellectual environment provided by the department of philosophy at Uppsa- la University for the last ten years. One cannot mention this department without also mentioning the name Rysiek Sliwinski. Formally, Rysiek is the Director of Studies at the department, but in reality he is so much more. From day one of my studies up until the present he has facilitated my work, and that of so many others, by his flexibility and constant assistance in all matters practical. More particularly, though, the research group on the history of philosophy at said department has become my home base in the academic world. The thoughts presented in this dissertation have been shaped by meticulous dis- cussions at the seminar in the history of philosophy; to this group I owe much of whatever acuity can be found herein. I feel a deep sense of gratitude to each and every member of this group, but the name most associated with it – actually, the founder of it – is Lilli Alanen. It was under her aegis that I was first introduced to the history of philosophy. She was also my first main supervisor for this dissertation. And further steps I have taken on the road of philosophy have to a large extent been supervised by her former students. In short, Lilli’s contribution cannot be overestimated. With regards to this dissertation, however, no one has helped me more than Tomas Ekenberg, my supervisor. He has put a copious amount of time and effort into helping me with this dissertation. In matters large and small, he has been an invaluable help. Pauliina Remes and Henrik Lagerlund have, as co-supervisors, supported me in different ways. Pauliina entered quite late in the process, but has en- couraged my work and has come with very productive suggestions. Henrik has been leading me on in the field of philosophy for much longer. It was Henrik who first introduced me to Suárez, and he was my supervisor for my master thesis on Suárez (“Suárez on Forms, Universals and Understanding”). Henrik also led me to the specific topic of final causes in Suárez. Furthermore, during my PhD-studies, I visited Henrik for one semester at the University of Western Ontario (UWO), London, ON, which was a very 5 important time for me. This trip was made possible by a grant from the Wal- lenberg Foundation. From the UWO, I would also like to mention Ben Hill, with whom I have had many productive discussions. I would also like to thank John Thorpe for the warmhearted way in which he invited me to ga- therings academic and social during my stay in Canada. In another context, the Jesuits of the Uppsala community have helped me on many different levels over the course of many years, also regarding the dissertation. My special thanks go to fr. Philip Geister, SJ, and to fr., Ulf Jonsson, SJ, for all their support. In the spring of 2011, I received a grant to stay a week at the Sigtuna Foundation to work on my dissertation. This turned out to be a most produc- tive stay, and I am thankful to the Sigtuna Foundation and to the staff there, who facilitated my work during this week. Life isn’t all academic, however. Besides good friends, I have the fortune of having a loving and caring family around me. In the closest vicinity, I would like to thank Ove, my father, Christina, my mother and Ola, my brother, for all your support. But in particular I would like to extend my gratitude to Thérèse, my wife; “in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health…” I dedicate this disser- tation to you. 6 Contents Acknowledgements ......................................................................................... 5 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 9 1. What is a Cause? ....................................................................................... 17 1.1 The Cause as a Principle .................................................................... 17 1.2 The Definition of a Cause .................................................................. 25 1.2.1 Ordering the Principles ............................................................... 25 1.2.2 Cause and Causation ................................................................... 27 1.2.3 The Nature of a Cause ................................................................ 28 1.3 Different Kinds of Causes .................................................................. 32 1.4 The Causes among Themselves ......................................................... 35 1.4.1 The Efficient Cause: Agent, Action, Effect ................................ 35 1.4.2 The Efficient Cause as the Principal Kind of Cause ................... 40 1.4.3 The Final Cause: some Preliminary Remarks ............................. 42 1.5 Causes and Relations .......................................................................... 43 1.6 Summary and Conclusions ................................................................. 46 2. Final Causes and Final Causation ............................................................. 49 2.1 Basic Layout: Finality as Rational Agency ........................................ 50 2.2 In what Sense is the End a Principle? ................................................. 54 2.3 Finality, Time and Intellect ................................................................ 55 2.3.1 Different Kinds of Ends .............................................................. 57 2.3.2 Different Kinds of Effects of Ends ............................................. 61 2.3.3 A Future Act Causes a Desire for Itself ...................................... 63 2.4 Finality, Form and Will ...................................................................... 64 2.5 Moving or Terminating? .................................................................... 66 2.5.1 Metaphor and Analogy ............................................................... 69 2.6 End and Chance .................................................................................. 72 2.7 What is the Effect of a Final Cause? .................................................. 73 2.8 Summary and Conclusions ................................................................. 73 3. Free Agency and Free Will ....................................................................... 75 3.1 Free – from Necessity ........................................................................ 75 3.2 Free Choice and Free Will.................................................................. 79 3.2.1 A Free Faculty ............................................................................ 80 3.2.2 Freedom of Will .......................................................................... 82 3.2.3 Different Kinds of Human Freedom ........................................... 84 3.2.4 Comparison to some Predecessors .............................................. 86 3.2.5 Freedom of Will and Ends .......................................................... 89 3.3 Will and End-Directedness of Bodily Faculties ................................. 91 3.4 Summary and Conclusions ................................................................. 96 4. Excursus on Concursus ............................................................................. 99 5. The Ontological Status of the End .......................................................... 107 5.1 Background in the History of Philosophy ........................................ 108 5.1.1 Avicenna and Averroes ............................................................. 108 5.1.2 Duns Scotus .............................................................................. 110 5.1.3 Some Further Developments – Ockham, Buridan and Javellus 113 5.2 Suárez and the Ambiguity of the Question ...................................... 116 5.3 Essence, Existence and Real Being .................................................. 120 5.4 The Relation between the End and Its Effect ................................... 122 5.5 On the Outskirts of Being ................................................................. 124 5.6 Summary and Conclusions ............................................................... 126 Summary and Conclusions ......................................................................... 129 Appendix: Suárez’s References in DM XXIII.8 ......................................... 133 The End Moves in Accordance with Its Cognized Being ...................... 133 Avicenna (ibn S n ) ........................................................................... 133 Thomas Aquinas I .............................................................................. 136 Paul Soncinas ..................................................................................... 138 The End Moves in Accordance with Its Real Being .............................. 141 Aristotle ............................................................................................. 141 Averroes (ibn Rushd) ......................................................................... 142 Thomas Aquinas II ............................................................................ 144 Duns Scotus ....................................................................................... 144 Ockham .............................................................................................. 145 Gabriel Biel ........................................................................................ 145 Thomas Cajetan ................................................................................. 146 Chrysostom Javellus .......................................................................... 147 Francis Sylvester of Ferrara ............................................................... 150 Some Concluding Words ....................................................................... 154 Bibliography ............................................................................................... 155 Primary Sources ..................................................................................... 155 Secondary Sources ................................................................................. 158 Introduction Final causes and final causation are absolutely central for Aristotle.1 In natu- ral philosophy as well as in metaphysics, final causes are essential to the structuring of the world, as well as in its relation to its ultimate foundation, which “moves without being moved.”2 This is also true of the kind of Aristotelian philosophy that developed in the Latin Middle Ages, especially after the introduction of Aristotle’s full corpus in the 13th century. In the systematization of philosophy in the Scho- lastic era, final causes are counted among the four kinds of causes, and in many contexts as the main kind of cause.3 In Scholastic philosophy, as in Aristotle’s philosophy, final causes play an essential role in metaphysics and in natural philosophy. The answer to the question of what final causes are has never been consi- dered unproblematic, however, nor has the question itself, for that matter. Already in Aristotle, the notion of final causes and final causation are devel- oped within a dialectic, vis-à-vis earlier conceptions found in Plato and pre- Socratic philosophy.4 When we come to the Scholastic philosophy of the 13th and 14th centuries, the whole question has been transformed by the long his- tory of mutual influence between philosophy and theology, resulting in the addition of new vistas and aspects. The rejection of explanations from final causes is often seen as one of the hallmarks of Early Modern philosophy and science.5 As has often been pointed out in more recent times, though, final causes remain in the philo- sophical systems of the 17th century, although in a somewhat different form, and play a different role from that which they had played in the philosophies of Aristotle and the Scholastics.6 Moreover, it seems that the inner tensions of the Scholastic philosophical systems had led to a transformation of the notion of final causes in later Scholastic philosophy as well, in a way that 1 For some recent exponents of this view, see Johnson 2005 p. 1 n. 3. 2 See Metaphysics XII.6 [1071b3ff.]; see also Shields 2007 pp. 68-90 and Johnson 2005. 3 For example, as the “cause of causes,” ‘causa causarum.’ See Thomas Aquinas De Principiis Naturae §4 (Aquinas 1950 p. 94) and Duns Scotus’ Questions on the Metaphysics of Aristotle V.1 (Duns Scotus 1997 p. 354) where he refers to Aristotle’s Physics II.9. 4 See Jonson 2005 ch. 4 (pp. 94-127). 5 See e.g. Mackie 1995 pp. 280-1, regarding Aristotle’s notion of final causes and its influ- ence: “An emphasis on teleological explanation (shared by Plato) characterizes most subse- quent Western philosophy of science until the seventeenth century.” 6 See especially Osler 1996 and 2001. 9 makes the early modern phase best seen as a continuation of, rather than a break with, the Scholastic development. In this thesis, one piece of the puz- zle regarding later Scholastic developments is put in place. Francisco Suárez was born in Granada, Spain, in 1548.7 Son of a lawyer and from an early age destined for service in the Church, he entered the Society of Jesus – or the Jesuits – in Salamanca when he was 16 years old, in 1564. Famously, out of 50 applicants to the novitiate that year, Suárez was the only one who was rejected. This was supposedly due to lack of intellectual capac- ity and a frail physiology. However, Suárez still wanted to join the Jesuits, and did so as an indifferent – it was uncertain whether he would become a priest or a lay brother in the Order. Soon after entering, however, Suárez’ powers seem to have blossomed; he was put on the priest track and was soon at the top of his philosophy classes. Having finished his theology classes in 1570, when he was 22 years old, he started to teach philosophy, first at Salamanca, then at the Jesuit college in Segovia where he was also ordained in 1572. He was to teach for the rest of his life. Apart from a sejour at the Collegium Romanum in Rome, from 1580 to 1585 he taught at universities in Spain and Portugal, in places such as Salamanca, Valladolid, and Alcalá. From 1593, by the request of Philip II of Spain – who also ruled Portugal at this time – Suárez took up the profes- sorship at the University of Coimbra in Portugal, a post he held until he re- tired in 1615. Francisco Suárez died in Lisbon in 1617, 69 years old. Outwardly, Suárez’ life was not very adventurous. However, he took part in some of the greatest intellectual battles of his time. For example, Suárez was involved in the De Auxiliis discussions, on the Jesuit side against the Dominicans – more on that in chapter 3 below – and also took the side of the papacy against both England and Venice on different occasions. Suárez was also charged with unorthodoxy on some occasions during his career. These kinds of battles are rather exceptions, however, in a life that was mostly de- voted to systematic reflections on the whole of Catholic faith and life. Despite some travels, then, Suárez’ daily life appears to have been fairly regular throughout most of his life. Here is one rendering of his daily routine during his last 20 years at Coimbra: The time of his lecture, which lasted an hour and a half, was half-past six in the morning during the summer months, an hour later in the winter. He rose never later than half-past three in the summer, half-past four in the winter. After an hour and a half of mental prayer, followed by the recital of the Little Hours of the breviary, he went to his books. By the time most people in Eng- 7 The main sources for Suárez’ life are Scorraille 1911-12 and Fichter 1940, the latter being largely based on the former. There are also versions of Suárez’ vita in introductions to some of the translations of his works into English – e.g. Suárez 1964 and Suárez 1995 – but these are mainly based on the two former books. 10